Congressional Record - GovInfo

Congressional RecordUNUM

E PLURIBUS

United Statesof America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 105th

CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

S10103

Vol. 143 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1997 No. 132

SenateThe Senate met at 12 noon, and was

called to order by the President protempore [Mr. THURMOND].

PRAYER

The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd JohnOgilvie, offered the following prayer:

God of all nations, Father of everytribe, color, and tongue of humankind,You have created us to live at peacewith one another in Your family. Youhave revealed to us Your desire that allYour children should be free to worshipYou. Here in America, freedom of reli-gion is a basic fabric of our life. Sadly,this freedom is not enjoyed in so manyplaces in our world. We are grieved bythe shocking accounts of religious per-secution. Prejudice expressed in hos-tility and then in hatred and violenceexists throughout the world. Yester-day, millions joined in an InternationalDay of Prayer for the PersecutedChurch. As we think of the needs, pain,and suffering inflicted on Christiansbecause of their faith, we are remindedof all forms of intolerance over religionin the world. We remember the suffer-ing of the Jews in this century. Forgiveany prejudice in our own hearts andpurge from us any vestige of imperiousjudgmentalism of people whose expres-sion of faith in You differs from ourown. We pray for tolerance in thehuman family. Through our Lord andSaviour. Amen.

f

RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITYLEADER

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Theable majority leader is recognized.

f

SCHEDULE

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today theSenate will resume consideration of S.25, the pending campaign finance re-form bill.

As a reminder to all Senators, novotes will occur during today’s sessionof the Senate. The next vote will occur

11 a.m. on Tuesday, September 30, onthe motion to invoke cloture on theCoats amendment regarding scholar-ships. That amendment is to the Dis-trict of Columbia appropriations bill,which is the last appropriations billthat we need to pass through the Sen-ate for this fiscal year. It is hoped thatthe Senate will be able to complete ac-tion on the D.C. appropriations bill onTuesday, although there are still someamendments that are being negotiatedthat could require more time, maybeeven another cloture vote. I hope itwill be worked out, though. Also dur-ing Tuesday’s session of the Senate,the Senate will consider the continuingresolution. As Members are aware, wehave been able to make good progresson the appropriations bills, so it ishoped that the continuing resolutionand the remaining appropriations con-ference reports can be acted upon in atimely manner. We don’t know of anyproblem with the continuing resolu-tion. We think and we hope that it willbe a clean CR, with a limited amountof time for debate, although we havenot worked out those details yet. I willdiscuss it with the minority leader andwe will advise the Members as to howmuch time would be required there.

With those things in mind, Memberscan anticipate votes throughout theday on Tuesday. With regard to thepending campaign finance reform bill, Iencourage all Members to come to thefloor and participate in this importantdebate. We will have time throughoutthis week, even though we will, ofcourse, be affected, regarding howmuch time we can use toward the endof the week on this debate, by the Jew-ish religious holiday. We still need towork with those that would be needingleave to go to their respective States,as to how we will deal with that onThursday and Friday. We will workthat out.

As I announced last week, there willbe no votes after 1 p.m. on Wednesdayin observance of the Jewish holiday.

However, the Senate will remain in ses-sion as is necessary in order for Mem-bers to fully debate S. 25. Still, we willneed to talk about exactly how we willdo that to make sure we are not incon-veniencing any Senator that wouldneed to be away for the Jewish holidaywho would also like to be involved inthat debate. We will work that throughas the week goes on.

Mr. President, I believe now we areready for the reporting of S. 25 by theclerk and the modification by SenatorMCCAIN.

f

BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORMACT OF 1997

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.KYL). Under the previous order, theSenate will now resume considerationof S. 25 which the clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows:

A bill (S. 25) to reform the financing ofFederal elections.

The Senate resumed consideration ofthe bill.

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I wouldlike to ask the majority leader a ques-tion before I send a modification to thedesk. Maybe I can discuss this withhim on the floor.

It is not clear to me as to what hisplans are for the following week. I un-derstand tomorrow is taken up withconference reports and other business.As he said, we would go back onWednesday to debate S. 25 with themodification. And then would it be hisintention to begin votes later thisweek, or the following week? I know itis a little hard to tell, but I wonder ifmaybe we should have some discussionoff the floor on this issue.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Sen-ator will yield so that I may make acomment on that, I hope, first, that wewill have some time on Tuesday of thisweek, before or after, during some ofthe votes that may be occurring on thecontinuing resolution, as well as the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10104 September 29, 1997appropriations conference reports. Ihope that most of those won’t take alot of time. We will have some time fordebate tomorrow. But until we see ex-actly what will be available and howmuch time is needed on the CR, wewon’t know for sure. But we will findthat out, hopefully, today and we willconfer with the leadership on bothsides of the aisle, as well as the Sen-ators interested in this bill.

I had hoped that we could also havesome debate on Wednesday afternoon,even though we would not have anyvotes after 1 o’clock. But we would stillhave debate up until about 4 o’clock,and then Thursday is open. We don’twant to, in any way, infringe on the re-ligious holiday. So we will need to talkthat through. We could have some de-bate on Thursday and, of course, wecan, and I assume will, have some de-bate Friday. We want to talk thatthrough to make sure everybody iscomfortable with that.

My hope is that we could continuedebate on Monday the 6th and beginhaving votes on Tuesday, and the pos-sibility also on Wednesday. But, again,we need to go and get started with de-bate and see how that is going to stackup, and we will talk about that. It is alittle bit broken up because of the reli-gious holiday, but we want to have fulltime for debate, and we will start votesafter that. That was my thinking.

Mr. MCCAIN. I thank the majorityleader. I think that clarifies a greatdeal. I also appreciate his sensitivity tothose who have to be home at this holi-day season. I know my colleague fromWisconsin and other Senators who needto be involved in this issue. I want tothank the majority leader for whatseems to me to be a generous amountof time for debate and discussion ofthis issue.

Mr. President, in just a few moments,I will lay before the Senate the modi-fied version of the McCain-Feingoldcampaign finance reform bill. After Ido so, the leader will be recognized tooffer an amendment to the bill. There-fore, I wanted to take a few minutesbefore that action occurs to speakbriefly to the modification.

First, I want to thank my cosponsorsand allies in this fight. Senator THOMP-SON and Senator COLLINS have playedcrucial roles as we moved forward onthis matter. Their steadfast support,advice, and friendship is greatly appre-ciated.

But more than anybody, I want tothank my friend from the other side ofthe aisle, the Senator from Wisconsin,RUSS FEINGOLD. I do not believe thatwhen he and I first sat down and begana discussion on this matter that wewould be where are today—engaged ina historic battle to reform the elec-toral system of this great Nation. Myfriend, as he is indeed my friend, hasbeen steadfast in his commitment andhis belief in this cause and I want tostate for the RECORD that I am gratefulhe is my ally in this fight.

Mr. President, I want to briefly high-light again what the modified bill does

and does not do. This is not a big gov-ernment solution. The modified test isjust over 50 pages long.

The defenders of the status quo arenot defending an unbridled, unregu-lated bastion of free speech. The Fed-eral Election Campaign Act, known asFECA, governs Federal elections today.

Elections are regulated today. Theyneed to be regulated. We do not wantcorporations, unions, or wealthy indi-viduals to buy and sell elections. Thisis not a country where a royal classcontrols the Government. No one herewants corporations to give directly tocampaigns. The fact is that at certaintimes and certain places, there is a rolefor some regulation and restraint inorder to protect the greater publicgood.

Title I of the modified bill seeks toreduce the influence of special interestmoney in campaigns by banning theuse of soft money in Federal races. Softmoney would be allowed to be contrib-uted to State parties in accordancewith State law.

We do, however, seek to differentiatebetween State and Federal activities.Soft money contributed to State par-ties could be used for any and all Statecandidate activities. Let me repeatthat statement. Soft money given tothe State parties could be used for anyState electioneering activities.

If a State allows soft money to beused in a gubernatorial race, a Statesenate race, or the local sheriff’s race,it would still be allowed under this bill.However, if a State party seeks to usesoft money to indirectly influence aFederal race, such activity would bebanned 120 days prior to the generalelection. Using such funds to financevoter registration activities would beallowed except during the 120 daysprior to the election.

Voter registration efforts are veryimportant. I know my colleagues rec-ognize that fact. We want individualsto register and then to vote. This billrecognizes that fact and allows partiesto engage in voter registration activi-ties. Additionally, State parties wouldbe allowed, within limits, to engage ingeneric party advertising. These activi-ties help build the party and encouragepeople to vote.

To make up for the loss of softmoney, the modified bill doubles thelimit that individuals can give to Stateparties in hard money. Consequently,the aggregate contribution limit forhard money that individuals could do-nate to political races would rise to$30,000.

Title II of the modified bill seeks tolimit the role of independent expendi-tures in political campaigns.

Mr. President, I think we ought topay attention to this part of it because,over the weekend, it seems to be theattack point for various pundits andthose throughout the Nation, most ofwhom by the way have not seen thebill.

The bill in no way bans, curbs, orseeks to control real, independent, non-

coordinated expenditures in any man-ner. Additionally, if hard money—money that is recorded and traceable—is used, then there are no restrictionsof any kind on advertising.

Let me repeat that fact. This bill inno way restricts any message or anyuse of the airwaves. It does howeverplace limits and controls on expendi-tures if certain kinds of money areused to fund such activity.

Any independent expenditure madeto advocate any cause, with the excep-tion of the express advocacy of a can-didate’s victory or defeat, is fully al-lowed. To do any thing else would vio-late the first amendment.

However, the bill does expand thedefinition of express advocacy. Thecourts have routinely ruled that theCongress may define express advocacy.In fact, current standards of expressadvocacy have been derived from theBuckley case itself.

As we all know, the Supreme Courtcase of Buckley versus Valeo statedthat campaign spending cannot bemandatorily capped. This bill is fullyconsistent with the Buckley decision. Iask unanimous consent that a lettersigned by 126 legal scholars expressingsupport for the constitutionality ofthis bill be printed in the RECORD atthis time.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE,New York, NY, September 22, 1997.

Senator JOHN MCCAIN,Senator RUSSELL FEINGOLD,U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATORS MCCAIN AND FEINGOLD: Weare academics who have studied and writtenabout the First Amendment to the UnitedStates Constitution. We submit this letter torespond to a series of recent public chal-lenges to two components of S. 25, theMcCain-Feingold bill. Critics have arguedthat it is unconstitutional to close the so-called ‘‘soft money loophole’’ by placing re-strictions on the source and amount of cam-paign contributions to political parties. Crit-ics have also argued that it is unconstitu-tional to offer candidates benefits, such asreduced broadcasting rates, in return fortheir commitment to cap campaign spend-ing. We are deeply committed to the prin-ciples underlying the First Amendment andbelieve strongly in preserving free speechand association in our society, especially inthe realm of politics. We are not all of thesame mind on how best to address the prob-lems of money and politics; indeed, we do notall agree on the constitutionality of variousprovisions of the McCain-Feingold bill itself.Nor are we endorsing every aspect of thebill’s soft money and voluntary spendinglimits provisions. We all agree, however,that the current debate on the merits ofcampaign finance reform is being side-tracked by the argument that the Constitu-tion stands in the way of a ban on unlimitedcontributions to political parties and a vol-untary spending limits scheme based on of-fering inducements such as reduced mediatime.I. LIMITS ON ENORMOUS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBU-

TIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES FROM CORPORA-TIONS, LABOR UNIONS, AND WEALTHY CON-TRIBUTORS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL

To prevent corruption and the appearanceof corruption, federal law imposes limits on

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10105September 29, 1997the source and amount of money that can begiven to candidates and political parties ‘‘inconnection with’’ federal elections. Themoney raised under these strictures is com-monly referred to as ‘‘hard money.’’ Since1907, federal law has prohibited corporationsfrom making hard money contributions tocandidates or political parties. See 2 U.S.C.§ 441b(a) (current codification). In 1947, thatban was extended to prohibit union contribu-tions as well. Id. Individuals, too, are subjectto restrictions in their giving of money toinfluence federal elections. The Federal Elec-tion Campaign Act (‘‘FECA’’) limits an indi-vidual’s contributions to (1) $1,000 per elec-tion to a federal candidate; (2) $20,000 peryear to national political party committees;and (3) $5,000 per year to any other politicalcommittee, such as a PAC or a state politi-cal party committee. 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(1). In-dividuals are also subject to a $25,000 annuallimit on the total of all such contributions.Id. § 441a(a)(3).

The soft money loophole was created notby Congress, but by a Federal Election Com-mission (‘‘FEC’’) ruling in 1978 that opened aseemingly modest door to allow non-regu-lated contributions to political parties, solong as the money was used for grassrootscampaign activity, such as registering votersand get-out-the-vote efforts. These unregu-lated contributions are known as ‘‘softmoney’’ to distinguish them from the hardmoney raised under FECA’s strict limits. Inthe years since the FEC’s ruling, this modestopening has turned into an enormous loop-hole that threatens the integrity of the regu-latory system. In the last presidential elec-tions, soft money contributions soared to theunprecedented figure of $263 million. It wasnot merely the total amount of soft moneycontributions that was unprecedented, butthe size of the contributions as well, with do-nors being asked to give amounts $100,000,$250,000 or more to gain preferred access tofederal officials. Moreover, the soft moneyraised is, for the most part, not being spentto bolster party grassroots organizing. Rath-er, the funds are often solicited by federalcandidates and used for media advertisingclearly intended to influence federal elec-tions. In sum, soft money has become an endrun around the campaign contribution lim-its, creating a corrupt system in whichmonied interests appear to buy access to,and inappropriate influence with, elected of-ficials.

The McCain-Feingold bill would ban softmoney contributions to national politicalparties, by requiring that all contributionsto national parties be subject to FECA’shard money restrictions. The bill also wouldbar federal officeholders and candidates forsuch offices from soliciting, receiving, orspending soft money and would prohibitstate and local political parties from spend-ing soft money during a federal election yearfor any activity that might affect a federalelection (with exceptions for specified activi-ties that are less likely to impact on federalelections).

We believe that such restrictions are con-stitutional. The soft money loophole hasraised the specter of corruption stemmingfrom large contributions (and those fromprohibited sources) that led Congress toenact the federal contribution limits in thefirst place. In Buckley v. Valeo, the SupremeCourt held that the government has a com-pelling interest in combating the appearanceand reality of corruption, an interest thatjustifies restricting large campaign con-tributions in federal elections. 424 U.S. 1, 23–29 (1976). Significantly, the Court upheld the$25,000 annual limit on an individual’s totalcontributions in connection with federalelections. Id. at 26–29, 38. In later cases, theCourt rejected the argument that corpora-

tions have a right to use their general treas-ury funds to influence elections. See, e.g.,Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce,494 U.S. 652 (1990). Under Buckley and itsprogeny, Congress clearly possesses power toclose the soft money loophole by restrictingthe source and size of contributions to politi-cal parties, just as it does for contributionsto candidates, for use in connection with fed-eral elections.

Moreover, Congress has the power to regu-late the source of the money used for expend-itures by state and local parties during fed-eral election years when such expendituresare used to influence federal elections. Thepower of Congress to regulate federal elec-tions to prevent fraud and corruption in-cludes the power to regulate conduct which,although directed at state or local elections,also has an impact on federal races. Duringa federal election year, a state or local polit-ical party’s voter registration or get-out-the-vote drive will have an effect on federal elec-tions. Accordingly, Congress may requirethat during a federal election year state andlocal parties’ expenditures for such activitiesbe made from funds raised in compliancewith FECA so as not to undermine the limitstherein.

Any suggestion that the recent SupremeCourt decision in Colorado Republican Fed-eral Campaign Committee v. FEC, 116 S. Ct.2309 (1996), casts doubt on the constitutional-ity of a soft money ban is flatly wrong. Colo-rado Republican did not address the con-stitutionality of banning soft money con-tributions, but rather the expenditures bypolitical parties of hard money, that is,money raised in accordance with FECA’slimits. Indeed, the Court noted that it‘‘could understand how Congress, were it toconclude that the potential for evasion ofthe individual contribution limits was a seri-ous matter, might decide to change the stat-ute’s limitations on contributions to politi-cal parties.’’ Id. at 2316.

In fact, the most relevant Supreme Courtdecision is not Colorado Republican, butAustin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce,in which the Supreme Court held that cor-porations can be walled off from the elec-toral process by forbidding both contribu-tions and independent expenditures fromgeneral corporate treasuries. 494 U.S. at 657–61. Surely, the law cannot be that Congresshas the power to prevent corporations fromgiving money directly to a candidate, orfrom expending money on behalf of a can-didate, but lacks the power to prevent themfrom pouring unlimited funds into a can-didate’s political party in order to buy pre-ferred access to him after the election.

Accordingly, closing the loophole for softmoney contributions is in line with the long-standing and constitutional ban on corporateand union contributions in federal electionsand with limits on the size of individuals’contributions to amounts that are not cor-rupting.II. EFFORTS TO PERSUADE CANDIDATES TO LIMIT

CAMPAIGN SPENDING VOLUNTARILY BY PRO-VIDING THEM WITH INDUCEMENTS LIKE FREETELEVISION TIME ARE CONSTITUTIONAL

The McCain-Feingold bill would also invitecandidates to limit campaign spending in re-turn for free broadcast time and reducedbroadcast and mailing rates. In Buckley, theCourt explicitly declared that ‘‘Congress . . .may condition acceptance of public funds onan agreement by the candidate to abide byspecified expenditure limitations.’’ 424 U.S.at 56 n.65. The Court explained: ‘‘Just as acandidate may voluntarily limit the size ofthe contributions he chooses to accept, hemay decide to forgo private fundraising andaccept public funding.’’ Id.

That was exactly the Buckley Court’s ap-proach when it upheld the constitutionality

of the campaign subsidies to Presidentialcandidates in return for a promise to limitcampaign spending. At the time, the subsidyto Presidential nominees was $20 million, inreturn for which Presidential candidatesagreed to cap expenditures at that amountand raise no private funds at all. The subsidyis now worth over $60 million and no Presi-dential nominee of a major party has everturned down the subsidy.

In effect, the critics argue that virtuallyany inducement offered to a candidate topersuade her to limit campaign spending isunconstitutional as a form of indirect ‘‘coer-cion.’’ But the Buckley Court clearly distin-guished between inducements designed toelicit a voluntary decision to limit spendingand coercive mandates that impose involun-tary spending ceilings. If giving a Presi-dential candidate a $60 million subsidy is aconstitutional inducement, surely providingfree television time and reduced postal ratesfalls into the same category of acceptable in-ducement. The lesson from Buckley is thatmerely because a deal is too good to pass updoes not render it unconstitutionally ‘‘coer-cive.’’

Respectfully submitted,RONALD DWORKIN,

Professor of Jurispru-dence and Fellow ofUniversity College atOxford University;Frank H. SommerProfessor of Law,New York UniversitySchool of Law.

BURT NEUBORNE,John Norton Pomeroy

Professor of Law,Legal Director,Brennan Center forJustice, New YorkUniversity School ofLaw.

Mr. MCCAIN. What the modified billseeks to do is establish a so-calledbright line test 60 days out from anelection. Any independent expendituresthat fall within that 60-day windowcould not use a candidate’s name or hisor her likeness. During this 60-day pe-riod, ads could run that advocate anynumber of issues. Pro-life ads, pro-choice ads, antilabor ads, prowildernessads, pro-Republican party or Demo-cratic party ads—all could be airedwithout restriction. However, ads men-tioning candidates themselves couldnot be aired.

This accomplishes much. First, ifsoft money is banned to the politicalparties, such money will inevitablyflow to independent campaign organi-zations. These groups often run adsthat the candidates themselves dis-approve of. Further, these ads are al-most always negative attack ads anddo little to further beneficial debateand a healthy political dialog. To behonest, they simply drive up an indi-vidual candidate’s negative pollingnumbers and increase public cynicismfor public service in general.

The modified bill explicitly protectsvoter guides. I believe this is a very im-portant point. Some have unfairlycriticized the original bill because theythought it banned or prohibited thepublication and distribution of voterguides and voting records. While I dis-agree with those individual’s conclu-sions, the sponsors of the modified billsought to clarify this matter.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10106 September 29, 1997Let me state that voter guides are

completely protected in the modifiedbill. Any statements to the contraryare simply not true.

Some of my colleagues have voicedconcern about the 60-day bright linetest as being arbitrary. They havenoted that different standards wouldexist prior to 60 days out. They areright. But what is their point. Electionlaw is riddled with deadlines and timeframes. When a candidate runs for of-fice, he or she must file papers by acertain date. In order to appear on theballot, certain deadlines must be met,certain events must occur. What istheir point. Would they advocate abol-ishing all time frames and just let elec-tions occur as spontaneous events? Idon’t think so.

I hope that we will not allow our at-tention to be distracted from the realissues at hand—how to raise the tenorof the debate in our elections and givepeople real choices. No one benefitsfrom negative ads. They don’t aid ourNation’s political dialog. Again, ifsomeone chooses to run negative ads,this bill will not restrict their right todo so. But we should not just throw upour hands and say, ‘‘Who cares?’’ Weshould seek, within the protections ofthe Constitution, to encourage ahealthy political debate.

I believe that in 1994 it was not bet-ter funding and more money that gaveRepublicans victory; it was better andmore ideas. If money was the key toRepublican victory, why then did ittake so long?

I am very serious about this point.Some have stated that money helpsequalize the Republican Party’s abilityto win elections due to the liberalpress. If that is true, then why didn’t itwork? Since 1974, when we last re-formed the campaign finance system,throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s and1990’s, Republicans routinely haveoutraised and outspent Democrats.Yet, with the exception of 1980 to 1986in the Senate, we did not control theCongress. I would argue that the 6years in which we controlled the Sen-ate during the 1980’s was due to thestrength and leadership of RonaldReagan; not our ability to spend.

When we took over the Congress in1994—and I say this not to agitate myDemocrat colleagues—it was not due tomoney. It was due to our superiorideas. It was due to the Contract WithAmerica. It was due to a fundamentalchange in the views of the Americanelectorate. It was not due to a spate ofnegative campaign advertising.

Title III of the modified bill man-dates greater disclosure. Our bill man-dates that all FEC filings documentingcampaign receipts and expenditures bemade electronically and that they thenbe made accessible to the public on theInternet not later than 24 hours afterthe information is received by the Fed-eral Election Commission.

Additionally, current law allows forcampaigns to make a ‘‘best effort’’ toobtain the name, address, and occupa-

tion information of the donors, etcetera. The bill also mandates randomaudits of campaigns. Such audits wouldonly occur after an affirmative vote ofat least four of the six members of theFEC. This will prevent the use of au-dits as a purely partisan attack.

Title IV seeks to encourage individ-uals to limit the amount of personalmoney they spend on their own cam-paigns. If an individual voluntarilyelects to limit the amount of money heor she spends in his or her race to$50,000, then the national parties areable to use funds known as ‘‘coordi-nated expenditures’’ to aid such can-didates. If candidates refuse to limittheir own personal spending, the par-ties are prohibited from contributingcoordinated funds to the candidate.

This serves to limit the advantagethat wealthy candidates enjoy andstrengthens the party system by en-couraging candidates to work moreclosely with the parties.

Lastly, the bill codifies the Beck de-cision, which states that nonunion em-ployees in a closed-shop union work-place who are required to contributefunds to the union can request and en-sure that his or her money not be usedfor political purposes.

I personally support stronger lan-guage. I believe no individual should beforced to contribute to political activi-ties. However, I recognize stronger lan-guage would invite a filibuster of thisbill and would doom its final passage.

Mr. President, what I have outlinedis a basic summary of our modificationto the original bill.

I have heard many colleagues saythat they could not support S. 25, theoriginal McCain-Feingold bill, for awide variety of reasons. Some opposespending limits. Others oppose free orreduced rate broadcast time. Yet oth-ers could not live with postal subsidiesto candidates, and others complainthat nothing was being done aboutlabor.

Again, as I stated in the opening de-bate on Friday, I hope all of my col-leagues who made such statements willtake a new and openminded look atthis bill. Gone are spending limits.Gone is free broadcast time. Gone arereduced rate TV time and postal sub-sidies. We have sought to address theproblem of undue influence being exer-cised by the labor unions. All of the ex-cuses of the past are gone.

Mr. President, let me close again byemphasizing that the sponsors of thislegislation have but one purpose—toenact a fair, bipartisan campaign re-form that seeks no advantage for oneparty or the other but only seeks tofind common ground upon which wecan all agree to pass the best, most bal-anced, and most important reform wehave ever had.

All we ask of our colleagues is thatthey approach this debate with thesame purpose in mind.

To those who accuse the opponents ofthis bill of being unyielding in their op-position to any reform, let me recite

the words of my friend from Kentuckyfrom an op-ed piece he wrote for theWashington Post in 1993. My friend,Senator MCCONNELL from Kentucky,said:

‘‘The truth is that Republicans sup-port a ban on all soft money,’’ SenatorMCCONNELL wrote, ‘‘regardless ofwhether it benefits Republicans orDemocrats.’’

Let me repeat that.‘‘The truth is that Republicans sup-

port a ban on all soft money,’’ SenatorMCCONNELL wrote, ‘‘regardless ofwhether it benefits Republicans orDemocrats.’’

The Senator went on to identify him-self and the Republican Party with theadvocates of reform:

Truly campaign finance reform is needed—

truly campaign finance reform isneeded—but it should not have to cost the taxpayers,and it does not have to include spending lim-its. If we are going to pass a meaningful bi-partisan campaign finance bill, we must dropthe roadblocks to reform: taxpayers financ-ing and spending limits.

Mr. President, I say to my friendfrom Kentucky that, as a sign of ourgood faith, the sponsors of this billhave listened to his objections, and wehave dropped the provisions which heonce criticized as roadblocks. More-over, we share Senator MCCONNELL’sview that soft money must be banned.

I would say that we are very close tothe proposed reforms that SenatorMCCONNELL proposed in 1993. We pledwith our colleagues not to use theamendment process only to kill theprospects for real reform by offeringamendments intended to be, as SenatorMCCONNELL put it, ‘‘roadblocks’’ to re-form.

If Senator MCCONNELL is as sincere inproposing reforms as he was a fewyears ago—which I do not doubt—workwith us to resolve our very few remain-ing differences and help us reach ourcommon goal of genuine campaign fi-nance reform.

MODIFICATION TO S. 25

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I sendthe modification to the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The billis so modified.

The modification is as follows:Strike all after the enacting clause and in-

sert the following:SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited asthe ‘‘Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of1997’’.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of con-tents of this Act is as follows:Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I—REDUCTION OF SPECIALINTEREST INFLUENCE

Sec. 101. Soft money of political parties.Sec. 102. Increased contribution limits for

State committees of politicalparties and aggregate contribu-tion limit for individuals.

Sec. 103. Reporting requirements.TITLE II—INDEPENDENT AND

COORDINATED EXPENDITURESSec. 201. Definitions.Sec. 202. Civil penalty.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10107September 29, 1997Sec. 203. Reporting requirements for certain

independent expenditures.Sec. 204. Independent versus coordinated ex-

penditures by party.Sec. 205. Coordination with candidates.

TITLE III—DISCLOSURESec. 301. Filing of reports using computers

and facsimile machines; filingby Senate candidates withCommission.

Sec. 302. Prohibition of deposit of contribu-tions with incomplete contribu-tor information.

Sec. 303. Audits.Sec. 304. Reporting requirements for con-

tributions of $50 or more.Sec. 305. Use of candidates’ names.Sec. 306. Prohibition of false representation

to solicit contributions.Sec. 307. Soft money of persons other than

political parties.Sec. 308. Campaign advertising.

TITLE IV—PERSONAL WEALTH OPTIONSec. 401. Voluntary personal funds expendi-

ture limit.Sec. 402. Political party committee coordi-

nated expenditures.TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 501. Codification of Beck decision.Sec. 502. Use of contributed amounts for cer-

tain purposes.Sec. 503. Limit on congressional use of the

franking privilege.Sec. 504. Prohibition of fundraising on Fed-

eral property.Sec. 505. Penalties for knowing and willful

violations.Sec. 506. Strengthening foreign money ban.Sec. 507. Prohibition of contributions by mi-

nors.Sec. 508. Expedited procedures.Sec. 509. Initiation of enforcement proceed-

ing.TITLE VI—SEVERABILITY; CONSTITU-

TIONALITY; EFFECTIVE DATE; REGU-LATIONS

Sec. 601. Severability.Sec. 602. Review of constitutional issues.Sec. 603. Effective date.Sec. 604. Regulations.TITLE I—REDUCTION OF SPECIAL

INTEREST INFLUENCESEC. 101. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

Title III of the Federal Election CampaignAct of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amendedby adding at the end the following:‘‘SEC. 324. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

‘‘(a) NATIONAL COMMITTEES.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A national committee of

a political party (including a national con-gressional campaign committee of a politicalparty) and any officers or agents of suchparty committees, shall not solicit, receive,or direct to another person a contribution,donation, or transfer of funds, or spend anyfunds, that are not subject to the limita-tions, prohibitions, and reporting require-ments of this Act.

‘‘(2) APPLICABILITY.—This subsection shallapply to an entity that is directly or indi-rectly established, financed, maintained, orcontrolled by a national committee of a po-litical party (including a national congres-sional campaign committee of a politicalparty), or an entity acting on behalf of a na-tional committee, and an officer or agentacting on behalf of any such committee orentity.

‘‘(b) STATE, DISTRICT, AND LOCAL COMMIT-TEES.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—An amount that is ex-pended or disbursed by a State, district, orlocal committee of a political party (includ-ing an entity that is directly or indirectlyestablished, financed, maintained, or con-

trolled by a State, district, or local commit-tee of a political party and an officer oragent acting on behalf of such committee orentity) for Federal election activity shall bemade from funds subject to the limitations,prohibitions, and reporting requirements ofthis Act.

‘‘(2) FEDERAL ELECTION ACTIVITY.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘Federal elec-

tion activity’ means—‘‘(i) voter registration activity during the

period that begins on the date that is 120days before the date a regularly scheduledFederal election is held and ends on the dateof the election;

‘‘(ii) voter identification, get-out-the-voteactivity, or generic campaign activity con-ducted in connection with an election inwhich a candidate for Federal office appearson the ballot (regardless of whether a can-didate for State or local office also appearson the ballot); and

‘‘(iii) a communication that refers to aclearly identified candidate for Federal of-fice (regardless of whether a candidate forState or local office is also mentioned oridentified) and is made for the purpose of in-fluencing a Federal election (regardless ofwhether the communication is express advo-cacy).

‘‘(B) EXCLUDED ACTIVITY.—The term ‘Fed-eral election activity’ does not include anamount expended or disbursed by a State,district, or local committee of a politicalparty for—

‘‘(i) campaign activity conducted solely onbehalf of a clearly identified candidate forState or local office, provided the campaignactivity is not a Federal election activity de-scribed in subparagraph (A);

‘‘(ii) a contribution to a candidate forState or local office, provided the contribu-tion is not designated or used to pay for aFederal election activity described in sub-paragraph (A);

‘‘(iii) the costs of a State, district, or localpolitical convention;

‘‘(iv) the costs of grassroots campaign ma-terials, including buttons, bumper stickers,and yard signs that name or depict only acandidate for State or local office;

‘‘(v) the non-Federal share of a State, dis-trict, or local party committee’s administra-tive and overhead expenses (but not includ-ing the compensation in any month of an in-dividual who spends more than 20 percent ofthe individual’s time on Federal election ac-tivity) as determined by a regulation pro-mulgated by the Commission to determinethe non-Federal share of a State, district, orlocal party committee’s administrative andoverhead expenses; and

‘‘(vi) the cost of constructing or purchas-ing an office facility or equipment for aState, District or local committee.

‘‘(c) FUNDRAISING COSTS.—An amount spentby a national, State, district, or local com-mittee of a political party, by an entity thatis established, financed, maintained, or con-trolled by a national, State, district, or localcommittee of a political party, or by anagent or officer of any such committee or en-tity, to raise funds that are used, in whole orin part, to pay the costs of a Federal electionactivity shall be made from funds subject tothe limitations, prohibitions, and reportingrequirements of this Act.

‘‘(d) TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS.—A na-tional, State, district, or local committee ofa political party (including a national con-gressional campaign committee of a politicalparty, an entity that is directly or indirectlyestablished, financed, maintained, or con-trolled by any such national, State, district,or local committee or its agent, an agentacting on behalf of any such party commit-tee, and an officer or agent acting on behalfof any such party committee or entity), shall

not solicit any funds for, or make or directany donations to, an organization that is de-scribed in section 501(c) of the Internal Reve-nue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxationunder section 501(a) of such Code (or has sub-mitted an application to the Secretary of theInternal Revenue Service for determinationof tax-exemption under such section).

‘‘(e) CANDIDATES.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A candidate, individual

holding Federal office, or agent of a can-didate or individual holding Federal officeshall not solicit, receive, direct, transfer, orspend funds for a Federal election activityon behalf of such candidate individual, agentor any other person unless the funds are sub-ject to the limitations, prohibitions, and re-porting requirements of this Act.

‘‘(A) STATE LAW.—Paragraph (1) does notapply to the solicitation or receipt of fundsby an individual who is a candidate for aState or local office if the solicitation or re-ceipt of funds is permitted under State lawfor any activity other than a Fedral electionactivity.

‘‘(B) FUNDRAISING EVENTS.—Paragraph (1)does not apply in the case of a candidate whoattends, speaks, or is a featured guest at afundraising event sponsored by a State, dis-trict, or local committee of a politicalparty.’’.SEC. 102. INCREASED CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR

STATE COMMITTEES OF POLITICALPARTIES AND AGGREGATE CON-TRIBUTION LIMIT FOR INDIVIDUALS.

(a) CONTRIBUTION LIMIT FOR STATE COMMIT-TEES OF POLITICAL PARTIES.—Section315(a)(1) of the Federal Election CampaignAct of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘or’’ atthe end;

(2) in subparagraph (C)—(A) by inserting ‘‘(other than a committee

described in subparagraph (D))’’ after ‘‘com-mittee’’; and

(B) by striking the period at the end andinserting ‘‘; or’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(D) to a political committee established

and maintained by a State committee of apolitical party in any calendar year that, inthe aggregate, exceed $10,000’’.

(b) AGGREGATE CONTRIBUTION LIMIT FOR IN-DIVIDUAL.—Section 315(a)(3) of the FederalElection Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.441a(a)(3)) is amended by striking ‘‘$25,000’’and inserting ‘‘$30,000’’.SEC. 103. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—Section 304of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971(2 U.S.C. 434) (as amended by section 203) isamended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(e) POLITICAL COMMITTEES.—‘‘(1) NATIONAL AND CONGRESSIONAL POLITI-

CAL COMMITTEES.—The national committee ofa political party, any national congressionalcampaign committee of a political party,and any subordinate committee of either,shall report all receipts and disbursementsduring the reporting period.

‘‘(2) OTHER POLITICAL COMMITTEES TO WHICHSECTION 324 APPLIES.—A political committee(not described in paragraph (1)) to which sec-tion 324(b)(1) applies shall report all receiptsand disbursements made for activities de-scribed in paragraphs (2) and (3)(A)(v) of sec-tion 324(b).

‘‘(3) ITEMIZATION.—If a political committeehas receipts or disbursements to which thissubsection applies from any person aggregat-ing in excess of $200 for any calendar year,the political committee shall separatelyitemize its reporting for such person in thesame manner as required in paragraphs(3)(A), (5), and (6) of subsection (b).

‘‘(4) REPORTING PERIODS.—Reports requiredto be filed under this subsection shall befiled for the same time periods required forpolitical committees under subsection (a).’’.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10108 September 29, 1997(b) BUILDING FUND EXCEPTION TO THE DEFI-

NITION OF CONTRIBUTION.—Section 301(8)(B) ofthe Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2U.S.C. 431(8)(B)) is amended—

(1) by striking clause (viii); and(2) by redesignating clauses (ix) through

(xiv) as clauses (viii) through (xiii), respec-tively.

TITLE II—INDEPENDENT ANDCOORDINATED EXPENDITURES

SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.(a) DEFINITION OF INDEPENDENT EXPENDI-

TURE.—Section 301 of the Federal ElectionCampaign Act (2 U.S.C. 431) is amended bystriking paragraph (17) and inserting the fol-lowing:

‘‘(17) INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘independent

expenditure’ means an expenditure by a per-son—

‘‘(i) for a communication that is expressadvocacy; and

‘‘(ii) that is not provided in coordinationwith a candidate or a candidate’s agent or aperson who is coordinating with a candidateor a candidate’s agent.’’.

(b) DEFINITION OF EXPRESS ADVOCACY.—Section 301 of the Federal Election Cam-paign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431) is amended byadding at the end the following:

‘‘(20) EXPRESS ADVOCACY.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘express advo-

cacy’ means a communication that advo-cates the election or defeat of a candidateby—

‘‘(i) containing a phrase such as ‘vote for’,‘re-elect’, ‘support’, ‘cast your ballot for’,‘(name of candidate) for Congress’, ‘(name ofcandidate) in 1997’, ‘vote against’, ‘defeat’,‘reject’, or a campaign slogan or words thatin context can have no reasonable meaningother than to advocate the election or defeatof 1 or more clearly identified candidates;

‘‘(ii) referring to 1 or more clearly identi-fied candidates in a paid advertisement thatis broadcast by a radio broadcast station ora television broadcast station within 60 cal-endar days preceding the date of an electionof the candidate and that appears in theState in which the election is occurring, ex-cept that with respect to a candidate for theoffice of Vice President or President, thetime period is within 60 calendar days pre-ceding the date of a general election; or

‘‘(iii) expressing unmistakable and unam-biguous support for or opposition to 1 ormore clearly identified candidates whentaken as a whole and with limited referenceto external events, such as proximity to anelection.

‘‘(B) VOTING RECORD AND VOTING GUIDE EX-CEPTION.—The term ‘express advocacy’ doesnot include a printed communication that—

‘‘(i) presents information in an educationalmanner solely about the voting record or po-sition on a campaign issue of 2 or more can-didates;

‘‘(ii) that is not made in coordination witha candidate, political party, or agent of thecandidate or party; or a candidate’s agent ora person who is coordinating with a can-didate or a candidate’s agent;

‘‘(iii) does not contain a phrase such as‘vote for’, ‘re-elect’, ‘support’, ‘cast your bal-lot for’, ‘(name of candidate) for Congress’,‘(name of candidate) in 1997’, ‘vote against’,‘defeat’, or ‘reject’, or a campaign slogan orwords that in context can have no reasonablemeaning other than to urge the election ordefeat of 1 or more clearly identified can-didates.’’.

(c) DEFINITION OF EXPENDITURE.—Section301(9)(A) of the Federal Election CampaignAct of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(9)(A)) is amended—

(1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘and’’ at theend;

(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period atthe end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(iii) a payment for a communication that

is express advocacy; and‘‘(iv) a payment made by a person for a

communication that—‘‘(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate;‘‘(II) is provided in coordination with the

candidate, the candidate’s agent, or the po-litical party of the candidate; and

‘‘(III) is for the purpose of influencing aFederal election (regardless of whether thecommunication is express advocacy).’’SEC. 202. CIVIL PENALTY.

Section 309 of the Federal Election Cam-paign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—(A) in paragraph (4)(A)—(i) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘clause (ii)’’

and inserting ‘‘clauses (ii) and (iii)’’; and(ii) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(iii) If the Commission determines by an

affirmative vote of 4 of its members thatthere is probable cause to believe that a per-son has made a knowing and willful violationof section 304(c), the Commission shall notenter into a conciliation agreement underthis paragraph and may institute a civil ac-tion for relief under paragraph (6)(A).’’; and

(B) in paragraph (6)(B), by inserting ‘‘(ex-cept an action instituted in connection witha knowing and willful violation of section304(c))’’ after ‘‘subparagraph (A)’’; and

(2) in subsection (d)(1)—(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘Any

person’’ and inserting ‘‘Except as provided insubparagraph (D), any person’’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(D) In the case of a knowing and willful

violation of section 304(c) that involves thereporting of an independent expenditure, theviolation shall not be subject to this sub-section.’’.SEC. 203. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CER-

TAIN INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES.Section 304(c) of the Federal Election Cam-

paign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(c)) is amend-ed—

(1) in paragraph (2), by striking the undes-ignated matter after subparagraph (C);

(2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para-graph (7); and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) (asamended by paragraph (1)) the following:

‘‘(d) TIME FOR REPORTING CERTAIN EXPEND-ITURES.—

‘‘(1) EXPENDITURES AGGREGATING $1,000.—‘‘(A) INITIAL REPORT.—A person (including

a political committee) that makes or con-tracts to make independent expenditures ag-gregating $1,000 or more after the 20th day,but more than 24 hours, before the date of anelection shall file a report describing the ex-penditures within 24 hours after that amountof independent expenditures has been made.

‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL REPORTS.—After a personfiles a report under subparagraph (A), theperson shall file an additional report within24 hours after each time the person makes orcontracts to make independent expendituresaggregating an additional $1,000 with respectto the same election as that to which the ini-tial report relates.

‘‘(2) EXPENDITURES AGGREGATING $10,000.—‘‘(A) INITIAL REPORT.—A person (including

a political committee) that makes or con-tracts to make independent expenditures ag-gregating $10,000 or more at any time up toand including the 20th day before the date ofan election shall file a report describing theexpenditures within 48 hours after thatamount of independent expenditures hasbeen made.

‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL REPORTS.—After a personfiles a report under subparagraph (A), theperson shall file an additional report within48 hours after each time the person makes orcontracts to make independent expenditures

aggregating an additional $10,000 with re-spect to the same election as that to whichthe initial report relates.

‘‘(3) PLACE OF FILING; CONTENTS.—A reportunder this subsection—

‘‘(A) shall be filed with the Commission;and

‘‘(B) shall contain the information requiredby subsection (b)(6)(B)(iii), including thename of each candidate whom an expendi-ture is intended to support or oppose.’’.SEC. 204. INDEPENDENT VERSUS COORDINATED

EXPENDITURES BY PARTY.Section 315(d) of the Federal Election Cam-

paign Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)) is amended—(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and (3)’’

and inserting ‘‘, (3), and (4)’’; and(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(4) INDEPENDENT VERSUS COORDINATED EX-

PENDITURES BY PARTY.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—On or after the date on

which a political party nominates a can-didate, a committee of the political partyshall not make both expenditures under thissubsection and independent expenditures (asdefined in section 301(17)) with respect to thecandidate during the election cycle.

‘‘(B) CERTIFICATION.—Before making a co-ordinated expenditure under this subsectionwith respect to a candidate, a committee ofa political party shall file with the Commis-sion a certification, signed by the treasurerof the committee, that the committee hasnot and shall not make any independent ex-penditure with respect to the candidate dur-ing the same election cycle.

‘‘(C) APPLICATION.—For the purposes ofthis paragraph, all political committees es-tablished and maintained by a national po-litical party (including all congressionalcampaign committees) and all political com-mittees established and maintained by aState political party (including any subordi-nate committee of a State committee) shallbe considered to be a single political com-mittee.

‘‘(D) TRANSFERS.—A committee of a politi-cal party that submits a certification undersubparagraph (B) with respect to a candidateshall not, during an election cycle, transferany funds to, assign authority to make co-ordinated expenditures under this subsectionto, or receive a transfer of funds from, acommittee of the political party that hasmade or intends to make an independent ex-penditure with respect to the candidate.’’.SEC. 205. COORDINATION WITH CANDIDATES.

(a) DEFINITION OF COORDINATION WITH CAN-DIDATES.—

(1) SECTION 301(8).—Section 301(8) of the Fed-eral Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.431(8)) is amended—

(A) in subparagraph (A)—(i) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (i);(ii) by striking the period at the end of

clause (ii) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and(iii) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(iii) anything of value provided by a per-

son in coordination with a candidate for thepurpose of influencing a Federal election, re-gardless of whether the value being providedis a communication that is express advocacy,in which such candidate seeks nomination orelection to Federal office.’’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(C) The term ‘provided in coordination

with a candidate’ includes—‘‘(i) a payment made by a person in co-

operation, consultation, or concert with, atthe request or suggestion of, or pursuant toany general or particular understanding witha candidate, the candidate’s authorized com-mittee, or an agent acting on behalf of a can-didate or authorized committee;

‘‘(ii) a payment made by a person for theproduction, dissemination, distribution, orrepublication, in whole or in part, of any

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10109September 29, 1997broadcast or any written, graphic, or otherform of campaign material prepared by acandidate, a candidate’s authorized commit-tee, or an agent of a candidate or authorizedcommittee (not including a communicationdescribed in paragraph (9)(B)(i) or a commu-nication that expressly advocates the can-didate’s defeat);

‘‘(iii) a payment made by a person based oninformation about a candidate’s plans,projects, or needs provided to the personmaking the payment by the candidate or thecandidate’s agent who provides the informa-tion with the intent that the payment bemade;

‘‘(iv) a payment made by a person if, in thesame election cycle in which the payment ismade, the person making the payment isserving or has served as a member, em-ployee, fundraiser, or agent of the can-didate’s authorized committee in an execu-tive or policymaking position;

‘‘(v) a payment made by a person if theperson making the payment has served inany formal policy making or advisory posi-tion with the candidate’s campaign or hasparticipated in formal strategic or formalpolicymaking discussions with the can-didate’s campaign relating to the candidate’spursuit of nomination for election, or elec-tion, to Federal office, in the same electioncycle as the election cycle in which the pay-ment is made;

‘‘(vi) a payment made by a person if, in thesame election cycle, the person making thepayment retains the professional services ofany person that has provided or is providingcampaign-related services in the same elec-tion cycle to a candidate in connection withthe candidate’s pursuit of nomination forelection, or election, to Federal office, in-cluding services relating to the candidate’sdecision to seek Federal office, and the per-son retained is retained to work on activitiesrelating to that candidate’s campaign;

‘‘(vii) a payment made by a person who hasengaged in a coordinated activity with a can-didate described in clauses (i) through (vi)for a communication that clearly refers tothe candidate and is for the purpose of influ-encing an election (regardless of whether thecommunication is express advocacy);

‘‘(viii) direct participation by a person infundraising activities with the candidate orin the solicitation or receipt of contributionson behalf of the candidate;

‘‘(ix) communication by a person with thecandidate or an agent of the candidate,occuring after the declaration of candidacy(including a pollster, media consultant, ven-dor, advisor, or staff member), acting on be-half of the candidate, about advertising mes-sage, allocation of resources, fundraising, orother campaign matters related to the can-didate’s campaign, including campaign oper-ations, staffing, tactics, or strategy; or

‘‘(x) the provision of in-kind professionalservices or polling data to the candidate orcandidate’s agent.

‘‘(D) For purposes of subparagraph (C), theterm ‘professional services’ includes servicesin support of a candidate’s pursuit of nomi-nation for election, or election, to Federaloffice such as polling, media advice, directmail, fundraising, or campaign research.

‘‘(E) For purposes of subparagraph (C), allpolitical committees established and main-tained by a national political party (includ-ing all congressional campaign committees)and all political committees established andmaintained by a State political party (in-cluding any subordinate committee of aState committee) shall be considered to be asingle political committee.’’.

(2) SECTION 315(a)(7).—Section 315(a)(7) (2U.S.C. 441a(a)(7)) is amended by striking sub-paragraph (B) and inserting the following:

‘‘(B) a thing of value provided in coordina-tion with a candidate, as described in section301(8)(A)(iii), shall be considered to be a con-tribution to the candidate, and in the case ofa limitation on expenditures, shall be treat-ed as an expenditure by the candidate.

(b) MEANING OF CONTRIBUTION OR EXPENDI-TURE FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 316.—Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal ElectionCampaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)) isamended by striking ‘‘shall include’’ and in-serting ‘‘includes a contribution or expendi-ture, as those terms are defined in section301, and also includes’’.

TITLE III—DISCLOSURESEC. 301. FILING OF REPORTS USING COMPUT-

ERS AND FACSIMILE MACHINES; FIL-ING BY SENATE CANDIDATES WITHCOMMISSION.

(a) USE OF COMPUTER AND FACSIMILE MA-CHINE.—Section 302(a) of the Federal Elec-tion Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)) isamended by striking paragraph (11) and in-serting the following:

‘‘(11)(A) The Commission shall promulgatea regulation under which a person requiredto file a designation, statement, or reportunder this Act—

‘‘(i) is required to maintain and file a des-ignation, statement, or report for any cal-endar year in electronic form accessible bycomputers if the person has, or has reason toexpect to have, aggregate contributions orexpenditures in excess of a threshold amountdetermined by the Commission; and

‘‘(ii) may maintain and file a designation,statement, or report in electronic form or analternative form, including the use of a fac-simile machine, if not required to do sounder the regulation promulgated underclause (i).

‘‘(B) The Commission shall make a des-ignation, statement, report, or notificationthat is filed electronically with the Commis-sion accessible to the public on the Internetnot later than 24 hours after the designation,statement, report, or notification is receivedby the Commission.

‘‘(C) In promulgating a regulation underthis paragraph, the Commission shall pro-vide methods (other than requiring a signa-ture on the document being filed) for verify-ing designations, statements, and reportscovered by the regulation. Any documentverified under any of the methods shall betreated for all purposes (including penaltiesfor perjury) in the same manner as a docu-ment verified by signature.’’.

(b) SENATE CANDIDATES FILE WITH COMMIS-SION.—Title III of the Federal Election Cam-paign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) isamended—

(1) in section 302, by striking subsection (g)and inserting the following:

‘‘(g) FILING WITH THE COMMISSION.—All des-ignations, statements, and reports requiredto be filed under this Act shall be filed withthe Commission.’’; and

(2) in section 304—(A) in subsection (a)(6)(A), by striking ‘‘the

Secretary or’’; and(B) in the matter following subsection

(c)(2), by striking ‘‘the Secretary or’’.SEC. 302. PROHIBITION OF DEPOSIT OF CON-

TRIBUTIONS WITH INCOMPLETECONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION.

Section 302 of Federal Election CampaignAct of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 432) is amended by add-ing at the end the following:

‘‘(j) DEPOSIT OF CONTRIBUTIONS.—The treas-urer of a candidate’s authorized committeeshall not deposit, except in an escrow ac-count, or otherwise negotiate a contributionfrom a person who makes an aggregateamount of contributions in excess of $200during a calendar year unless the treasurerverifies that the information required by

this section with respect to the contributoris complete.’’.SEC. 303. AUDITS.

(a) RANDOM AUDITS.—Section 311(b) of theFederal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2U.S.C. 438(b)) is amended—

(1) by inserting ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—’’ before‘‘The Commission’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(2) RANDOM AUDITS.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding para-

graph (1), the Commission may conduct ran-dom audits and investigations to ensure vol-untary compliance with this Act. The selec-tion of any candidate for a random audit orinvestigation shall be based on criteriaadopted by a vote of at least 4 members ofthe Commission.

‘‘(B) LIMITATION.—The Commission shallnot conduct an audit or investigation of acandidate’s authorized committee under sub-paragraph (A) until the candidate is nolonger a candidate for the office sought bythe candidate in an election cycle.

‘‘(C) APPLICABILITY.—This paragraph doesnot apply to an authorized committee of acandidate for President or Vice Presidentsubject to audit under section 9007 or 9038 ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986.’’.

(b) EXTENSION OF PERIOD DURING WHICHCAMPAIGN AUDITS MAY BE BEGUN.—Section311(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Actof 1971 (2 U.S.C. 438(b)) is amended by strik-ing ‘‘6 months’’ and inserting ‘‘12 months’’.SEC. 304. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CON-

TRIBUTIONS OF $50 OR MORE.Section 304(b)(3)(A) of the Federal Election

Campaign Act at 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(b)(3)(A) isamended—

(1) by striking ‘‘$200’’ and inserting ‘‘$50’’;and

(2) by striking the semicolon and inserting‘‘, except that in the case of a person whomakes contributions aggregating at least $50but not more than $200 during the calendaryear, the identification need include onlythe name and address of the person;’’.SEC. 305. USE OF CANDIDATES’ NAMES.

Section 302(e) of the Federal Election Cam-paign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 432(e)) is amendedby striking paragraph (4) and inserting thefollowing:

‘‘(4)(A) The name of each authorized com-mittee shall include the name of the can-didate who authorized the committee underparagraph (1).

‘‘(B) A political committee that is not anauthorized committee shall not—

‘‘(i) include the name of any candidate inits name; or

‘‘(ii) except in the case of a national, State,or local party committee, use the name ofany candidate in any activity on behalf ofthe committee in such a context as to sug-gest that the committee is an authorizedcommittee of the candidate or that the useof the candidate’s name has been authorizedby the candidate.’’.SEC. 306. PROHIBITION OF FALSE REPRESENTA-

TION TO SOLICIT CONTRIBUTIONS.Section 322 of the Federal Election Cam-

paign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441h) is amended—(1) by inserting after ‘‘SEC. 322.’’ the fol-

lowing: ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’; and(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(b) SOLICITATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS.—No

person shall solicit contributions by falselyrepresenting himself or herself as a can-didate or as a representative of a candidate,a political committee, or a political party.’’.SEC. 307. SOFT MONEY OF PERSONS OTHER THAN

POLITICAL PARTIES.(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 304 of the Federal

Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434)(as amended by section 103(c)) is amended byadding at the end the following:

‘‘(g) DISBURSEMENTS OF PERSONS OTHERTHAN POLITICAL PARTIES.—

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10110 September 29, 1997‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A person, other than a

political committee or a person described insection 501(d) of the Internal Revenue Codeof 1986, that makes an aggregate amount ofdisbursements in excess of $50,000 during acalendar year for activities described inparagraph (2) shall file a statement with theCommission—

‘‘(A) on a monthly basis as described insubsection (a)(4)(B); or

‘‘(B) in the case of disbursements that aremade within 20 days of an election, within 24hours after the disbursements are made.

‘‘(2) ACTIVITY.—The activity described inthis paragraph is—

‘‘(A) Federal election activity;‘‘(B) an activity described in section

316(b)(2)(A) that expresses support for or op-position to a candidate for Federal office ora political party; and

‘‘(C) an activity described in subparagraph(C) of section 316(b)(2).

‘‘(3) APPLICABILITY.—This subsection doesnot apply to—

‘‘(A) a candidate or a candidate’s author-ized committees; or

‘‘(B) an independent expenditure.‘‘(4) CONTENTS.—A statement under this

section shall contain such information aboutthe disbursements made during the reportingperiod as the Commission shall prescribe, in-cluding—

‘‘(A) the aggregate amount of disburse-ments made;

‘‘(B) the name and address of the person orentity to whom a disbursement is made in anaggregate amount in excess of $200;

‘‘(C) the date made, amount, and purposeof the disbursement; and

‘‘(D) if applicable, whether the disburse-ment was in support of, or in opposition to,a candidate or a political party, and thename of the candidate or the politicalparty.’’.

(b) DEFINITION OF GENERIC CAMPAIGN AC-TIVITY.—Section 301 of the Federal ElectionCampaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) (asamended by section 201(b)) is amended byadding at the end the following:

‘‘(21) GENERIC CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY.—Theterm ‘generic campaign activity’ means anactivity that promotes a political party anddoes not promote a candidate or non-Federalcandidate.’’.SEC. 308. CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING.

Section 318 of the Federal Election Cam-paign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441d) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)—(i) by striking ‘‘Whenever’’ and inserting

‘‘Whenever a political committee makes adisbursement for the purpose of financingany communication through any broadcast-ing station, newspaper, magazine, outdooradvertising facility, mailing, or any othertype of general public political advertising,or whenever’’;

(ii) by striking ‘‘an expenditure’’ and in-serting ‘‘a disbursement’’; and

(iii) by striking ‘‘direct’’; and(B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘and per-

manent street address’’ after ‘‘name’’; and(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(c) Any printed communication described

in subsection (a) shall—‘‘(1) be of sufficient type size to be clearly

readable by the recipient of the communica-tion;

‘‘(2) be contained in a printed box set apartfrom the other contents of the communica-tion; and

‘‘(3) be printed with a reasonable degree ofcolor contrast between the background andthe printed statement.

‘‘(d)(1) Any broadcast or cablecast commu-nication described in paragraphs (1) or (2) ofsubsection (a) shall include, in addition to

the requirements of that paragraph, an audiostatement by the candidate that identifiesthe candidate and states that the candidatehas approved the communication.

‘‘(2) If a broadcast or cablecast commu-nication described in paragraph (1) is broad-cast or cablecast by means of television, thecommunication shall include, in addition tothe audio statement under paragraph (1), awritten statement that—

‘‘(A) appears at the end of the communica-tion in a clearly readable manner with a rea-sonable degree of color contrast between thebackground and the printed statement, for aperiod of at least 4 seconds; and

‘‘(B) is accompanied by a clearly identifi-able photographic or similar image of thecandidate.

‘‘(e) Any broadcast or cablecast commu-nication described in paragraph (3) of sub-section (a) shall include, in addition to therequirements of that paragraph, in a clearlyspoken manner, the following statement:‘llllllll is responsible for the con-tent of this advertisement.’ (with the blankto be filled in with the name of the politicalcommittee or other person paying for thecommunication and the name of any con-nected organization of the payor). If broad-cast or cablecast by means of television, thestatement shall also appear in a clearly read-able manner with a reasonable degree ofcolor contrast between the background andthe printed statement, for a period of atleast 4 seconds.’’.

TITLE IV—PERSONAL WEALTH OPTIONSEC. 401. VOLUNTARY PERSONAL FUNDS EX-

PENDITURE LIMIT.Title III of the Federal Election Campaign

Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) (as amendedby section 101) is amended by adding at theend the following:‘‘SEC. 325. VOLUNTARY PERSONAL FUNDS EX-

PENDITURE LIMIT.‘‘(a) ELIGIBLE SENATE CANDIDATE.—‘‘(1) PRIMARY ELECTION.—‘‘(A) DECLARATION.—A candidate is an eli-

gible primary election Senate candidate ifthe candidate files with the Commission adeclaration that the candidate and the can-didate’s authorized committees will notmake expenditures in excess of the personalfunds expenditure limit.

‘‘(B) TIME TO FILE.—The declaration undersubparagraph (A) shall be filed not later thanthe date on which the candidate files withthe appropriate State officer as a candidatefor the primary election.

‘‘(2) GENERAL ELECTION.—‘‘(A) DECLARATION.—A candidate is an eli-

gible general election Senate candidate ifthe candidate files with the Commission—

‘‘(i) a declaration under penalty of perjury,with supporting documentation as requiredby the Commission, that the candidate andthe candidate’s authorized committees didnot exceed the personal funds expenditurelimit in connection with the primary elec-tion; and

‘‘(ii) a declaration that the candidate andthe candidate’s authorized committees willnot make expenditures in excess of the per-sonal funds expenditure limit.

‘‘(B) TIME TO FILE.—The declaration undersubparagraph (A) shall be filed not later than7 days after the earlier of—

‘‘(i) the date on which the candidate quali-fies for the general election ballot underState law; or

‘‘(ii) if under State law, a primary or run-off election to qualify for the general elec-tion ballot occurs after September 1, thedate on which the candidate wins the pri-mary or runoff election.

‘‘(b) PERSONAL FUNDS EXPENDITURELIMIT.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The aggregate amount ofexpenditures that may be made in connec-

tion with an election by an eligible Senatecandidate or the candidate’s authorized com-mittees from the sources described in para-graph (2) shall not exceed $50,000.

‘‘(2) SOURCES.—A source is described in thisparagraph if the source is—

‘‘(A) personal funds of the candidate andmembers of the candidate’s immediate fam-ily; or

‘‘(B) proceeds of indebtedness incurred bythe candidate or a member of the candidate’simmediate family.

‘‘(c) CERTIFICATION BY THE COMMISSION.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall

determine whether a candidate has met therequirements of this section and, based onthe determination, issue a certification stat-ing whether the candidate is an eligible Sen-ate candidate.

‘‘(2) TIME FOR CERTIFICATION.—Not laterthan 7 business days after a candidate files adeclaration under paragraph (1) or (2) of sub-section (a), the Commission shall certifywhether the candidate is an eligible Senatecandidate.

‘‘(3) REVOCATION.—The Commission shallrevoke a certification under paragraph (1),based on information submitted in such formand manner as the Commission may requireor on information that comes to the Com-mission by other means, if the Commissiondetermines that a candidate violates the per-sonal funds expenditure limit.

‘‘(4) DETERMINATIONS BY COMMISSION.—Adetermination made by the Commissionunder this subsection shall be final, exceptto the extent that the determination is sub-ject to examination and audit by the Com-mission and to judicial review.

‘‘(d) PENALTY.—If the Commission revokesthe certification of an eligible Senate can-didate—

‘‘(1) the Commission shall notify the can-didate of the revocation; and

‘‘(2) the candidate and a candidate’s au-thorized committees shall pay to the Com-mission an amount equal to the amount ofexpenditures made by a national committeeof a political party or a State committee ofa political party in connection with the gen-eral election campaign of the candidateunder section 315(d).’’.SEC. 402. POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE COORDI-

NATED EXPENDITURES.Section 315(d) of the Federal Election Cam-

paign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)) (as amend-ed by section 204) is amended by adding atthe end the following:

‘‘(5) This subsection does not apply to ex-penditures made in connection with the gen-eral election campaign of a candidate for theSenate who is not an eligible Senate can-didate (as defined in section 325(a)).’’.

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUSSEC. 501. CODIFICATION OF BECK DECISION.

Section 8 of the National Labor RelationsAct (29 U.S.C. 158) is amended by adding atthe end the following new subsection:

‘‘(h) NONUNION MEMBER PAYMENTS TO LABORORGANIZATION.

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall be an unfairlabor practice for any labor organizationwhich receives a payment from an employeepursuant to an agreement that requires em-ployees who are not members of the organi-zation to make payments to such organiza-tion in lieu of organization dues or fees notto establish and implement the objectionprocedure described in paragraph (2).

‘‘(2) OBJECTION PROCEDURE.—The objectionprocedure required under paragraph (1) shallmeet the following requirements:

‘‘(A) The labor organization shall annuallyprovide to employees who are covered bysuch agreement but are not members of theorganization—

‘‘(i) reasonable personal notice of the ob-jection procedure, the employees eligible to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10111September 29, 1997invoke the procedure, and the time, place,and manner for filing an objection; and

‘‘(ii) reasonable opportunity to file an ob-jection to paying for organization expendi-tures supporting political activities unre-lated to collective bargaining, including butnot limited to the opportunity to file suchobjection by mail.

‘‘(B) If an employee who is not a member ofthe labor organization files an objectionunder the procedure in subparagraph (A),such organization shall—

‘‘(i) reduce the payments in lieu of organi-zation dues or fees by such employee by anamount which reasonably reflects the ratiothat the organization’s expenditures sup-porting political activities unrelated to col-lective bargaining bears to such organiza-tion’s total expenditures;

‘‘(ii) provide such employee with a reason-able explanation of the organization’s cal-culation of such reduction, including cal-culating the amount of organization expendi-tures supporting political activities unre-lated to collective bargaining.

‘‘(3) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this sub-section, the term ‘expenditures supportingpolitical activities unrelated to collectivebargaining’ means expenditures in connec-tion with a federal, state, or local election orin connection with efforts to influence legis-lation unrelated to collective bargaining.’’.

SEC. 502. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FORCERTAIN PURPOSES.

Title III of the Federal Election CampaignAct of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amendedby striking section 313 and inserting the fol-lowing:

‘‘SEC. 313. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FORCERTAIN PURPOSES.

‘‘(a) PERMITTED USES.—A contribution ac-cepted by a candidate, and any other amountreceived by an individual as support for ac-tivities of the individual as a holder of Fed-eral office, may be used by the candidate orindividual—

‘‘(1) for expenditures in connection withthe campaign for Federal office of the can-didate or individual;

‘‘(2) for ordinary and necessary expensesincurred in connection with duties of the in-dividual as a holder of Federal office;

‘‘(3) for contributions to an organizationdescribed in section 170(c) of the InternalRevenue Code of 1986; or

‘‘(4) for transfers to a national, State, orlocal committee of a political party.

‘‘(b) PROHIBITED USE.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A contribution or

amount described in subsection (a) shall notbe converted by any person to personal use.

‘‘(2) CONVERSION.—For the purposes ofparagraph (1), a contribution or amountshall be considered to be converted to per-sonal use if the contribution or amount isused to fulfill any commitment, obligation,or expense of a person that would exist irre-spective of the candidate’s election cam-paign or individual’s duties as a holder ofFederal officeholder, including—

‘‘(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility pay-ment;

‘‘(B) a clothing purchase;‘‘(C) a noncampaign-related automobile ex-

pense;‘‘(D) a country club membership;‘‘(E) a vacation or other noncampaign-re-

lated trip;‘‘(F) a household food item;‘‘(G) a tuition payment;‘‘(H) admission to a sporting event, con-

cert, theater, or other form of entertainmentnot associated with an election campaign;and

‘‘(G) dues, fees, and other payments to ahealth club or recreational facility.’’.

SEC. 503. LIMIT ON CONGRESSIONAL USE OF THEFRANKING PRIVILEGE.

Section 3210(a)(6) of title 39, United StatesCode, is amended by striking subparagraph(A) and inserting the following:

‘‘(A) A Member of Congress shall not mailany mass mailing as franked mail during ayear in which there will be an election forthe seat held by the Member during the pe-riod between January 1 of that year and thedate of the general election for that Office,unless the Member has made a public an-nouncement that the Member will not be acandidate for reelection to that year or forelection to any other Federal office.’’.SEC. 504. PROHIBITION OF FUNDRAISING ON

FEDERAL PROPERTY.

Section 607 of title 18, United States Code,is amended by—

(a) striking subsection (a) and insertingthe following:

‘‘(a) PROHIBITION.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for

any person to solitict or receive a donationof money or other thing of value for a politi-cal committee or a candidate for Federal,State or local office from a person who is lo-cated in a room or building occupied in thedischarge of official duties by an officer oremployee of the United States. An individualwho is an officer or employee of the FederalGovernment, including the President, VicePresident, and Members of Congress, shallnot make solicit a donation of money orother thing of value for a political commit-tee or candidate for Federal, State or localoffices, while in any room or building occu-pied in the discharge of official duties by anofficer or employee of the United States,from any person.

‘‘(2) PENALTY.—A person who violates thissection shall be fined not more than $5,000,imprisoned more than 3 years, or both.’’.

(b) Inserting a subsection (b) after ‘‘Con-gress’’ ‘‘or Executive Office of the Presi-dent’’.SEC. 505. PENALTIES FOR KNOWING AND WILL-

FUL VIOLATIONS.(a) INCREASED PENALTIES.—Section 309(a)

of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971(2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) is amended—

(1) in paragraphs (5)(A), (6)(A), and (6)(B),by striking ‘‘$5,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$10,000’’;and

(2) in paragraphs (5)(B) and (6)(C), by strik-ing ‘‘$10,000 or an amount equal to 200 per-cent’’ and inserting ‘‘$20,000 or an amountequal to 300 percent’’.

(b) EQUITABLE REMEDIES.—Section309(a)(5)(A) of the Federal Election CampaignAct of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(5)) is amended bystriking the period at the end and inserting‘‘, and may include equitable remedies orpenalties, including disgorgement of funds tothe Treasury or community service require-ments (including requirements to participatein public education programs).’’.

(c) AUTOMATIC PENALTY FOR LATE FILING.—Section 309(a) of the Federal Election Cam-paign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) is amend-ed—

(1) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(13) PENALTY FOR LATE FILING.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—‘‘(i) MONETARY PENALTIES.—The Commis-

sion shall establish a schedule of mandatorymonetary penalties that shall be imposed bythe Commission for failure to meet a timerequirement for filing under section 304.

‘‘(ii) REQUIRED FILING.—In addition to im-posing a penalty, the Commission may re-quire a report that has not been filed withinthe time requirements of section 304 to befiled by a specific date.

‘‘(iii) PROCEDURE.—A penalty or filing re-quirement imposed under this paragraphshall not be subject to paragraph (1), (2), (3),(4), (5), or (12).

‘‘(B) FILING AN EXCEPTION.—‘‘(i) TIME TO FILE.—A political committee

shall have 30 days after the imposition of apenalty or filing requirement by the Com-mission under this paragraph in which to filean exception with the Commission.

‘‘(ii) TIME FOR COMMISSION TO RULE.—With-in 30 days after receiving an exception, theCommission shall make a determinationthat is a final agency action subject to ex-clusive review by the United States Court ofAppeals for the District of Columbia Circuitunder section 706 of title 5, United StatesCode, upon petition filed in that court by thepolitical committee or treasurer that is thesubject of the agency action, if the petitionis filed within 30 days after the date of theCommission action for which review issought.’’;

(2) in paragraph (5)(D)—(A) by inserting after the first sentence the

following: ‘‘In any case in which a penalty orfiling requirement imposed on a politicalcommittee or treasurer under paragraph (13)has not been satisfied, the Commission mayinstitute a civil action for enforcementunder paragraph (6)(A).’’; and

(B) by inserting before the period at theend of the last sentence the following: ‘‘orhas failed to pay a penalty or meet a filingrequirement imposed under paragraph (13)’’;and

(3) in paragraph (6)(A), by striking ‘‘para-graph (4)(A)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (4)(A)or (13)’’.SEC. 506. STRENGTHENING FOREIGN MONEY

BAN.Section 319 of the Federal Election Cam-

paign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441e) is amended—(1) by striking the heading and inserting

the following: ‘‘CONTRIBUTIONS AND DONA-TIONS BY FOREIGN NATIONALS’’; and

(2) by striking subsection (a) and insertingthe following:

‘‘(a) PROHIBITION.—It shall be unlawfulfor—

‘‘(1) a foreign national, directly or indi-rectly, to make—

‘‘(A) a donation of money or other thing ofvalue, or to promise expressly or impliedlyto make a donation, in connection with aFederal, State, or local election to a politi-cal committee or a candidate for Federal of-fice; or

‘‘(ii) a contribution or donation to a com-mittee of a political party; or

‘‘(B) for a person to solicit, accept, or re-ceive such contribution or donation from aforeign national.’’.SEC. 507. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY

MINORS.Title III of the Federal Election Campaign

Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) (as amendedby section 401) is amended by adding at theend the following:‘‘SEC. 326. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY

MINORS.An individual who is 17 years old or young-

er shall not make a contribution to a can-didate or a contribution or donation to acommittee of a political party.’’.SEC. 508. EXPEDITED PROCEDURES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 309(a) of the Fed-eral Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.437g(a)) (as amended by section 505(c)) isamended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(14)(A) If the complaint in a proceedingwas filed within 60 days preceding the date ofa general election, the Commission may takeaction described in this subparagraph.

‘‘(B) If the Commission determines, on thebasis of facts alleged in the complaint andother facts available to the Commission,that there is clear and convincing evidencethat a violation of this Act has occurred, isoccurring, or is about to occur, the Commis-sion may order expedited proceedings, short-ening the time periods for proceedings under

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10112 September 29, 1997paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as necessary toallow the matter to be resolved in sufficienttime before the election to avoid harm orprejudice to the interests of the parties.

‘‘(C) If the Commission determines, on thebasis of facts alleged in the complaint andother facts available to the Commission,that the complaint is clearly without merit,the Commission may—

‘‘(i) order expedited proceedings, shorten-ing the time periods for proceedings underparagraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as necessary toallow the matter to be resolved in sufficienttime before the election to avoid harm orprejudice to the interests of the parties; or

‘‘(ii) if the Commission determines thatthere is insufficient time to conduct proceed-ings before the election, summarily dismissthe complaint.’’.

(b) REFERRAL TO ATTORNEY GENERAL.—Sec-tion 309(a)(5) of the Federal Election Cam-paign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(5)) isamended by striking subparagraph (C) andinserting the following:

‘‘(C) The Commission may at any time, byan affirmative vote of at least 4 of its mem-bers, refer a possible violation of this Act orchapter 95 or 96 of title 26, United StatesCode, to the Attorney General of the UnitedStates, without regard to any limitation setforth in this section.’’.SEC. 509. INITIATION OF ENFORCEMENT PRO-

CEEDING.Section 309(a)(2) of the Federal Election

Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(2)) isamended by striking ‘‘reason to believethat’’ and inserting ‘‘reason to investigatewhether’’.TITLE VI—SEVERABILITY; CONSTITU-

TIONALITY; EFFECTIVE DATE; REGULA-TIONS

SEC. 601. SEVERABILITY.If any provision of this Act or amendment

made by this Act, or the application of a pro-vision or amendment to any person or cir-cumstance, is held to be unconstitutional,the remainder of this Act and amendmentsmade by this Act, and the application of theprovisions and amendment to any person orcircumstance, shall not be affected by theholding.SEC. 602. REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.

An appeal may be taken directly to the Su-preme Court of the United States from anyfinal judgment, decree, or order issued byany court ruling on the constitutionality ofany provision of this Act or amendmentmade by this Act.SEC. 603. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Except as otherwise provided in this Act,this Act and the amendments made by thisAct take effect on the date that is 60 daysafter the date of enactment of this Act orJanuary 1, 1998, whichever occurs first.SEC. 604. REGULATIONS.

The Federal Election Commission shallprescribe any regulations required to carryout this Act and the amendments made bythis Act not later than 270 days after the ef-fective date of this Act.

AMENDMENT NO. 1258

(Purpose: To guarantee that contributions toFederal political campaigns are voluntary)Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an

amendment to the desk.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report.The legislative clerk read as follows:The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. LOTT]

proposes an amendment numbered 1258.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unan-imous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:Strike all of section 501, and insert the fol-

lowing:SEC. 501. PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 316 of the FederalElection Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b)is amended by adding the following new sub-section:

‘‘(c)(1) Except with the separate, prior,written, voluntary authorization of each in-dividual, it shall be unlawful—

‘‘(A) for any national bank or corporationdescribed in this section to collect from orassess its stockholders or employees anydues, initiation fee, or other payment as acondition of employment if any part of suchdues, fee, or payment will be used for politi-cal activities in which the national bank orcorporation, as the case may be, is engaged;and

‘‘(B) for any labor organization describedin this section to collect from or assess itsmembers or nonmembers any dues, initiationfee, or other payment if any part of suchdues, fee, or payment will be used for politi-cal activities.

‘‘(2) An authorization described in para-graph (1) shall remain in effect until revokedand may be revoked at any time.

‘‘(3) For purposes of this subsection, theterm ‘political activities’ includes commu-nications or other activities which involvecarrying on propaganda, attempting to influ-ence legislation, or participating or inter-vening in any political campaign or politicalparty.’’

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask forthe yeas and nays on the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.The yeas and nays were ordered.AMENDMENT NO. 1259 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1258

(Purpose: To guarantee that contributions toFederal political campaigns are voluntary)Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an

amendment to the desk to my amend-ment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. LOTT]

proposes an amendment numbered 1259 toamendment No. 1258.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unan-imous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:In lieu of the matter proposed to be

inserted insert the following:SEC. 501. PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 316 of the FederalElection Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b)is amended by adding the following new sub-section:

‘‘(c)(1) Except with the separate, prior,written, voluntary authorization of each in-dividual, it shall be unlawful—

‘‘(A) for any national bank or corporationdescribed in this section to collect from orassess its stockholders or employees anydues, initiation fee, or other payment as acondition of employment if any part of suchdues, fee, or payment will be used for politi-cal activities in which the national bank orcorporation, as the case may be, is engaged;and

‘‘(B) for any labor organization describedin this section to collect from or assess itsmembers or nonmembers any dues, initiationfee, or other payment if any part of such

dues, fee, or payment will be used for politi-cal activities.

‘‘(2) An authorization described in para-graph (1) shall remain in effect until revokedand may be revoked at any time.

‘‘(3) For purposes of this subsection, theterm ‘political activities’ includes commu-nications or other activities which involvecarrying on propaganda, attempting to influ-ence legislation, or participating or inter-vening in any political campaign or politicalparty.’’

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shalltake effect one day after enactment of thisAct.

Mr. LOTT. I ask for the yeas andnays on the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.The yeas and nays were ordered.AMENDMENT NO. 1260 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1258

(Purpose: To guarantee that contributions toFederal political campaigns are voluntary)Mr. LOTT. I send a perfecting amend-

ment to the desk.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report.The legislative clerk read as follows:The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. LOTT]

proposes an amendment numbered 1260 toamendment No. 1258.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unan-imous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:Strike all after the word ‘‘SEC.’’ in the

pending amendment and insert the following:501. PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 316 of the FederalElection Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b)is amended by adding the following new sub-section:

‘‘(c)(1) Except with the separate, prior,written, voluntary authorization of each in-dividual, it shall be unlawful—

‘‘(A) for any national bank or corporationdescribed in this section to collect from orassess its stockholders or employees anydues, initiation fee, or other payment as acondition of employment if any part of suchdues, fee, or payment will be used for politi-cal activities in which the national bank orcorporation, as the case may be, is engaged;and

‘‘(B) for any labor organization describedin this section to collect from or assess itsmembers or nonmembers any dues, initiationfee, or other payment if any part of suchdues, fee, or payment will be used for politi-cal activities.

‘‘(2) An authorization described in para-graph (1) shall remain in effect until revokedand may be revoked at any time.

‘‘(3) For purposes of this subsection, theterm ‘political activities’ includes commu-nications or other activities which involvecarrying on propaganda, attempting to influ-ence legislation, or participating or inter-vening in any political campaign or politicalparty.’’

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shalltake effect two days after enactment of thisAct.

AMENDMENT NO. 1261

(Purpose: To guarantee that contributions toFederal political campaigns are voluntary)Mr. LOTT. I now send an amendment

to the desk to the language proposed tobe stricken.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10113September 29, 1997The legislative clerk read as follows:The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. LOTT]

proposes an amendment No. 1261.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unan-imous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:On page 42, in the language proposed to be

stricken, strike all after ‘‘SEC. 501’’ throughthe end of the page and insert the following:PAYCHEK PROTECTION ACT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 316 of the FederalElection Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b)is amended by adding the following new sub-section:

‘‘(c)(1) Except with the separate, prior,written, voluntary authorization of each in-dividual, it shall be unlawful—

‘‘(A) for any national bank or corporationdescribed in this section to collect from orassess its stockholders or employees anydues, initiation fee, or other payment as acondition of employment if any part of suchdues, fee, or payment will be used for politi-cal activities in which the national bank orcorporation, as the case may be, is engaged;and

‘‘(B) for any labor organization describedin this section to collect from or assess itsmembers or nonmembers any dues, initiationfee, or other payment if any part of suchdues, fee, or payment will be used for politi-cal activities.

‘‘(2) An authorization described in para-graph (1) shall remain in effect until revokedand may be revoked at any time.

‘‘(3) For purposes of this subsection, theterm ‘political activities’ includes commu-nications or other activities which involvecarrying on propaganda, attempting to influ-ence legislation, or participating or inter-vening in any political campaign or politicalparty.’’

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shalltake effect three days after enactment ofthis Act.

Mr. LOTT. I now ask for the yeas andnays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.The yeas and nays were ordered.AMENDMENT NO. 1262 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1261

(Purpose: To guarantee that contributions toFederal political campaigns are voluntary)Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an

amendment to the desk to my amend-ment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. LOTT]

proposes an amendment numbered 1262 toamendment No. 1261.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unan-imous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:Strike all after the first word in the pend-

ing amendment and insert the following:PROTECTION ACT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 316 of the FederalElection Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b)is amended by adding the following new sub-section:

‘‘(c)(1) Except with the separate, prior,written, voluntary authorization of each in-dividual, it shall be unlawful—

‘‘(A) for any national bank or corporationdescribed in this section to collect from orassess to its stockholders or employees anydues, initiation fee, or other payment as acondition of employment it any part of suchdues, fee, or payment will be used for politi-cal activities in which the national bank orcorporation, as the case may be, is engaged;and

‘‘(B) for any labor organization describedin this section to collect from or assess itsmembers or nonmembers any dues, initiationfee, or other payment if any part of suchdues, fee, or payment will be used for politi-cal activities.

‘‘(2) An authorization described in para-graph (1) shall remain in effect until revokedand may be revoked at any time.

‘‘(3) For purposes of this subsection, theterm ‘political activities’ includes commu-nications or other activities which involvecarrying on propaganda, attempting to influ-ence legislation, or participating or inter-vening in any political campaign or politicalparty.’’

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shalltake effect four days after enactment of thisAct.

MOTION TO RECOMMIT

AMENDMENT NO. 1263 TO INSTRUCTIONS TO THEMOTION TO RECOMMIT

(Purpose: To guarantee that contributions toFederal political campaigns are voluntary)Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now move

that the Senate recommit S. 25 to theCommittee on Rules and Administra-tion with instructions to report backforthwith, and I send an amendment tothe instructions to the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. LOTT]

proposes an amendment numbered 1263 to in-structions to the motion to recommit.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unan-imous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:At the end of the instructions add the fol-

lowing:‘‘with an amendment as follows:

Strike all of section 501 and insert the fol-lowing:SEC. . PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 316 of the FederalElection Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b)is amended by adding the following new sub-section:

‘‘(c)(1) Except with the separate, prior,written, voluntary authorization of each in-dividual, it shall be unlawful—

‘‘(A) for any national bank or corporationdescribed in this section to collect from orassess its stockholders or employees anydues, initiation fee, or other payment as acondition of employment if any part of suchdues, fee, or payment will be used for politi-cal activities in which the national bank orcorporation, as the case may be, is engaged;and

‘‘(B) for any labor organization describedin this section to collect from or assess itsmembers or nonmembers any dues, initiationfee, or other payment if any part of suchdues, fee, or payment will be used for politi-cal activities.

‘‘(2) An authorization described in para-graph (1) shall remain in effect until revokedand may be revoked at any time.

‘‘(3) For purposes of this subsection, theterm ‘political activities’ includes commu-

nications or other activities which involvecarrying on propaganda, attempting to influ-ence legislation, or participating or inter-vening in any political campaign or politicalparty.’’

Mr. LOTT. I ask for the yeas andnays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.The yeas and nays were ordered.AMENDMENT NO. 1264 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1263

(Purpose: To guarantee that contributions toFederal political campaigns are voluntary)Mr. LOTT. I send an amendment to

the desk.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report.The legislative clerk read as follows:The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. LOTT]

proposes an amendment numbered 1264 toamendment No. 1263.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unan-imous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

I ask for the yeas and nays.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a

sufficient second?Mr. MCCAIN. I object to suspension

of the reading. I would like to knowwhat the amendment is.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:In lieu of the matter proposed to be in-

serted insert the following:SEC. . PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 316 of the FederalElection Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b)is amended by adding the following new sub-section:

‘‘(c)(1) Except with the separate, prior,written, voluntary authorization of each in-dividual, it shall be unlawful—

‘‘(A) for any national bank or corporationdescribed in this section to collect from orassess its stockholders or employees anydues, initiation fee, or other payment as acondition of employment if any part of suchdues, fee, or payment will be used for politi-cal activities in which the national bank orcorporation, as the case may be, is engaged;and

‘‘(B) for any labor organization describedin this section to collect from or assess itsmembers or nonmembers any dues, initiationfee, or other payment if any part of suchdues, fee, or payment will be used for politi-cal activities.

‘‘(2) An authorization described in para-graph (1) shall remain in effect until revokedand may be revoked at any time.

‘‘(3) For purposes of this subsection, theterm ‘political activities’ includes commu-nications or other activities which involvecarrying on propaganda, attempting to influ-ence legislation, or participating or inter-vening in any political campaign or politicalparty.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall takeeffect one day after enactment of this Act.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second to the request for theyeas and nays?

There is a sufficient second.The yeas and nays were ordered.AMENDMENT NO. 1265 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1264

(Purpose: To guarantee that contributions toFederal political campaigns are voluntary)

Mr. LOTT. I send a final amendmentto the desk.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10114 September 29, 1997The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report.The legislative clerk read as follows:The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. LOTT]

proposes an amendment numbered 1265 toamendment No. 1264.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unan-imous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objec-

tion is heard.The clerk will report.The legislative clerk read as follows:Strike all after the word ‘‘section’’ in the

first degree amendment and insert the fol-lowing:

. PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT.(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 316 of the Federal

Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b)is amended by adding the following new sub-section:

‘‘(c)(1) Except with the separate, prior,written, voluntary authorization of each in-dividual, it shall be unlawful—

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the remainingpart of the reading of the amendmentbe dispensed with since it is the sameas the other amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The remainder of the amendment isas follows:

‘‘(A) for any national bank or corporationdescribed in this section to collect from orassess its stockholders or employees anydues, initiation fee, or other payment as acondition of employment if any part of suchdues, fee, or payment will be used for politi-cal activities in which the national bank orcorporation, as the case may be, is engaged;and

‘‘(B) for any labor organization describedin this section to collect from or assess itsmembers or nonmembers any dues, initiationfee, or other payment if any part of suchdues, fee, or payment will be used for politi-cal activities.

‘‘(2) An authorized described in paragraph(1) shall remain in effect until revoked andmay be revoked at any time.

‘‘(3) For purposes of this subsection, theterm ‘political activities’ includes commu-nications or other activities which involvecarrying on propaganda, attempting to influ-ence legislation, or participating or inter-vening in any political campaign or politicalparty.’’

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE—This section shalltake effect two days after enactment of thisAct.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wouldlike to explain what just transpired.

Mr. President, Senate procedure canbe sometimes confusing. So let metake a moment to go over what are theamendments that were offered andwhat is pending.

Under the unanimous-consent agree-ment reached last week, SenatorMCCAIN modified his original McCain-Feingold bill. I was then recognized tooffer an amendment.

The amendment I offered—the Pay-check Protection Act—will not wipeout the underlying McCain bill, if it isadopted. On the contrary, if adopted,this amendment would become part ofthe bill.

The other amendments I just offeredwere part of the process which is infor-

mally known as ‘‘filling up the amend-ment tree.’’ This is a fairly standardprocedure to ensure opponents of anamendment cannot gut it by offeringyet another amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that five re-cent examples be printed in theRECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rials was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

1977—Jimmy Carter’s Energy DeregulationBill—Byrd filled up amendment tree.

1984—Grove City—Byrd (in minority) filledup the tree.

1985—Budget Resolution—Dole filled up thetree.

1988—Campaign Finance—Byrd filled upthe tree (eight cloture votes).

1993—Emergency Supplemental Approps(Stimulus Bill)—Byrd filled up the tree.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, also, I notethat this is done two or three times ayear and certainly is not unprece-dented.

I hope no one will characterize thisamendment as a ‘‘poison pill’’ for cam-paign finance reform. It is so fun-damental to fairness in the campaignprocess. Shouldn’t workers in Americabe able to have some say about howtheir fees, assessments, or dues areused in political campaigns? I thinkthe answer truly should be yes.

Some of our colleagues may not wantto expose, much less vote on, one of theworst campaign abuses that exists—compulsory business or union dues—but that is no reason for them to sud-denly change their position on cam-paign finance reform as a whole.

Most Americans would be shocked tolearn that some workers in our Nationare forced to contribute to a candidateor campaign they don’t support or donot know anything about. They haveno way of directing where those fundsgo.

Because of that abuse, this amend-ment, the Paycheck Protection Act, isan essential element to genuine cam-paign reform. It requires that all polit-ical contributions be voluntary.

The McCain-Feingold bill places re-strictions on political parties, bans softmoney, and curbs the activities ofgrassroots organizations. But it con-tains a giant loophole: It allows cor-porations and unions to confiscatemoney, for political purposes, fromtheir employees’ and members’ pay-checks without getting their permis-sion. This loophole must be closed.

Senator MCCAIN himself stated thathe ‘‘personally supports much stronger[Beck] language.’’ He said he ‘‘believesthat no individual—a union member ornot—should be required to contributeto political activities.’’ This was on afloor statement of September 26, 1997.

The McCain-Feingold bill limits whatpeople can voluntary contribute for po-litical purposes, but it does not protectpeople from being forced to contributeinvoluntarily to political campaigns.

We must require unions and corpora-tions to get a worker’s permission be-fore taking money out of his or herpaycheck for political purposes.

As I have said before, my own fatherwas a union member. This amendmentis not targeted at unions. It is, as amatter of fact, directed at affectingboth unions and corporations as well.

No worker—whether union or cor-porate business, large or small—shouldbe forced to contribute against his orher will, as a condition of their em-ployment.

Many workers don’t want to pay andbe involved in campaigns or in politics,and many of those don’t want to betold what they have to do and don’twant to have their funds taken fromthem without their permission.

A recent poll of union members re-vealed that 78 percent did not knowthey had the right to stop paying forpolitics.

A 1996 poll of union members foundthat 62 percent opposed the AFL–CIO’sexpenditure of over $35 million—andprobably much more—of their moneyin a campaign to control Congress.

No worker should be forced to pay forpolitics that they do not support. Assuch, I hope Senators will support myamendment.

There will be plenty of time to de-bate this amendment and other amend-ments, and then we will design a proc-ess to have some votes to see where theSenate stands on this and other issues.

I yield the floor.Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Virginia.Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask

the distinguished leader if I may bedesignated as a cosponsor of his amend-ment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I com-mend the leader because there is nomore essential thing in America thanour freedom. It is written into everyimportant document. It is the veryfoundation upon which our Republicwas formed, yet we have turned asideand winked at this process whereby theAmerican worker is penalized in thathe or she cannot exercise his or herown free will in making the most fun-damental of decisions: Whether or notto have his or her paycheck involuntar-ily docked for a sum of money forwhich in most instances they have noidea to what uses it will be put by peo-ple who make decisions for them.

Then that same worker will exercisehis or her right of freedom to go to apolling place and write in a check orpull a lever or whatever the proceduremay be by which he or she will exercisehis or her freedom to select that indi-vidual, Democrat or Republican, inde-pendent, whether it is for chairman ofthe board of supervisors in the home-town, President of the United States,or whatever the case may be. To me itis a total anachronism to say that youcannot make a decision with regard toyour paycheck, yet you are free to gointo the polling booth and make thatdecision.

This amendment is referred to as apoison pill.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10115September 29, 1997Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-

sent to have printed in the RECORD asample of the type of thing that isbeing used today in certain States bywhich that worker signs and sends intohis or her respective employer his orher written consent to do just whatthis amendment asks.

There being no objection, the samplewas ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION WITHHOLDINGAUTHORIZATION

No employer or other person may withholda portion of a Washington State resident’searnings (or that of a non-resident whose pri-mary place of work is in Washington) inorder to make contributions to a politicalcommittee that must report to the PublicDisclosure Commission or to a candidate forstate or local office without annual, writtenpermission from that individual. Completionof this form entitles the entity specified tomake such a withholding for no more than 12consecutive months.

I, (First Name, Middle Initial, Last Name)authorize (Name of Employer or Other Per-son) to withhold ($ Amount per/pay period/week/month/year/ from my earnings in orderto make political contributions to (Name,City and State of political committee(s) and/or candidate(s) to receive deductions).

If more than one recipient is indicated,each is to receive the following portion ofthe deduction made: llllllll. Thisauthorization is valid for no more thantwelve consecutive months. It is effective on(Month/Day/Year) and expires on (Month/Day/Year).

Signature:Date:According to state law, no employer or

labor organization may discriminate againstan officer or employee in the terms or condi-tions of employment for (a) the failure tocontribute to, (b) the failure in any way tosupport or oppose, or (c) in any way support-ing or opposing a candidate, ballot propo-sition, political party, or political commit-tee.

TIMING OF CONTRIBUTIONS

Primary and General Contributions: Withthe exception of contributions from a bonafide political party organization or a legisla-tive caucus committee, no primary electioncontribution may be made after the date ofthe primary.

No general election contribution is per-mitted after November 30 of the electionyear from any contributor—except the can-didate using personal funds for his own cam-paign.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I re-member a famous poem written yearsand years ago, and I will insert in theRECORD portions of it. But it related tomilitary people around the turn of thecentury. It says: ‘‘Yours is not to rea-son why; yours is but to do or die.’’

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that an excerpt of ‘‘The Charge ofthe Light Brigade’’ be printed in theRECORD.

There being no objection, the excerptwas ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE

II.

‘‘Forward, the Light Brigade!’’Was there a man dismay’d?Not tho’ the soldier knew

Some one had blunder’d:Theirs not to make reply,

Theirs not to reason why,Theirs but to do and die:Into the valley of Death

Rode the six hundred.

Mr. WARNER. That is the philosophybehind this automatic deduction—yours is not to reason why; you just doas we tell you. That is antithetical. Itis not a poison pill to correct that andhave maybe six simple words whichsay, I hereby consent to have my pay-check deducted in a certain amount.How can anyone in good consciencecall that simple one sentence a poisonpill? It is the exercise of the very es-sence of democracy in this country andno longer adheres to the refrain ‘‘yoursis not to reason why.’’

The American worker is quite dif-ferent in profile today than when thisstatute, which they predicate the auto-matic deduction, was put in. Given afew gray hairs and a few years, I bridgeback to those thirties when so much ofthe labor legislation was enacted. Thatlaboring person was drawn from a seg-ment of society that was struggling forits very existence, would take any job,would follow any order, would acceptany working condition just to haveenough of an opportunity to provide forhis or her family.

Fortunately, this country has pro-gressed today to where that is gone,and today that working person is of anentirely different profile. They havehad the opportunity to get education,and many are still seeking to augmenttheir education. They have the oppor-tunity to think for themselves. We arein a society today dominated by allsorts of opportunities, be it on tele-vision or in schools or otherwise, to en-hance one’s level of education and todevelop, Mr. President, a thought proc-ess by which the American worker canmake many, many more decisions forhimself or for herself than at the timeof the origin of these very oppressivestatutes that we still struggle withtoday.

So I commend the distinguished ma-jority leader. It seems to me anyonewho wants to call this a poison pillshould hold up that simple form, pointto it and say that the exercise of theright to simply say that I consent is apoison pill. I call it, Mr. President, a‘‘freedom’’ pill, if you want to use thatphraseology. This is a ‘‘freedom’’ pillfor the ability of the American workerto begin to think and exercise his orher own judgment. I commend thosewho support this measure. I yield thefloor.

Mr. MCCAIN addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Arizona.Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, very

briefly, reluctantly, I must oppose theamendment before the Senate. I do sonot because I disagree with its intent.In fact, I strongly support what itseeks to do. But, as with all difficultchoices, a decision must be made. Inthis case, I must decide that passage ofoverall campaign finance reform mustbe the Senate’s first goal. The cospon-

sors of the modified bill recognizedthat something must be done about en-forcing the Beck decision.

S. 25, our original bill, was silent onthis point. We chose in the modifica-tion to take the important step to cod-ify Beck. This step was not takenlightly, and it should not be discountedby those who want more. The fightwith my friends on the other side ofthe aisle over this issue loomed largefor some time. To be frank, this wascertainly one of the most contentiousissues we faced. In fact, inclusion ofBeck language in the bill nearly frac-tured our bipartisan coalition. How-ever, in the end, all involved came tothe same conclusion that I have today.We must put the goal of overall cam-paign finance reform first. By this I donot mean to say that workers’ rightsissues are second to any other subject.They are extremely important and arelong overdue in being addressed, butnow is the time to debate campaign fi-nance reform. We can turn to othersubjects in due time.

Mr. President, in the modified bill,we seek to codify the landmark 1988Supreme Court Beck decision. Presi-dent Bush did this by Executive orderin 1992 to the applause of the right anda condemnation of the left and theunions. It was the right thing to dothen, and it is the right first step now.

Unfortunately, as we all know, elec-tions have consequences, and after win-ning the White House, President Clin-ton soon reversed course and repealedPresident Bush’s Executive order. Thisbill would effectively reverse the ac-tions of President Clinton. The billwould require that all labor unionsgive notice to nonunion individualswho are forced to pay agency fees an-nual notice of their Beck rights. Suchnotice would occur by mail and mustinform the worker how much money heor she could receive. Again, this notifi-cation must occur each and every year.

If an employee chooses to utilize hisor her rights, an employee would beable to notify the union of such actionby mail and have his or her fees re-duced accordingly. The Beck decisiondoes not affect labor’s contributions tocandidates from its PAC. The law al-ready restricts dues and fees frombeing used for any PAC activity. Thecodification of Beck contained in themodified bill is not inconsequential. Anestimated 3 million of 19 million indi-viduals working under labor contractsare in union or agency shops wherethey must pay union fees even thoughthey are not members. If nonunion em-ployees chose to invoke their rights,unions would have to return up to $2.4million a year.

On April 14, 1992, after PresidentBush issued his Executive order, theCleveland Plain Dealer reported:

‘‘Unions in truth have not been complyingwith Beck,’’ said Robert Duvin, a Clevelandlawyer who represents management on laborissues. ‘‘It’s a joke. I am not saying workersdon’t get their money back. Unions are notkeeping the kind of accounting they should.’’

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10116 September 29, 1997The language in the modified bill will

go far to stop this ‘‘joke.’’ It will makeclear that Beck is the law of the land,that it must be complied with, andthat the status quo is no longer accept-able.

As I noted, in 1992, when PresidentBush took this action, it was widelyapplauded by Republicans as a goodfirst step, and I admit it is exactlythat, a good first step, not comprehen-sive action. Just as the bill before theSenate is not all that I would want, it,too, is only a good first step. In bothcases we must not let perfect be theenemy of the good. I hope that we canquickly resolve this issue. Now is notthe time for a debate on labor policy.This amendment should be offered onother legislation. I would strongly sup-port debate on a freestanding bill. Per-haps all my colleagues could agree tomove to Senator NICKLES’ PaycheckProtection Act immediately after de-bate on campaign finance reform. Ichallenge my Democratic colleagues tocome to the floor and pledge to allowthe majority leader to bring the Nick-les’ Paycheck Protection Act to thefloor and to allow for full debate in theregular order. Just as we are debatingcampaign finance reform, we couldhave a healthy debate on labor law,and that is the best way to deal withthis issue.

Again, I urge my colleagues to workout a solution to this matter that doesnot jeopardize passage of campaign fi-nance reform. Both sides of the aislemust come to an agreement to dealwith this subject without engaging in afilibuster. A filibuster at this time willdoom campaign finance reform. Therewill be plenty of blame to go around ifsuch action occurs. I hope the publicwill understand that any prolonged de-bate at this time is designed solely tokill campaign finance reform. If wecan’t come to some agreement to bringthis matter up freestanding, then Ihope my colleagues will allow us tovote on the matter. Let the will of themajority of the Senate prevail. Thenwe can and must continue under theregular order and proceed with otheramendments. We should not let theprospects for passage of campaign fi-nance reform come crashing downbased on the first amendment offered.

Let me point out again, Mr. Presi-dent, I think we ought to go ahead andvote on this amendment, dispose of itand move forward. I hope that we cando that soon, since it is an issue that isfairly well known to most of my col-leagues.

Mr. President, on Friday, we began ahistoric debate on the issue of cam-paign finance reform. The Senate heardfrom many Members who feel very pas-sionately on this subject. The Washing-ton Post characterized the debate ashaving ‘‘rare passion and eloquence,’’and that goes on both sides of thisissue. I think it is a tribute to the na-ture of this body that such a debate isnow occurring. We must not allow thisopportunity to be lost. I urge the Sen-

ate to move forward with debate oncampaign finance reform and resolvethis unrelated labor debate as soon aspossible.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.Mr. MCCONNELL addressed the

Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Kentucky.Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, is

the Senator from Arizona going to stayin the Chamber? I would like to enterinto a colloquy with him if he is avail-able for that.

If I could, I would ask my friend fromArizona, last Friday when the debatebegan, the substitute which the Sen-ator from Arizona laid down today wasnot ready until today. Is the Senatorfrom Kentucky correct about that?

Mr. MCCAIN. Of course.Mr. MCCONNELL. And the letter

from the Brennan Center in New York,which the Senator from Arizona andthe Senator from Wisconsin received,was dated last Monday, September 22.So would the Senator from Kentuckybe correct in saying that the 126 sig-natories to that letter probably hadnot seen the substitute which the Sen-ator from Arizona laid down today?

Mr. MCCAIN. Of course, the Senatorfrom Kentucky knows that the core ofthe bill basically remains the same.What we did was, as I mentioned inboth my statement on Friday andagain this morning, we did away with anumber of the provisions in the billwhich would have guaranteed its fail-ure, not that we had in any way aban-doned the fundamental belief in thoseprovisions of the bill, but we were notgoing to let the perfect be the enemy ofthe good. We are in contact with theBrennan Center, and they will updatetheir views on this within a very shortperiod of time. So if the Senator fromKentucky has some concerns abouttheir being up to date with the latestchanges, let me calm his fears at thistime to tell him that we will be receiv-ing very soon another letter that ap-proves of the modified version.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Well, the originalletter to the Senator from Arizona,which I have read, talks about partysoft money and spending limits oncampaigns. The spending limits oncampaigns portion, I understand, is notin the revision that the Senator fromArizona has sent to the desk.

According to my reading of the let-ter, there is no mention of either inde-pendent expenditures or issue advocacyprovisions, which I assume are thesame in the substitute as were in theoriginal bill. Am I missing something,or is the Senator from Arizona——

Mr. MCCAIN. The Senator from Ken-tucky did miss something. I am sorryhe wasn’t able to attend our press con-ference that we held last week withBurt Neuborne, if you will look thefinal signature for Burt Neuborne,John Norton Pomeroy Professor ofLaw, legal director, Brennan Center forJustice, New York University School ofLaw. He was queried on exactly that

point and stated that he firmly be-lieved in its constitutionality and, as Isay, that letter will be updated verysoon to include that.

Mr. MCCONNELL. I would say to myfriend from Arizona I am reading fromthe letter of September 22. It says, ‘‘Wedo not all agree on the constitutional-ity of various provisions of the McCain-Feingold bill itself, nor are we endors-ing every aspect of the bill’s softmoney and voluntary spending limitsprovision.’’

Is the Senator from Arizona thensuggesting that all 126 signatories tothe letter endorse the independent ex-penditure and issue advocacy provi-sions of the modification?

Mr. MCCAIN. I am telling the Sen-ator from Kentucky that I am totallyconfident that all or the overwhelmingmajority of the 126 who signed this let-ter will also sign and approve of thechanges that we have made. Again,fundamentally because there have beenreductions in the bill instead of an ex-pansion of it.

Again, Mr. Neuborne, who was theone who was the progenitor of this en-tire letter and contacted all 126 people,expressed his confidence that thatwould also be the case.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senatorfrom Kentucky yield for a question?

Mr. MCCONNELL. Let me just saythere have been a whole series ofcases——

Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senatorfrom Kentucky yield for a question?

Mr. MCCONNELL. Not at this time.There have been a whole series of

cases on issue advocacy. It is not in agray area. In fact, the FEC’s enforce-ment actions and regulatory efforts tosuppress issue advocacy have beengoing on for a number of years.

They have been involved in a numberof cases. I am looking at a whole listhere, FEC versus AFSCME, in 1979;FEC versus CLITRIM, in 1980; FEC ver-sus Machinists, in 1981; FEC versusMassachusetts Citizens for Life, in 1986;FEC versus——

Mr. MCCAIN. May I ask the Senatorfrom Kentucky, is our colloquy over oris it going to continue?

Mr. MCCONNELL. I apologize to myfriend from Arizona. I am now makingsome observations about issue advo-cacy.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senatoryield for a question?

Mr. MCCONNELL. FEC versus Phil-lips Publishing, in 1981; FEC versus Na-tional Organization for Women; FECversus Survival Education Fund, in1995; FEC versus Christian Action Net-work, in 1996; FEC versus GOPAC, in1994; FEC versus Colorado RepublicanFederal Campaign Committee, in 1996.

Now, in all of those cases the FederalElection Commission was trying tosnuff out issue advocacy. It wasrebuffed in all of those cases and, inthe case of FEC versus the ChristianAction Network, in the fourth circuit,the court was so angry at the FEC forcontinuing to pursue these citizens

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10117September 29, 1997groups that it ordered the FEC to paythe legal fees of the citizen groupwhich had been harassed by the FEC.

Mr. President, there may be somethings that are in a gray area in thisdebate, but issue advocacy is not. Thecourt has been very, very clear, sinceBuckley, that it is impermissible forthe Congress to shut these people upwhen they seek to criticize us. An ef-fort to say that in proximity to theelection they can’t criticize us wouldbe an exercise in futility. I mean, thesecitizens have a right to band together.We don’t like it. I stipulate that I havebeen subjected, shall I say, to theseissue advocacy campaigns myself. Idon’t like it. I would rather not becriticized. But, as a practical matter,the courts are not going to allow us toshut these people up just because wefind what they say about us offensive.

The enforcement actions that I men-tioned are just the tip of the iceberg,since many enforcement actions neverprogress beyond the administrativelevels. But these administrative inves-tigations can be equally chilling onfree speech.

The FEC has attempted to buttressits position regulating issue advocacyby extensive regulatory proceedings re-sulting in the adoption of the followingregulations, which have been invali-dated by the courts.

The FEC has been on this mission toshut these people up for a long time. Sothey issued a variety of different regu-lations, 11 CFR 114.4(b)(5), which wasinvalidated in Faucher versus FEC, in1991; 11 CFR 114.1(e)(2), invalidated inChamber of Commerce versus FEC, in1995; 11 CFR 100.22, invalidated inMaine Right to Life Committee versusFEC in 1996; 11 CFR 114.10, invalidatedin Minnesota Citizens Concerned forLife versus FEC, in 1995; 11 CFR114.4(c)(4) and (5) invalidated in Cliftonversus Federal Election Commission,in 1996.

I don’t know who these constitu-tional scholars are. I am not preparedto argue with the Senator from Ari-zona or the Senator from Wisconsinthat they all went to law school. Butthis business of seeking to regulate theexpressions of citizens against our vot-ing records doesn’t have any chance atall of being upheld in the courts. Iwould hope the Senate would not wasteits time engaging in some ill-conceivedidea here to try to keep people fromcriticizing our records. It is a clear vio-lation of the first amendment.

So, it seems to this Senator that thatis something we ought not to be engag-ing in. As the Senator from Arizonapointed out, that provision of McCain-Feingold remains largely the same asit was in the original version.

I see my friend from Wisconsin is onhis feet and would like to engage in acolloquy. I had in mind asking him afew questions as well, so I will behappy to yield to him for a question.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, Ithank the Senator from Kentucky. Ijust want to go over a couple of points

relating to the Brennan Center for Jus-tice letter of September 22.

First of all, the Senator from Ken-tucky made a statement a few daysprior to the release of that letter onnational television. He said somethingto the effect as follows: RUSS does nothave one single constitutional scholarwho supports his position. So I can un-derstand the Senator from Kentuckybeing a little tender about a lettersigned by 126 constitutional scholarsthat says exactly what it says.

I would first like to ask the Senatorfrom Kentucky if he ever heard any ofus, either at the news conference orotherwise, purport that that letter in-cluded references to the issue of issueadvocacy versus express advocacy?

Mr. MCCONNELL. I did not. I want tocommend the Senator from Wisconsinfor bringing that up, because it provesprecisely my point, that the constitu-tional scholars are not certifying tothe constitutionality of the issue advo-cacy or independent expenditure provi-sions of the bill. I think the Senatorfrom Wisconsin has made an appro-priate correction.

Mr. FEINGOLD. That is right, Mr.President, because this is nothing but ared herring. The Senator from Ken-tucky does not like what the lettersays, so he is trying to pretend that weactually said it said something else,and then get me to say it did not saythat.

Let me ask the Senator from Ken-tucky whether he, in reviewing the let-ter, recognizes that there are two mainpoints to the letter, one is the view ofthese 126 scholars that a ban on softmoney is constitutional; and, second,that a system that would provide vol-untary incentives to candidates whoagree to some limits on their spendingwould also be constitutional?

Mr. MCCONNELL. I would say to myfriend from Wisconsin, that is preciselywhat I was saying. That is what theconstitutional scholars, in the letterreleased by the Senator from Arizonaand the Senator from Wisconsin, weretalking about. It’s their view of what acourt would likely rule in the case ofsoft money and in the spending limitsproposals, since dropped, that wouldapply to individual campaigns. Thatwas precisely the point the Senatorfrom Kentucky was trying to make,that the constitutional scholars arenot certifying that they believe thatprovisions of the bill related to issueadvocacy or independent expenditureare constitutional.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Of course the Sen-ator from Kentucky is correct. Thevery reason we would have asked forsuch a letter to be signed by 126 con-stitutional scholars is that for yearsthe Senator from Kentucky has saidthat it is unconstitutional to ban softmoney, even though the Senator fromKentucky proposed a bill in the 103dCongress that would ban soft moneyhimself. He has stood on the floor ofthe Senate repeatedly, year after year,and said that a system that would pro-

vide an incentive to a candidate tolimit his or her spending is unconstitu-tional because, in his words, ‘‘It wouldput a gun to the head of a candidate, ineffect forcing him or her to do so.’’

So watch the shifting constitutionalargument. First, the Senator fromKentucky focused his debate last yearagainst our bill on the PAC ban, whichis no longer in the bill. Then he focusedon the soft money ban. Then he focusedon the issue of whether or not vol-untary incentives could be given. Ineach case, the Senator from Kentuckyconcluded emphatically, on the floorand off the floor, that it is plainly un-constitutional. He does not have a legto stand on anymore; 126 constitu-tional scholars have said to him:Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

So now he is moving to another dis-cussion. Now he is going to put up an-other figleaf in front of this obvious at-tempt to keep the current system inthe form of a——

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, Iwould caution the Senator from Wis-consin that this is supposed to be acivil debate. I don’t know whether he isviolating rule XIX or not, but I havethe floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Kentucky has the floor.

Mr. MCCONNELL. I have yieldedtemporarily to the Senator from Wis-consin. I would like to have a debateabout this constitutional principle.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rec-ognize the comments of the Senatorfrom Kentucky. Let me just go back toa question, in fairness. The fact is thatthe provisions that we have placed inthe bill, the modified bill, with regardto the issue of candidate advocacy ver-sus issue advocacy are not identical——

Mr. MCCONNELL. Is the Senatorasking a question?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I am about to ask aquestion—are not identical to those inthe bill last year. In fact, I would askthe Senator from Kentucky if he isaware that the provisions we have justput in the modification are differentthan any that we have introduced be-fore?

Mr. MCCONNELL. I would say, Mr.President, that I am aware the bill hasbeen evolving. I am aware issue advo-cacy is different now, in the revisedbill, than it was originally.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senatorfrom Kentucky acknowledge that thenotion of a bright-line test with regardto issue advocacy is not the same assome of the other approaches?

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, re-gaining the floor, let me suggest to theSenator from Wisconsin that thebright-line test probably makes it evenmore unconstitutional. I think it is in-conceivable that the courts would saythat you can criticize a Member ofCongress anytime you want to, exceptright before an election.

Let me say with regard to this ongo-ing discussion of constitutional schol-ars that I don’t know how many of theconstitutional scholars in the letter

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10118 September 29, 1997presented by the Senator from Arizonaand the Senator from Wisconsin haveactually practiced these cases in court.I don’t know the answer to that. Itcould be that many of them have. Butthe American Civil Liberties Union,which was cocounsel to Senator Buck-ley in the 1996 case and has handled alot of this litigation over the years, be-lieves that the provisions of theMcCain-Feingold substitute with re-gard to issue advocacy is unconstitu-tional.

The American Civil Liberties Unionis America’s expert on the first amend-ment. It is true that the Senator fromWisconsin has diligently searched foryears and managed to come up withsome folks who will sign a letter say-ing this is constitutional. I said lastweek I could probably find 126 peoplewho say the Earth is flat. But, the ex-perts on the first amendment, theAmerican Civil Liberties Union, be-lieve that these provisions are not con-stitutional.

Let me just read from a letter earlierthis year, to me from the ACLU, re-garding independent expenditure provi-sions in McCain-Feingold at that time.

The new restrictions on independent ex-penditures improperly intrude upon thatcore area of electoral speech, andimpermissibly invade the absolutely pro-tected area of issue advocacy.

Mr. President, the ACLU went on:Two basic truths have emerged with crys-

tal clarity after 20 years of campaign financedecisions—[20 years]. First, independent ex-penditures for express electoral advocacy bycitizens groups about political candidates lieat the very core of the meaning and purposeof the first amendment. Second, issue advo-cacy by citizen groups lies totally outsidethe permissible area of Government regula-tion.

This bill assaults both principles.So, Mr. President, I am not disputing

for a moment that the Senators whoare the principal sponsors of this billhave found some folks who went to lawschool who were certifying that theybelieve this bill is constitutional. But Iam suggesting that the people who liti-gated in this area, the lawyers, the dis-tinguished lawyers who have litigatedin this area for the last 20 years, whowere involved in the original case, theBuckley case, that went to the Su-preme Court, believe that these provi-sions on independent expenditures andissue advocacy are fatally flawed.

I rest my case. I guess we can all sortof pick our own expert and decide whowe want to rely on, depending upon theoutcome that we want to achieve. ButI think most people would believe thatthe first amendment lawyers at theAmerican Civil Liberties Union know alittle bit about this area of litigation.

I want to take a few moments to posea few questions to my friend from Wis-consin, if I may.

(Mr. DEWINE assumed the chair.)Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if I

may, I have a couple of questions relat-ing to the letter itself I would like toask, and then I will be happy to yieldfor those questions, if I could, just with

regard to the comments the Senatorwas just making.

If the Senator will yield for a ques-tion, does the Senator realize that theperson who put the letter together, Mr.Burt Neuborne, New York UniversityLaw School, was the former executivedirector of the ACLU?

Mr. MCCONNELL. Right. Also Pro-fessor Neuborne believes that theBuckley case was a mistake. He hasbeen very candid about that. He be-lieves that Thurgood Marshall waswrong when he said spending is speech.So Professor Neuborne, I would say,has been very candid about his views.He has a view that is contrary to thestate of the law.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Doesn’t the ACLUalso take the position that the Buckleycase was wrong?

Mr. MCCONNELL. The ACLU didn’tlike every aspect of it. They didn’t likethe fact that the Court decided it waspermissible to put a limit on contribu-tions. The ACLU felt that even thecontribution limit, Mr. President, wasa violation of free speech. They didn’twin that one, but they won the rest ofthe case.

Thurgood Marshall said spending isspeech, and all nine Supreme CourtJustices said spending is speech. Iheard the Democratic leader out hereFriday talking about a 5-to-4 case. Itwasn’t a 5-to-4 case. It was 9 to 0 thatspending is speech. My friend from Wis-consin wanted to ask a question or ob-serve——

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, doesthe Senator from Kentucky considerLawrence W. Knowles, University ofLouisville School of Law, qualified todiscuss these issues?

Mr. MCCONNELL. I don’t knowLarry Knowles, but a professor of mineat the University of Kentucky LawSchool I noticed was a signatory toyour letter, I say to my friend fromWisconsin.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr.President.

Mr. MCCONNELL. One of my formerprofessors is a signatory of your letter.I think we haven’t persuaded him——

Mr. FEINGOLD. Can we safely as-sume the two signatories with a goodKentucky background know what theyare talking about?

Mr. MCCONNELL. I don’t know whatthey know about this kind of litigationand the first amendment, but I won’tdispute the fact that 126 people signedthis letter. I hope the Senator fromWisconsin won’t dispute that ProfessorNeuborne disagreed with the Buckleydecision, thinks it was wrong and for 24years has been trying to argue thatsomehow the Court ought to reconsiderthis and change its mind even whilethe Court has been going more andmore in the direction of permissible po-litical speech.

So, Mr. President, I still have thefloor, I believe, and if the Senator fromWisconsin is up for a few more ques-tions, I would like to ask him a few.

I gather that the Senator from Wis-consin said last Friday—I know the

Senator from Arizona did, too—thatthey hoped to offer an amendment torestore the individual spending limitson campaigns, if they were given suchan opportunity. Is that correct?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me respond tothat in a slightly different way. An-other point I wanted to clear up in re-sponse to that question, the Senatorfrom Kentucky is suggesting that thereare no spending limits in our base bill.That is incorrect. Our bill, the modi-fication that was just offered, does pro-vide that a candidate who wants to getthe coordinated party expenditure ben-efit from their party has to limit theirpersonal wealth contribution to nomore than $50,000.

So the fact is that provision, whichthese 126 constitutional scholars havesuggested is perfectly constitutional, isin our base bill. The Senator is, ofcourse, correct, that we do intend toadd—in fairness to his comment—we dointend to add an amendment thatwould go further, that would, in fact,bring back some of the other proposedvoluntary limits that would then becoupled with what we hope would be anincentive for reduced cost for tele-vision time. We hope to add that to thebill, but the concept is already in thebase bill.

Mr. MCCONNELL. I stand corrected,Mr. President. There is a partial spend-ing limit in the remaining bill. In anyevent, I am sure I haven’tmischaracterized the position of theSenator from Wisconsin. He likesspending limits. He thinks that toomuch money is being spent in Amer-ican campaigns; is that correct?

Mr. FEINGOLD. It is not correct thatI like mandatory spending limits, Mr.President. I believe that under theBuckley versus Valeo decision—whichthe Senator knows I accept because Ioppose a constitutional amendmentthat would require mandatory spendinglimits—I believe that under that deci-sion, it is permissible and appropriateto offer voluntary spending limits, andthat is the kind of spending limit thatI would support. I would not support aconstitutional amendment, for exam-ple, to require mandatory spendinglimits.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Well, Mr. Presi-dent, the original McCain-Feingold billseeks to, shall I say, entice people intolimiting their spending, and the Sen-ator has often said he thinks there istoo much money in politics and weshould be able to entice people intolimiting their spending. So I would justlike to ask the Senator how much istoo much? How much spending is toomuch?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, Idon’t believe it is my language thatthere is such a thing as too muchmoney. It is all in context, and thecontext is this: If somebody chooses, asthey may under their constitutionalright, to spend as much as they want,I believe we should establish a systemwhereby a person who is challengingthat person has a chance to at least gettheir message out.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10119September 29, 1997So I don’t have any theoretical limit

that I believe in. If Michael Huffingtonwants to spend $30 million in Califor-nia, that’s his right, but it is my beliefthat we ought to provide some kind ofincentive to those who would volun-tarily limit their spending so theycould have a fair chance to get theirmessage out.

I don’t accept the premise of the Sen-ator’s question, that I believe there issome sort of a magical number. What Iwant is some kind of fairness in thesystem, some kind of leveling the play-ing field so not just multimillionaireswould get to participate.

Mr. MCCONNELL. In the McCain-Feingold bill, there is a State-by-Stateformula for how much one would bepermitted to spend if he ‘‘voluntarily’’accepted the spending limit. Now, whatwould that add up to in the 1998 elec-tions? Do you have a calculator there,or does your staff have a calculator togive us a sense—

Mr. FEINGOLD. You are askingabout the total amounts for all theStates put together?

Mr. MCCONNELL. There is a formulain the McCain-Feingold bill, as I under-stand it, that specifies how muchspending would be allowed in variousStates. Do you know what that wouldadd up to in the 1998 election?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Of course, Mr. Presi-dent, that is an inaccurate statementof what the bill does. It does not pro-vide limits. It says only that if a per-son agrees to a stable or certain figure,depending on the size of the State, thatthose individuals would get the bene-fits provided by the bill. There is noautomatic limit. Anyone can go overthe limit if they want to, if they arewilling to forfeit the benefits.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, willthe Senator yield for an additionalquestion?

Mr. MCCONNELL. I yield to the Sen-ator from Utah for a question?

Mr. BENNETT. I recall in Friday’sdebate when the Senator from Arizonalaid down the three fundamental pur-poses of McCain-Feingold, and the sec-ond of those three was to lessen theamount of money in politics. So Ithink the question of the Senator fromKentucky is a legitimate one: Howmuch do the sponsors of McCain-Feingold want to lessen the amount ofmoney in politics?

According to the Senator from Ari-zona, that is one of the three fun-damental pillars of this, and I hope thetwo Senators will continue the col-loquy until we get an answer to thatquestion: How much do the sponsors ofMcCain-Feingold want to lessen theamount of money in politics?

Mr. MCCONNELL. I thank my friendfrom Utah. Let me just read the for-mula that is in the McCain-Feingoldbill. I say to my friend from Utah, thatmight be helpful in giving my col-league from Wisconsin an opportunityto answer the question, How much istoo much?

The formula, as I understand it, inthe original bill is $400,000 plus 30 cents

times voting age population less thanor equal to 4 million plus 25 centstimes the voting age population great-er than 4 million.

So in the case, I say to my friendsfrom Utah and Wisconsin—but there isone State that is different. In the caseof New Jersey, where they have onlyone VHF station, the formula is dif-ferent. It is 80 cents and 70 cents in-stead of 30 cents and 25 cents. More-over, the minimum general electionlimit is $950,000, maximum being$5,500,000. That is for any State, nomatter how big. And then the primaryis 67 percent of the general limit, andthe runoff limit is 20 percent of thegeneral.

I am a little confused here. I gatherthat means that you can spend moreper voter in New Jersey than you canin Utah; is that right?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Is the question beingposed to me?

Mr. MCCONNELL. Yes, it is your bill.I want to ask you about it.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I will be happy to re-spond to that question. First of all, ofcourse, this provision is not what is be-fore us at this point. Nevertheless, I dobelieve in the system of overall vol-untary spending limits, and the realdriving force behind that is a concernabout television costs. Any modifica-tions or changes in the formula thathad to do with a State-by-State dif-ference without a doubt had somethingto do with the question of what does itcost to run a television campaign in aU.S. Senate race.

I find it slightly amusing that theSenators question me about languagethat my colleague from Arizona usedabout limiting spending in campaigns,when the Senator from Kentucky, in S.7, 103d Congress, had a bill entitled ‘‘Toamend the Federal Election CampaignAct of 1971 to reduce special interestinfluence on elections, to increase com-petition in politics, to reduce campaigncosts, and for other purposes.’’

The point is, actually all three of usagree that you should not mandatorilylimit campaign spending.

Mr. MCCONNELL. But it is the hopeof the Senator from Wisconsin thatsomebody would accept these ‘‘vol-untary’’ spending limits.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Of course, it is myhope they would accept them, but onlyvoluntarily, so that not a single personin this country is forced to give uptheir free speech rights. That is not apart of our bill. The whole premise ofreducing the amount of money in poli-tics is not to deny anyone their rights,but, in appropriate cases, to encouragepeople to limit their spending so wecan have fair races, so we don’t have ascenario like the one that we have nowwhere a Senate race, on average, costs$4.5 million or $10 million or $15 mil-lion.

I would be curious if either the Sen-ator from Utah or the Senator fromKentucky believe there is any amountof money that is inappropriate interms of a U.S. Senate race?

Mr. MCCONNELL. If I may regain mytime, the answer is I don’t think theGovernment should be determininghow much speech there is in any Sen-ate race, I don’t care what the size ofthe State is.

I see my friend from Utah standingup again. Here is an explanation that Ithink will help the Senator from Wis-consin. Obviously, he hopes that peoplewill accept their spending limits andthe provision in their measure thatwould make it pretty hard not to, be-cause if you don’t accept the spendinglimits, you have to pay way more fortelevision than somebody who doesn’t.

It is my view the courts would strikethat down as unconstitutional becausethey are punishing you if you choose toexpress yourself too much. You getpunished because you have to pay morefor your broadcast time.

Clearly, the Senator from Wisconsinwants people to accept the spendinglimit, and I would argue the spendinglimit in the original McCain-Feingoldis not voluntary at all because theGovernment basically has a gun toyour head.

If you do not accept it, it costs you aheck of a lot of money. It gets back tothis formula we were just discussing.The measure’s spending limits arebased on a formula that takes eachState’s voting age population into ac-count. The basic general electionspending limit is $400,000, plus 30 per-cent per voter up to 4 million of thevoting age population and 25 percentper voter in excess of 4 million of thevoting age population.

I say to my friend from Utah, it ap-pears as if the voters in excess of 4 mil-lion do not get as much spent on themas the voters below 4 million. So pre-sumably you do not speak as much tothe people over 4 million as you do tothe people under 4 million. But thenthe general election spending limit canbe no lower than $950,000. So presum-ably if you are in a little State, it can-not go below $950,000 or more than $5.5million in any State. That presumablywould limit California to $5.5 million.Then the basic primary election spend-ing is two-thirds of the general electionspending limit, but not more than $2.75million in any State.

If I could read on just a minute be-fore taking the question of the Senatorfrom Utah.

The proposed legislation createssome incredible anomalies that havebeen omitted from the public debate.Incredible? How else to describe a law,when figured on a per-voter basis, thatwould allow a Senatorial candidate inWyoming to spend almost 11.5 timesthe amount that could be spent by acandidate in California?

With a 22.8 million voting age popu-lation, the biggest of any State, Cali-fornia, under the McCain-Feingoldscheme, gets the biggest spendinglimit. If figured on the same basis asother States, California spending wouldbe $10.5 million; but, in fact, it iscapped at $5.5 million. But California is

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10120 September 29, 1997the only State where maximum spend-ing limits, $5.5 million per general and$2.75 million for a primary electionwould be applied; thus, California’stotal campaign spending is $8.25 mil-lion for the general election, whichworks out, Mr. President, to about 24.1cents per voter.

Not too far away from California, inWyoming, the State with the least pop-ulation where there are only 344,000people of voting age, the spending limitwould be $503,200 if it were not for thelaws of minimum limit of $1.586 mil-lion, general election and primary elec-tion, $636,000. The general electionspending limit works out to $2.74 pervoter.

Mr. President, over in Californiaunder the spending limits regime in theMcCain-Feingold bill, which is not inthe substitute but will be offered as anamendment if given the opportunity, avoter in California is treated to 24.1cents in campaigns while Wyoming is$2.76 per voter.

Putting this in a different perspec-tive, the McCain-Feingold legislationallows senatorial candidates in Califor-nia to engage in first amendment pro-tective activity at a level of financialactivity that is barely one-tenth of theamount that a candidate could spend inWyoming. To achieve parity so thatthe voters in the two States receive thesame level of general election cam-paigning from their U.S. Senate can-didates would require California can-didates to spend an amount that is 11.5times greater than allowed in theMcCain-Feingold bill, a whooping $63.25million; or you could reduce theamount that could be spent in Wyo-ming to $82,600.

Now, why do I bother to mention thisMr. President? This is truly a RubeGoldberg scheme. ‘‘We are here fromthe Government to help you,’’ and wehave concocted this spending limit re-gime up here in the Government sothat the voters in these various Stateswill not be tainted by too much expres-sion being directed at them in thecourse of their campaigns. But as oftenis the case when the Federal Govern-ment tries to micromanage something,particularly something so difficult asmicromanaging political expression,you end up with a sort of absurd result.

Mr. President, the reason I talkabout these spending limits is thatthey are in the original McCain-Feingold bill. Senator MCCAIN, SenatorFEINGOLD do intend—if they have theopportunity—to offer that amendmentto give the Senate an opportunity to goon record as saying that California vot-ers only get 24.1 cents spent on themwhile Wyoming voters get $2.76. Thisscheme is something that they want usto sanction.

Mr. President, this is an extraor-dinarily difficult concept for people ofaverage intelligence to understand. Be-sides the constitutionality problem,they are also saying that in order tospeak more you have to pay more—andyou do not get the broadcast dis-

count—or if you decide to speak toomuch, you pay more for your speech. Itis just one of the many problems withthe spending limits regime with whichthe Senate has been confronted notjust in this debate, but at varioustimes over the last decade.

And I ask my friend from Utah, is avoter in Wyoming entitled to more of acampaign than a voter in California?

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, if Imay respond to my friend from Ken-tucky, I know a little bit about cam-paigns in Wyoming because a large por-tion of the Wyoming electorate isserved out of the television marketheadquartered in Salt Lake City, UT.As a consequence, voters in Utah weretreated to attack ads telling us howterrible Mr. ENZI was in the last cam-paign. We had no idea who he was. I didnot meet him until he was sworn inhere. But I had seen all of the attackads that were put on through the SaltLake City television stations attackingthe senatorial candidate in Wyoming.

By contrast, if I may, our friend fromDelaware, Senator BIDEN, has told usthat Delaware has no television outletsat all in the State. As a consequence, ifhe is going to run a television cam-paign in Delaware, he has to do all ofhis buying in Philadelphia, so that thevoters of Pennsylvania get to hear allof the glories and beauties of JOEBIDEN, none of whom can vote for himbecause he cannot buy television timein Delaware.

What the Senator from Kentucky hasdemonstrated is how incredibly dif-ficult it is to craft legislation that ap-proaches the ideal sought by the Sen-ators from Arizona and Wisconsin in amarket-by-market, State-by-State,election-by-election circumstance. It isvirtually impossible to do that. Weought to recognize that and defeat thewhole thing out of hand.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Would it not beappropriate to say, I say to my friendfrom Utah, that the Government hasno business doing that anyway?

Mr. BENNETT. Of course the Govern-ment has no business doing that. Thatis the point we made on Friday whenwe were having the debate. Even if wegrant the argument raised by the Sen-ator from Wisconsin and his 126 expertsthat it can be done in a way that isconstitutional, we recognize that itcannot be done in a way that makessense.

It is possible to craft a system thatmeets the narrow requirements of theConstitution in terms of protectingfree speech, but it is not possible to doone in a way that makes any logicalsense at all.

I had risen to ask my colleague thisquestion about the example we havebefore us. We are being told this is con-stitutional because it is voluntary. AndI suppose that is the reason these 126scholars have signed the letter. As longas you agree in advance to give up yourconstitutional rights, then the Con-stitution will not defend you.

The Senator from Kentucky has saidit isn’t really voluntary. There is a

huge incentive which the Senator fromKentucky describes as a gun pointed atyour head to see to it that you are vol-untary. So it is not voluntary. This isthe question I had in mind.

We have an example before us of peo-ple giving up their constitutionalrights in return for Federal dollars.There are some who are so unkind tocall that a bribe. But in the Presi-dential system now, virtually everycandidate for President accepts thebribe; that is, he or she accepts theFederal dollars in return for agreeingto limit their speech. The Senator fromWisconsin says, no, every Americanhas a constitutional right not to acceptthat money and to go ahead on theirown.

Isn’t it true that the only two can-didates who have been able to run forPresident without accepting the Fed-eral money and mount anything ap-proaching a worthwhile campaign areRoss Perot and Steve Forbes, both ofwhom approach billionaire status? Isthat a correct summary of what thePresidential system that is constitu-tional has brought us to?

Mr. MCCONNELL. The Senator fromUtah is entirely correct. Even peoplelike Ronald Reagan, who opposed theFederal Election Campaign Act of 1974,always checked no on his tax return asa protest against using tax dollars forthe Presidential campaign. He had nochoice because the contribution limiton candidates for President was only$1,000. You simply could not raiseenough to compete for President unlessyou accepted the bribe that the Gov-ernment offered you to give you somuch money to limit your speech.There was simply no choice. And thatkind of choice, it seems to me, is simi-lar to what we have here and is reallyquite unfortunate for candidates be-cause it restricts their options.

If I may just for a moment go back tothe spending limit analogy while myfriend from Utah is still up, another ex-ample would be to compare New Jerseyto New York, two States right next toeach other. In New Jersey they are ableto spend more money on a candidatethan in New York, even though NewYork has more than twice as many vot-ing age residents as New Jersey. TwoStates right next to each other, peoplecommuting back and forth to work allthe time, and yet somebody in the Gov-ernment determines that the voters ofNew Jersey are entitled to more com-munication than the voters in NewYork under the formula in the originalMcCain-Feingold bill.

Does that strike the Senator fromUtah as really very difficult to under-stand?

Mr. BENNETT. As I said at the out-set, it demonstrates just how ridicu-lous it is for the Federal Governmentto get into the business of determiningwho can spend what and for how muchin a constitutional way. You end up socontorted and distorted in your at-tempt to get around the obvious con-stitutional ban on this kind of non-sense that you create a circumstance

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10121September 29, 1997that virtually no one can defend onpractical grounds: More money goingfor a candidate in New Jersey than fora candidate in New York, differentrules applying to a candidate in Dela-ware than apply to a candidate in Wyo-ming.

All of this is voluntary, but it be-comes voluntary because there is ahuge bribe out there waiting for you ifyou agree to give up your constitu-tional rights. I think it is absurd.

I was delighted over the weekend toread the comments of George Will, whosaid that this debate is one of the mostfundamental we have had since thefounding of the Republic. I had notthought to put McCain-Feingold in thesame fashion that George Will does,but he describes it as similar to thespeech codes adopted in many of ourcampuses, the excesses of the 1950’s inthe days of Joseph McCarthy, the 1920’sspeech activity, the Alien and SeditionActs, but he says all of those are lesssignificant in their threat to a fun-damental liberty than this one becausethey came and went in the frenzy ofthe day. This one would leave behind ahuge Federal bureaucracy aimed atproducing exactly the kind of resultsthe Senator from Kentucky is talkingabout, laying out that this candidatein this State can spend this much, andas soon as he steps across the Stateline, if he decided to run in anotherState, then the rules would change, thelimits would change, the circumstanceswould change.

That kind of Federal bureaucracy in-truding itself into the campaign even ifit were through some tortuous methodof gaining consent on the part of thoseinvolved, constitutionally it remainsclearly violative of the spirit of thefirst amendment, if not the specific let-ter. I believe the courts would strike itdown.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, Isee the Senator from Virginia is on hisfeet. I just want to make one wrapupobservation about what the Senatorfrom Utah was just talking about.

The George Will column to which hereferred was in the Washington Postyesterday. And just to pick out someexcerpts, Mr. Will said, ‘‘Nothing inAmerican history * * * matches themenace to the First Amendment posedby campaign ‘reforms’ * * *’’

Further, Mr. Will said, ‘‘Thus is theFirst Amendment nibbled away, likean artichoke devoured leaf by leaf,’’which is what the Senator from Utahwas talking about.

And toward the end of the article hecalled this ‘‘the most important [de-bate] in American history’’ becausereally what we are talking about hereis core political discussion in thiscountry, as the Senator from Utah haspointed out.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that George Will’s column, theheadline of which says ‘‘Here Come theSpeech Police,’’ be printed in theRECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 28, 1997]HERE COME THE SPEECH POLICE

(By George F. Will)Almost nothing that preoccupies Washing-

ton is as important as Washington thinks al-most all its preoccupations are. But nowCongress is considering some version of theMcCain-Feingold bill, which raises ‘‘regime-level’’ questions. It would continue thechange for the worse of American govern-ance. And Washington’s political class hopesthe bill’s real importance will be underesti-mated.

With a moralism disproportionate to themerits of their cause, members of thatclass—including the exhorting, collaborativemedia—are mounting an unprecedentedlysweeping attack on freedom of expression.Nothing in American history—not the left’srecent campus ‘‘speech codes,’’ not theright’s depredations during 1950s McCarthy-ism or the 1920s ‘‘red scare,’’ not the Alienand Sedition Acts of the 1790s—matches themenance to the First Amendment posed bycampaign ‘‘reforms’’ advancing under theprotective coloration of political hygiene.

Such earlier fevers were evanescent, leav-ing no institutional embodiments when par-ticular passions abated. And they targetedspeech of particular political content. Whattoday’s campaign reformers desire is a stead-ily thickening clot of laws and an enforcingbureaucracy to control both the quantityand the content of all discourse pertinent topolitics. By the logic of their aims, reformerscannot stop short of that. This is so, regard-less of the supposed modesty of the measureCongress is debating.

Reformers first empowered government toregulate ‘‘hard’’ money—that given to par-ticular candidates. But there remains the‘‘problem’’ of ‘‘soft’’ money—that given toparties for general political organizing andadvocacy. Reformers call this a ‘‘loophole.’’Reformers use that word to stigmatize anysilence of the law that allows unregulatedpolitical expression. So now reformers wantto ban ‘‘soft’’ money. But the political classwill not stop there.

Its patience is sorely tried by the insuffer-able public, which persists in exercising itsFirst Amendment right of association to or-ganize in groups as different as the SierraClub and the National Rifle Association. Onereason people so organize is to collectivelyexercise their First Amendment right of freespeech pertinent to politics. Therefore re-formers want to arm the speech police withadditional powers to ration the permissibleamount of ‘‘express advocacy,’’ meaningspeech by independent groups that advocatesthe election or defeat of an identifiable can-didate.

But the political class will not stop there.Consider mere issue advocacy—say, a tele-vision commercial endorsing abortion rights,mentioning no candidate and not mentioningvoting but broadcast in the context of a cam-paign in which two candidates differ aboutabortion rights. Such communications caninfluence the thinking of voters. Can’t havethat, other than on a short leash held by thegovernment’s speech police. So restriction ofhard money begets restriction of soft, whichbegets regulation of issue advocacy—effec-tively, of all civic discourse.

The political class is not sliding reluc-tantly down a slippery slope, it is eagerlyskiiing down it, extending its regulation ofpolitical speech in order to make its life lessstressful and more secure. Thus is the FirstAmendment nibbled away, like an artichokedevoured leaf by leaf.

This is an example of what has been called‘‘the Latin Americanization’’ of Americanlaw—the proliferation of increasingly rococolaws in attempts to enforce fundamentallyflawed laws. Reformers produce such lawsfrom the bleak, paternalistic premise thatunfettered participation in politics by meansof financial support of political speech is a‘‘problem’’ that must be ‘‘solved.’’

One reason the media are complacentabout such restrictions on (others’) politicalspeech is that restrictions enhance the powerof the media as the filters of political speech,and as unregulated participants in a shrunk-en national conversation. Has the newspaperin which this column is appearing ever edito-rialized to the effect that restrictions on po-litical money—restrictions on the ability tobuy broadcast time and print space andother things the Supreme Court calls ‘‘theindispensable conditions for meaningfulcommunications’’—do not restrict speech? Ifthis newspaper ever does, ask the editors ifthey would accept revising the First Amend-ment to read:

‘‘Congress shall make no law abridging thefreedom of the press, but Congress can re-strict the amount a newspaper may spend oneditorial writers, reporters and newsprint.’’

As Sen. Mitch McConnell, the KentuckyRepublican, and others filibuster to blockenlargement of the federal speech-rationingmachinery, theirs is arguably the most im-portant filibuster in American history. Itsimportance will be attested by the obloquiesthey will receive from the herd of independ-ent minds eager to empower the politicalclass to extend controls over speech about it-self.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, Iyield for a question to the Senatorfrom Virginia.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I won-der at this point in time if I just mightmake some follow-on comments to myearlier observation. Would the Senatorbe agreeable?

Mr. MCCONNELL. I will.Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, earlier

I talked in support, the strongest sup-port, of the distinguished majorityleader’s amendment. Mr. President, Irise today to address the issue of cam-paign finance reform. As chairman ofthe Committee on Rules and Adminis-tration, I have spent a great deal oftime with these issues over the past 2years. I appreciate the effort by themajority leader to bring campaign fi-nance reform to the floor for debate,and I welcome the opportunity to joinin this important debate.

The Rules Committee has held 10hearings in 1996 and 1997 concerningcampaign finance reform issues. Manyof these hearings dealt with the spe-cific issues contained in the legislationcommonly known as McCain-Feingold,such as soft money, free televisiontime, regulation of issue advocacy, andspending caps. The committee hascompiled a detailed record on these is-sues for the Senate. During these hear-ings, we have heard from many notedexperts in this field, including many ofthe same witnesses who appeared be-fore the Committee on GovernmentalAffairs last week.

My view of how the campaign financedebate will evolve is as follows. Demo-crats argue that the Republicans mustrely even more on contributions from

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10122 September 29, 1997individuals—hard money—and less onlarge soft money contributions. Repub-licans argue that the Democrats, whohave relied heavily on the involuntaryconfiscation of the dues of union mem-bers, must agree that union membersmust give their advance, written con-sent before a part of their paycheckshould go to partisan political activi-ties.

I received a letter from PresidentClinton last Tuesday in support ofMcCain-Feingold. He added that ‘‘anyattempts to attach amendments thatwould make it unpalatable to oneparty or another are nothing less thanattempts to defeat campaign financereform.’’ I understand that latest ver-sion of McCain-Feingold does not in-clude a requirement that union mem-bers give prior, written consent beforetheir dues could be used for partisanpurposes. This Senator will support anamendment to add this requirement,and I say that if the Democrats decideto filibuster campaign finance legisla-tion because it includes this provision,then it is they who are blocking truebipartisan reform, not the Republicans.

In the Rules Committee we have helda series of hearings on these issues thatare being discussed here today. I wantto focus on one particular hearingwhere we allowed both sides to come inand discuss compulsory deduction byunions. And we held this hearing. Wehad as a witness David Stewart, amember of the Transport WorkersUnion of America, local 514, located inTulsa, OK.

I remember him very well. He wasproudly in the hearing room in hisbasic working uniform. He testified,and I have extracted some of that testi-mony to read in this debate today, thisvery important debate. This is whatthis American worker said:

* * * I really do not agree with some of theAgendas and the Candidates that the unionendorses. Yet, we are all required to fundthese agendas and campaigns just by virtueof our membership in the Union.

This is a union man, Mr. President.As I searched for relief from this unjust re-

quirement, I found out about the ‘‘Beck Su-preme Court Decision,’’ which in effect givesa Union Member the right to a refund of theNon-Bargaining expenditures of the Union.The problem is, I must relinquish my UnionMembership and the rights associated withthat Membership to seek this refund. It isabsurd to require me to fund the ContractBargaining, Contract Enforcement and Ad-ministration of the Local, yet require me toforfeit my rights to a voice in these affairs,only because I oppose the Political Expendi-tures of the Union. I am not opposed to myrequirement to belong to the Union. I stillattend the Union meetings and enjoy havinga voice in the affairs of the Union and my ca-reer, I am not willing to give up this activityto receive the refund afforded me by the‘‘Beck Decision.’’

We also heard from Cindy Omlin, aformer teacher from Washington State.She described the schemes by whichher union illegally used her dues—thatmandatory deduction—for politicalcontribution. The unions got caught,but nonetheless they upped the amount

of dues teachers were required to con-tribute for partisan activities. Ourcommittee listened to these workersand they came forward at some risk tothemselves to give this important tes-timony.

At the appropriate time I hope to askthe sponsors of this legislation whetheror not they have taken it upon them-selves to go out and talk to the work-ers and find out exactly how they feelabout this onerous requirement ofmandatory deduction. I will await theopportunity to talk to one or more ofthe sponsors or both on this point whenthey have that availability.

Now I have read that the new versionof McCain-Feingold may include a pro-vision to enforce the Beck decision andrequire posting of notices that employ-ees can receive refunds. This idea, al-though certainly better than the statusquo, is not nearly good enough.

Effective enforcement of Beck is dif-ficult at best. The posting of a smallsign or a small note in a union maga-zine will not do. Many employees willnever learn of their Beck rights, andunions will no doubt continue to set upsubstantial obstacles to exercisingthese rights. In our hearing, we heardhow unions make the window for ob-jecting very brief and it changes everyyear, with the notice often buried deepwithin lengthy union magazines.

Moreover, single employees are verypoorly equipped to challenge account-ings provided by union officials as tothe breakdown of chargeable and non-chargeable activities. Also, an em-ployee wishing to appeal this deter-mination would need to hire his or herown attorneys and accountants for anarbitration run under rules establishedby the union. The financial disclosureforms filed by unions with the LaborDepartment, the LM–2, are notoriouslyuseless in actually assisting employeesto determine what percentage of theirdues go to political activities.

All of these procedural hurdles are inaddition to the stigmatization of objec-tors, officially called agency-fee pay-ers. Often lists of objectors are pub-lished in union literature and cases ofthreatened violence are common.

I believe the only solution, and onethat is not contained in the McCain-Feingold legislation, is to requireprior, written consent before dues areconfiscated. I am a cosponsor of Sen-ator NICKLES’ bill, the Paycheck Pro-tection Act, which would rectify thisegregious situation. Without this pro-vision, we will not have fair campaignfinance reform.

Mr. MCCONNELL. I want to thankthe Senator from Virginia not only forthe remarks he has made today but theway he has listened to all of those whohave come forward at the Rules Com-mittee over the period of his chairman-ship. He and I, many times, were theonly two there. He has been wonderfulin giving an opportunity to a numberof groups who, frankly, have had a dif-ficult time giving testimony in thepast, who typically have not been lis-

tened to. I think he has made a majorcontribution in providing some balanceto this important constitutional de-bate.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thankmy distinguished colleague. Indeed, wehave not fully agreed on all provisionsthat are options throughout this wholerealm of campaign finance, but fun-damentally we certainly agree on thequestion of the mandatory deduction.

We went to the difficulty of findingwitnesses and brought them to thehearing room and listened to their tes-timony.

It is ever so clear to this Senator,and I am sure the other members of thecommittee, that throughout Americathe workers want to be recognized fortheir ability to think for themselvesand their ability to make decisions forthemselves. This whole idea of manda-tory deduction is against free will—Ithink, indeed, against the very essenceof what freedom is all about.

I commend my distinguished col-league from Kentucky. Let us fight onin the cause of freedom.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, Iam happy to yield the floor. I see theSenator from Illinois is here desiringto speak.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague,the Senator from Kentucky for yield-ing. I only have a short period of timehere, I say for the information of mycolleague from Maine, and I appreciatethis chance to rise and speak on thisissue.

It has been said in debate that thecolumnist, George Will, has pro-nounced this as the most important de-bate in American history. I didn’t wantto miss it and that is why I came to thefloor today. I will not question Mr. Willbecause he was reared and his earlyeducation took place in the State of Il-linois, and somewhere or another hegot off the course shortly afterwards,but at least we attribute his earlytraining to Illinois’ educational stand-ards.

Is this the most important debate inAmerican history? It may be, becausewhat is at stake in this debate is notthe amount of money that is beingspent in a campaign, it is really notabout the conduct of campaigns, itreally doesn’t have much to do with po-litical action committees or laborunions or corporations or associations.What is at stake in this debate is thefuture of this democracy.

If that sounds hyperbolic, let me tellyou why I say it. I am honestly, genu-inely, personally concerned as a Mem-ber of this great institution, about thefact that the American people are los-ing interest in their Government. Theclearest indication of that loss of inter-est is their participation in elections.

Now, why is it at this moment intime when the United States of Amer-ica is obviously one of the most attrac-tive places in the world to live, wherewe have to almost construct a fenceand a wall around our borders to keeppeople from other nations from coming

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10123September 29, 1997to the United States, why is it that ata time when our economy is booming,at a time when we are so proud of whatwe have achieved not only in this Na-tion but around the world, that thepeople we serve, the American voters,have decided they are not interested?And they have demonstrated that, un-fortunately, in that quadrennial forumwhere we asked people to come forwardand name the leader of this Nation.

Let me show you what I am talkingabout. I think it is interesting in thisdebate about campaigns and moneyand voters to take a look at what hashappened in the United States of Amer-ica in the last 36 years. This bar graphshows the amount of money that hasbeen spent on campaigns at all levels,Federal through local. If you look itwas a rather meager sum, $175 million,in the earliest years, and then sky-rocketed up to $4 billion here in 1996.

So to entice people to vote, to inter-est them in candidates and interestthem in campaigns, we have raisedmoney in record sums and spent it ontelevision, radio, direct mail, bumperstickers, emery boards, pocket combsand everything we can dream of, to sayto the voters, ‘‘Look at me. Get inter-ested. I’m running. I need your vote.’’Is it working? As we plow more moneyinto this system, is it working? Well,the sad truth is, it is not.

Look at this percentage of those whovote in Presidential elections: Startingin 1960, 63.1 percent of the Americanpeople said the Kennedy–Nixon elec-tion is one that we consider criticallyimportant, our family is going to vote.Look what happened in this last elec-tion in November: 49.1 percent of theAmerican people turned out to vote.We spent record numbers, dramaticallyincreasing the amount of money on po-litical campaigns, and the voters votedwith their feet and stayed home. Isn’tit curious that the more money weplow into our campaign system thefewer voters turn out?

Now let me just suggest something.If you happen to own a company sellinga widget and say to your marketing de-partment, ‘‘We are going to double ouradvertising. Next quarter we want tosee what happens to sales,’’ and yougave them twice as much money for ad-vertising your widget, and they cameback after the quarter was finished andsaid, ‘‘We have the report.’’ You said,‘‘What is it?’’ ‘‘Advertising went up 100percent.’’ ‘‘How about sales?’’ ‘‘Saleswent down.’’ What? Advertising wentup and sales went down? Well, youcould draw some conclusions. Therewas something wrong with the adver-tising or there may have been some-thing wrong with the product. That iswhat this debate is about.

There is not only something wrongwith the advertising, it has become sonegative, so nasty, so dirty, that peo-ple are disgusted with it. There issomething wrong with the products.Candidates for the House and Senateare losing their reputation or seeingtheir integrity maligned because we

spend so much time grubbing formoney. People believe that we are cap-tives of special interest groups. And be-cause they are sick of the style of cam-paign and because they have little orno confidence in those of us who wagethe campaigns, they stay home.

The turnout for the Presidential elec-tion last November was the lowest per-centage turnout in America for a Presi-dential election in 72 years. Now if JayLeno and David Letterman pronouncedthis election over in July, as they prob-ably did, I don’t think that explains it.I think there was something else atwork here. The American voters are atbest indifferent, and at worst, down-right cynical about the system we useto elect people in the United States.

Let me also show you something thatmakes the case even more. I guesssome people would argue, well, back in1960 there must have been a higher per-centage of people who were registeredto vote. Well, that was not the case.Our figures start on this chart in 1964,and there were 64.6 percent of Ameri-cans were registered to vote; if you re-member, 63.1 percent of those turnedout to vote.

Now, we have increased the franchiseby making it easier to register to vote.You can register when you go to get anew license for your car or driver’s li-cense renewal, that sort of thing. So,more and more Americans are gettingregistered to vote. There is more par-ticipation. I think that is a healthything. I backed motor-voter. We arenow up to 74.4 percent of eligible votersregistered in America in the 1996 elec-tion. You can be proud of that.

People have said, ‘‘Yes, I will signthe form. I’m willing to go out and putmy name on the voter rolls’’ knowingthey may be called for jury duty orsomething else. They did it anyway.Then look what happened. Despite thisdramatic increase in the people whoare registering to vote, remember No-vember 1996? Fewer than 50 percent ofthe American people then exercisedtheir right to vote.

I think that is a telling commentaryon this debate. If you listen to the ar-guments of my colleague from Ken-tucky, Senator MCCONNELL, and Sen-ator BENNETT from Utah, who was onthe floor the other day, and SpeakerNEWT GINGRICH and others, they haveanalyzed the situation and said, clear-ly, the major problem with the Amer-ican political system is, in their words,‘‘We’re just not spending enoughmoney. We have to put more money inthese campaigns. We have to get on tel-evision more and radio more, and mailmore things to the American people.Then they will know we are out here.’’

Well, they know we are out here.They just aren’t buying what we areselling. They are staying home. Thosewho argue that the best way to reformthe system is to plow more money intothe system have missed the point com-pletely. Nine out of ten Americans—90percent of them—believe that we spendtoo much in political campaigns, nottoo little.

Isn’t it an oddity that we are at thispoint in our history where we are actu-ally engaging in an argument as towhether or not a person’s wealthshould determine their ability to par-ticipate in a democracy? This is not anew debate. We have been through thisone before. In the 19th century, the de-bate was cast in a different tone. If youwanted to vote, would you have to be aproperty owner? That is an evidence ofwealth and stability, and some of ourFounding Fathers said, well, that is agood indicator, and we should not letpeople vote unless they own property,and the States can determine thequalifications of electors. Let them putthat in as a qualification.

We rejected that over 100 years agoand said that isn’t what America is allabout. Your participation with a voteshould not have anything to do withwhether you are wealthy or poor. Ifyou are an American citizen, you areentitled to vote. Since the early part ofthis century, whether you are a man, awoman, black, white, or brown, what-ever your ethnic heritage, whether youare poor as a church mouse or as richas Donald Trump, you get the same onevote when you come to the polls.

Listen to this debate today. The de-bate today says, let’s change this sys-tem and say that if you are wealthy inAmerica—let’s say you are a middle-aged, crazy millionaire who decided hewants to be in the House or Senate ora Governor, then you go out and spendyour money, exercise your constitu-tional right, show your freedom ofspeech to go forward and ask for votes.If you happen to have more moneythan the next guy, your likelihood ofwinning is that much better. What Ijust said is not breakthrough; this isestablished fact. Candidates with moremoney and political campaigns usuallywin. That is a fact of life.

So my Republican friends who say,‘‘All this system needs is moremoney,’’ are basically saying, ‘‘If wecan just get wealthier people interestedin running for office or people who aredrawing money in from wealthy inter-ests, special interests, that is good forAmerica, that is endorsement of ourBill of Rights, and that speaks well ofour freedom of speech.’’

I don’t buy that. I don’t think theAmerican people buy that.

As amendments are produced on thefloor during the course of this debatewhich try to enshrine wealth as thekeystone for American citizenship, Iwill oppose them. I hope Members onboth sides will join me. It is a sad stateof affairs in America if we havereached the point where, in fact, a per-son’s wealth is a determinant as towhether they can be a successful can-didate or be directly involved in ourpolitical process. That is what this de-bate is all about. That is why it couldbe historic in nature.

Let me address one particular exam-ple used in the debate Friday about agood friend of mine who passed away alittle over a year ago. His name was

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10124 September 29, 1997Mike Synar. Mike was a Congressmanfrom Oklahoma. He was proud to char-acterize himself as an ‘‘Okie fromMuskogee.’’ You have never met a po-litical renegade like Mike Synar. Iloved him. I loved his politics. He usedto drive people crazy. He would vote onissues and know that, if he went home,people would be angry with him. Hewould get involved in issues that madeeverybody squirm and uneasy in theirseats. That is just the way he was. Healso decided to stack the deck againsthimself because he announced when hecame to the House of Representatives,representing Muskogee, he wasn’tgoing to take PAC money. Mike said,‘‘I am going to take money from indi-viduals, and I will rise or fall based onmy friends supporting me, and so beit.’’ He managed to survive for a num-ber of years.

Then came 1994. All of the special in-terest groups that had been opposinghim in the Halls of Congress decided toteam up against him back home. In1992, they had spent $750,000 to defeatMike Synar. Who were these people?The National Rifle Association, the to-bacco lobby, the western grazing inter-ests. They came in, and did they debateMike Synar on gun control in his dis-trict? No. Did they debate him on to-bacco regulation? No. Did they debatehim on whether or not we are too gen-erous in the subsidies to western graz-ing? No. They came in and literallyplowed hundreds of thousands of dol-lars into the campaign against himwith negative ads on a variety of othersubjects—and it was perfectly legal.Mike escaped it in 1992, but not in 1994.

The illustration on the floor made byone of my colleagues last Friday thatsomehow or other ‘‘Mike Synar, with$325,000, could not defeat an opponentwho only had $10,000 and, therefore,money is not the determinate in anelection,’’ really overlooked the obvi-ous. Mike Synar’s money alone wasn’tat risk. It was the money of a lot ofspecial interest groups. He was de-feated. He worked very hard for cam-paign finance reform and a lot of otherissues that I have the highest respectfor.

Let me just also say that I haveheard a lot of argument from my col-leagues on the Republican side thatthis debate is really about laborunions, and we have to get our hand onthe fact that labor unions in the lastelection were so vocal and involved andspent so much money. Some estimate$35 million. That is an interestingpremise for this debate because, if youlook at the totals that were spent bylabor and business, the business com-munity dramatically outspent labor or-ganizations in that campaign. Yet,many of the amendments which we willbe considering have nothing to do withthe business community being re-stricted, only labor unions.

I think some of my colleagues shouldtake care to watch out for what ischaracterized as poison pills, or thoseamendments that will be put in the bill

in the hope of killing the bill. It is anold legislative ploy. Take an amend-ment adopted on the floor, which youare certain could never be part of thefinal legislation, show your heartfeltconcern about campaign finance re-form, knowing in your heart of heartsthat it will go nowhere with a poisonpill amendment. We are going to see alot of these, I am afraid, during thecourse of this debate.

Let me address an issue that I thinkis critically important—televisiontime. In the McCain-Feingold, as origi-nally introduced, which I and 44 otherDemocratic Senators endorsed, whichthree of my Republican colleagueshave joined in endorsing, including mycolleague, the Senator from Maine,Senator COLLINS. I think the numbermay be up to four now, we have, in thatoriginal bill, provisions that would sayto a candidate that we know what iscosting money in campaigns. We knowwhere you are putting your money.

When I ran for the Senate in Illinoisand raised literally millions of dollarssitting on a telephone day after daycalling strangers and begging them tocontribute, the money that was comingin was going right out the front doorfor television. That is where I spent mymoney. Most major State candidatesdo the same. My colleague, BobTORRICELLI of New Jersey, spent 84 per-cent of all the money he raised on tele-vision. Think about that. Try to buy a30-second TV ad in New York City thatcosts $100,000, and you will understandvery quickly how that could happen. InIllinois, over 80 percent of our moneywent into raising money and spendingit on television.

I think it is a good illustration thatif we don’t address the reason cam-paigns are so expensive, we are notgoing to see any real reform. Now, thepeople who represent the television in-dustry say you can’t do that; you can’ttake away time that this station cansell to a private advertiser and give toit a political candidate. But they for-got something very basic. The peoplewho own television stations and makea very handsome profit do it becausethey are using our airwaves—not theSenate’s airwaves; the American peo-ple’s airwaves. We own these airwaves.We license these companies, at nocharge, to use our airwaves and make aprofit. It is not unreasonable for us asa people to go back to these televisionstations and say we want to take aslight and tiny percentage of those air-waves and dedicate them to cleaningup the American election process, tomake sure that the time is availablefor incumbents and challengers alikeon a reduced level—or even free insome circumstances—so the voters canhear legitimate messages and we willclean up the message in the process. Itwon’t be the drive-by shooting ads yousee in campaigns. It will be inform-ative. People will know where DURBINstands on Social Security and wherehis opponent stands on Social Security.Things like that. That is not unreason-

able. For the stations to say, ‘‘don’teven touch it; we own the airwaves, notthe American people,’’ I think theyneed a reminder as to how this gotstarted. They are licensed by this Gov-ernment, representing the Americanpeople, to make their profits. Now theargument that we are going to takeaway reduced costs of TV time is trou-bling to me. If you don’t reduce thecost of television, you will in fact con-tinue to have political campaign costsskyrocketing. You will have men andwomen running for election and re-election to seats, spending the major-ity of their time raising money to payfor television.

So I think the original McCain-Feingold provision is absolutely essen-tial. I think we should continue on notonly to eliminate soft money, not onlyto reduce the cost of television, butalso to go after issue ads that are actu-ally candidate ads. Political candidatesand those who work around us watchtelevision more closely than anybody,because we search that screen during acampaign cycle to find the tiniest ofprint on the bottom of the TV commer-cials, which identifies who paid for it.

On the Saturday night before theelection last November, bone weary, Ipulled into my apartment in Chicago,and I was going to relax a little bit. Itwas in the closing days of the cam-paign. So I slumped down in a chair,grabbed the remote control to listen toSaturday Night Live. Somewhere be-tween the news and Saturday NightLive, up pops four television commer-cials, one after the other, and everyone of them blasting me. What a treatthat was to sit in the chair and getpummeled by four different commer-cials.

The most unique thing was that nota single one was paid for by my oppo-nent, the Republican Party in Illinois,or the National Republican Party.They were paid for by committees andorganizations that most people neverheard of. These are organizationswhich mushroom up during campaigns,take some high-sounding name, collectmillions of dollars, undisclosed and un-reported, and run ads, the most nega-tive ads on television, against politi-cians. That is an outrage. It is an out-rage that I have to account for everydollar I raise and spend and I have toidentify the television commercialsthat I put on, either comparing myrecord with my opponent or speakingabout something I believe in, and thesegroups can literally run roughshodover the system, spending millions ofdollars without any accountability.

McCain-Feingold addresses that.Thank God it does. If we don’t put anend to this outrage, most of theseother reforms are meaningless. Toeliminate soft money and to allow spe-cial interest groups, whether on thebusiness or labor side, to continue tospend money unfettered in issue advo-cacy and the like is outrageous. TheMcCain-Feingold legislation is an ideawhose time has come.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10125September 29, 1997I hope that a number of my col-

leagues will step forward, as my col-league, the Senator from Maine, hasdone already. We have 49 votes, ladiesand gentlemen, for McCain-Feingold.We need one more. Every Democrat hassigned onto this bipartisan legislation.We now have four Republican Senators.We need one more. Who will it be? Whowill step forward and say, ‘‘This is themost important debate in Americanhistory and I want to be on the rightside of history’’? I hope we can come upnot only with that 50th vote, but withenough votes procedurally to keep thisissue alive. The rules of the Senate,like cloture and filibuster and the like,allow people who in the name of goodgovernment, or whatever, can stop anissue in its tracks. I hope that doesn’thappen. I hope we can debate this to itsconclusion and have a real vote on realreform.

I yield the remainder of my time.Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Maine is recognized.PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that Steve Dia-mond, from my staff, be accorded privi-leges of the floor for the duration ofthis debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I riseto urge my colleagues to seize this op-portunity to make much-neededchanges in our campaign finance lawsby supporting the modified version ofthe McCain-Feingold legislation. I ampleased, Mr. President, to be a cospon-sor of this landmark bill.

Shortly after becoming President ofthe United States, one of our formerPresidents was asked what his biggestsurprise was on assuming office. With-out hesitation, he said it was his dis-covery that things were actually as badas he had been saying they were duringthe campaign.

Mr. President, during my Senatecampaign, I told the people of Mainethat our Nation’s campaign financesystem is broken. Since my election, Ihave spent a great deal of my timequestioning witnesses at the hearingsheld by the Governmental Affairs Com-mittee. Unlike the former President,what I have discovered is not thatthings are as bad as I had been sayingthey were; it is that they are muchworse.

The twin loopholes of soft money andbogus issue ads have virtually obliter-ated our campaign finance laws, leav-ing us with little more than a pile oflegal rubble. We supposedly have re-strictions on how much individuals cangive to political parties; yet, YogeshGandhi is able to contribute $325,000 tothe DNC to buy a picture with thePresident, and Roger Tamrazmockingly tells a committee of theU.S. Senate that next time he willspend $600,000, rather than $300,000, tobuy access to the White House. We sup-posedly prohibit corporations and

unions from spending money on politi-cal campaigns; yet, the AFL–CIOspends $800,000 in Maine on so-calledissue ads which anyone with an ounceof common sense recognized were de-signed to defeat a candidate for Con-gress.

We in this body decry legal loopholes,but we have reserved the largest onesfor ourselves. Indeed, these loopholesare more like black holes, and thatsucking sound you hear during electionyears is the whoosh of six-figure softmoney donations rushing into partycoffers.

Why should this matter, we are askedby those all too eager to equate free-dom of speech with freedom to spend?It should matter because politicalequality is the essence of democracy,and an electoral system driven by bigmoney is one lacking in politicalequality.

Mr. President, this is an issue ofgreat concern to the people of my homeState. While there are differences inMaine on how the system should be re-formed—I, for one, do not believe thatmeaningful change requires that wemake taxpayers underwrite cam-paigns—there does seem to be a strong-er consensus in Maine than elsewhereon the need for reform.

If my colleagues will indulge me a bitof home State pride, I think the Maineperspective results from old fashionedDown East common sense. Maine peo-ple are able to see through the com-plexities of this debate. They focus onwhat is at heart a very simple and yetvery profound problem. As long as weallow unlimited contributions—wheth-er in the form of hard or soft money—we will not have political equality inthis country.

It is not simply the lack of a levelplaying field for those seeking publicoffice. What is more important is thelack of a level playing field for thoseseeking access to their government.

It strikes me that the Maine attitudemay be shaped by the fact that manycommunities in my State still holdtown meetings. I am not talking aboutthe staged, televised town meetingwhich has become so fashionable oflate. I am talking about a rough andtumble meeting held in the town officeor the high school gym or the grangehall. Attend one of these sessions andyou will observe an element of true de-mocracy: People with more money donot get to speak longer and louder thanpeople with less money. What is true atMaine town meetings is unfortunatelynot true in Washington.

Mr. President, let me address a verydisquieting aspect of the debate on theMcCain-Feingold bill; namely, the mis-information that is being spread aboutwhat the bill would do. In that connec-tion, I would emphasize that McCain-Feingold does not bar issue advocacy. Iwill say that again because the legisla-tion’s opponents persist in misstatingthis point—McCain-Feingold does not,and I emphasize not, bar issue advo-cacy.

To explain this aspect of the bill inmore detail, and to share with my col-leagues an experience that contributedto my becoming a cosponsor, I need togo back to the 1996 race for Maine’sFirst Congressional District in theHouse of Representatives. In the courseof that election, the AFL–CIO spent$800,000 to defeat the Republican can-didate. They did this by running asteady barrage of blatantly negativeads.

Now why am I protesting a nationalunion, using money from its generaltreasury to run a saturation campaignof negative ads that may well have de-cided a Maine congressional race?Whatever our objection to such ads,isn’t that perfectly legal? The answeris, or at least is supposed to be, no.Current law prohibits a union, as wellas a corporation, from spending money,other than through a PAC, to influencean election for a Federal office.

That leads to another obvious ques-tion—if current law forbids unionsfrom using non-PAC money to run adsto influence a Federal election, howwas the AFL-CIO able to spend $800,000to defeat a Republican congressionalcandidate in Maine? Mr. President,that question takes us to the heart ofthe problem and to the need forMcCain-Feingold.

Unfortunately, some courts have in-terpreted ‘‘expressly advocating’’ to re-quire that the ad use words such as‘‘vote for’’ or ‘‘vote against’’ or ‘‘elect’’or ‘‘defeat.’’ If the ad avoids thosemagic words and makes at least a pass-ing reference to an issue, as the AFL–CIO did in Maine, those courts con-cluded that it does not expressly advo-cate the election or defeat of a can-didate, and the union may run it.

Mr. President, the situation I havedescribed has led to the biggest shamin American politics. Nobody in Mainebelieved that the AFL–CIO’s negativeads were for any purpose other thanthe defeat of a candidate. Indeed, atleast one newspaper which endorsedthe Democratic candidate blasted theunion ads against his opponent. Ads ofthat nature make an absolute mockeryout of the prohibition against unionsand corporatings spending money onFederal elections.

The ‘‘express advocacy’’ provision inMcCain-Feingold is designed to doaway with this sham. Contrary to whatsome have said, it would not affectindependent ads financed other than bya union or corporation, except to en-hance the reporting requirements,which everyone in this body purportsto favor. It also would not stop unionsand corporations from running trueissue ads.

Mr. President, I would say to my col-leagues that if you believe, as I do,that it continues to represent soundpublic policy to prohibit unions fromusing their vast general funds to dic-tate the results of Federal elections,particularly in small States likeMaine, then you should supportMcCain-Feingold.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10126 September 29, 1997Mr. President, let me also take a

minute to explain the bright line testfor express advocacy that has been thesubject of ill-informed criticism duringthis debate. What that test would pro-vide is that any television ad thatclearly identifies a candidate and thatis run within 60 days of an electionwould be deemed express advocacy.

I view the bright line test as a keyprovision of McCain-Feingold, and Isupport its inclusion for two reasons.First, the courts have said that forconstitutional purposes, people mustclearly know what they can and cannotdo, something which the bright linetest gives them.

Second, and contrary to what someopponents of the bill have said, thebright line test lessens the power of theFederal Election Commission. By hav-ing a clear standard, rather than onewhich requires a case-by-case analysis,the regulatory agency has less discre-tion to determine what the law shouldbe and when actions should be brought.Thus, those who have argued bothagainst the test and against a greaterrole for the FEC are in reality arguingwith themselves.

Mr. President, this subject is morecomplex than any of us would like, butbehind the complexity is a simple prop-osition. Current law has given rise tothe widespread practice of runningbogus issue ads, and that should not beallowed to continue. Those Members ofthis body who support the prohibitionagainst unions and corporations usingtheir vast resources to dictate the re-sults of Federal elections should votefor McCain-Feingold. Those Memberswho do not support the prohibitionshould take the honest road and workfor its repeal. The one unacceptablecourse is to perpetuate a sham that un-dermines the integrity of our electionlaws.

I look forward to debating this issuein the days ahead.

Thank you, Mr. President.Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

HAGEL). The Senator from Michigan.Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me

congratulate the Senators from Ari-zona, Wisconsin, Maine, and other Sen-ators who have joined so strongly inthis effort—an important bipartisan ef-fort—to finally reform the campaign fi-nance laws. The system is terribly bro-ken. I think most of us know that, andI hope enough of us will get together toreally reform it properly.

The time has finally come for Con-gress to decide whether we are going tofix this system, which is in shambles,and fix the laws that are now doing somuch damage to public confidence inour governmental operations. Theselaws are now so full of loopholes thatwhat was intended to be limits on cam-paign contributions in effect are easilyevaded. And if we are going to closethose loopholes we must do it together.This will not happen if Democrats andRepublicans do not come together. It isgoing to require that kind of a biparti-

san effort if we are going to restorepublic confidence in this campaign fi-nance system.

For the past couple of months, mem-bers of the Senate Governmental Af-fairs Committee have sat throughhours and days of hearings on thefailings of our campaign finance laws.We have asked dozens of witnesses hun-dreds of questions on the problems ofthe 1996 elections.

My constituents are asking me justone question. ‘‘Are you going to dosomething about it?’’ That is whatthey want to know. They have heardour questions. They have heard the an-swers. They know we have observed thewitnesses. They have seen and heardthe debate. And, of course, the major-ity who have not been able to watchthe hearings personally know that thecampaign finance system is a subjectof great debate.

Yet the question I get wherever I gois, ‘‘Are you going to do somethingabout it?’’ It is a simple question. It isa direct question. My answer is, ‘‘Ihope so, and I am sure going to do ev-erything I can to see that we finally doin fact close the loopholes that havemade a shambles of the laws that aresupposed to set limits on how muchmoney could be contributed by individ-uals to our campaigns.’’

The Senate hearings have focusedmuch of their time on allegations of il-legal conduct in the 1996 elections. Butthe vast majority of what the publicdoesn’t like is not what is illegal, al-though they surely don’t like that. It iswhat is legal. Most of it involves theso-called soft money or unregulatedmoney because both parties have got-ten around the law of the 1970’s by es-tablishing a whole separate world ofcampaign finance. That is the world ofso-called soft money—contributionsthat are not technically covered by thelimits under current law.

In the 1996 election, the RepublicanParty raised more than $140 million insoft money. The Democrats raised over$120 million.

That is how we get to these enormoussums of money in the last campaign,like the $1.3 million to the RepublicanNational Committee from just onecompany in 1996 and a $450,000 con-tribution from just one couple to theDemocratic National Committee thesame year.

Once that soft money loophole wasopened and once that loophole wasviewed as being legal, the money chasewas on, and that chase has been carriedon by both parties. When you couplethat with the high cost of televisionadvertising, you have the money chaseinvolving just about all candidates.The chase for money has led most of usin public office or seeking public officeto push the envelope and to take thelaw to the limits in order to get thenecessary contributions. The moneychase pressures political supporters tocross lines that they should not inorder to help their candidates get need-ed funds. The money chase in political

campaigns is a serious disease and ithas become chronic. Most of us havebeen affected by it. Most of us havespent too much time fundraising and inthe process pushing the fundraisingrules to their limits. We know in ourhearts that the money chase is a bipar-tisan problem and that bipartisan re-form is the right way to go.

If the Senate hearings have exposedillegal practices that would otherwisego unpunished, that is useful. If thehearings have also exposed activitiesthat are currently allowed but whichshould not be, and if that arouses pub-lic opinion so that Congress will endthe money hunt, that would be a majorcontribution. But if those hearingsleave no solid record of legislative re-form behind, we will have done some-thing far worse than missing an oppor-tunity. We will be deepening publicpessimism and thickening the publicgloom about this democracy’s abilityto restore public confidence in the fi-nancing of our campaigns and our elec-tions. And that is why I believe the en-actment of major campaign finance re-form is so critical. Existing law saysthat individuals cannot contributemore than $1,000 now to any candidateor political committee with respect toany election for Federal office. Exist-ing law says that corporations andunions can’t contribute at all to thosecandidates. And Presidential cam-paigns are supposed to be financed withpublic funds. That is the law on thebooks today. And yet we have all heardstories of contributions of hundreds ofthousands of dollars from individuals,from corporations and from unions—Roger Tamraz giving $300,000 to Demo-crats. What happened to the $1,000 con-tribution limit?

Here is a Democratic National Com-mittee document relative to DNCtrustees. These are major contributors,I think $100,000, and they’re offeredvarious events to attend if they makethat large contribution. What are theevents? The events are two annualtrustee events with the President inWashington. That is just an offer of ac-cess for contributions. But these arenot the contributions that the law issupposed to limit to $1,000 for each can-didates. These are $100,000 contribu-tions. These are the soft money con-tributions. And these are the connec-tions to access. Both parties do it.

Here is the 1997 RNC Annual Gala,May 13, 1997. Right in the middle of allof this angst, all of this concern aboutbig money and access, it has this din-ner. It is open, nothing hidden aboutthis. Cochairman of the Republican Na-tional Committee Annual Gala, $250,000fundraising goal.

What do you do? You sell or pur-chase, sell or purchase, Team 100 mem-berships or Republican Eagle member-ships. That’s $100,000 I believe for Team100. And what do you get? You get,among other things, luncheon with theRepublican Senate and House commit-tee chairman of your choice. It is theopen offer of access in exchange for a

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10127September 29, 1997contribution, and the contribution issoft money. It is not the $1,000 con-tribution to come to a dinner. It is giveor raise $250,000 and you get lunch withthe committee chairman of yourchoice. It is like the Democratic Na-tional Committee offer, give $100,000and you get two receptions with thePresident.

Now, one of the ways we are going tostop this abhorrent offer of sale of ac-cess in exchange for contributions is ifwe get to the soft money loophole it isthe most direct way to get to it. Hereare some other examples, recent exam-ples of soft money. This is, I believe, aTeam 100 document, a Republican doc-ument called hot prospects. Who is thethird prospect? Some retired inventor.And here is what the document says.

We are working on getting him an appoint-ment with Dick Armey so we can get hisother $50,000.

These are documents which came upin our investigation, in our hearings.We can get his other $50,000 if we canget him an appointment with DICKARMEY. The public sees that and theyrespond the way I respond. That is ab-horrent. What are we doing, offeringaccess in exchange for a contribution?And the amount of money here is ab-horrent. ‘‘His other $50,000.’’ Thatmeans he has already given $50,000.Here is a total of $100,000. What hap-pened to the $1,000 limit?

We thought there was a law. Theproblem is that in the race to competeand to win in our Federal elections,candidates and parties have found away around the law. And that is thesoft money loophole. Hard money, thecontributions which are regulated bycampaign finance laws, is, indeed, hardmoney. It is harder to come by. So softmoney is easier to raise. You can get$100,000 or $500,000 from just one cor-poration or individual. You don’t haveto go to 500 different people and raise$1,000, and you don’t have to go to 5,000people and raise $100 the way you dowith hard money. You can just find oneperson, one corporation wealthyenough or willing enough to pay a half-million dollars and then you acceptthat contribution.

Now, there is another part of the cur-rent law which says if you spendmoney in an election in support of acandidate or opposed to a candidate,you have to spend money that is onlyraised the hard way, following thelimit. But one of the greatest areas ofabuse in the 1996 election was the useof hundreds of millions of dollars of un-regulated, unlimited, and undisclosedmoney to broadcast so-called issue adsjust before an election—ads that anyreasonable viewer would interpret asattacking or supporting a particularcandidate.

Here is an example of one of these so-called issue ads. This was an ad thatwas run against Congressman CALDOOLEY in California. This ad was paidfor with unregulated, unlimited dol-lars. It read as follows:

Congressman Cal Dooley makes choices foryou and your family.

Cal Dooley said ‘‘no’’ to increased moneyfor federal prisons. Instead, Dooley gavemoney to lawyers. Lawyers that used tax-payer’s money to sue on behalf of prison in-mates and illegal aliens.

Cal Dooley said ‘‘no’’ to increased moneyfor drug enforcement. Instead, Dooley gaveyour money to radical lawyers who rep-resented drug dealers.

Is Cal Dooley making the right choices foryou?

That is a so-called issue ad, at leastit was called, because it didn’t use themagic words ‘‘vote for,’’ ‘‘voteagainst,’’ ‘‘elect,’’ ‘‘defeat.’’

And that is paid for with unlimiteddollars. But here is the same ad withone of the magic words:

Congressman Cal Dooley makes choices foryou and your family.

Cal Dooley said ‘‘no’’ to increased moneyfor Federal prisons. Instead, Dooley gave themoney to lawyers that used taxpayer’smoney to sue on behalf of prison inmates andillegal aliens.

Cal Dooley said ‘‘no’’ to increased moneyfor drug enforcement. Instead, Dooley gaveyour money to radical lawyers who rep-resented drug dealers.

Is Cal Dooley making the right choices foryou?

That is the exact same ad except inthis version I have added the followingwords: ‘‘Defeat Cal Dooley.’’

All of a sudden the same ad becomesan ad which under the current ap-proach of some has to be paid for inhard dollars. If you put that ad on andthen comply with the election limits,you could go to jail. But if you put thefirst ad on and just said, ‘‘Is Cal Dooleymaking the right choices for you?’’You can put on millions of dollars ofadvertising. No one knows where it iscoming from, no restrictions, the exactsame ad with the same effect except forone word.

Now, any viewer looking at that ad isgoing to say that both ads have thesame effect. They are both attack ads.They are both attacking a candidate.And yet one of those ads, if paid forwith dollars that are supposed to belimited but weren’t, could actually putthe person who put that ad on either injail or given a fine. The other ad, un-limited soft money.

In the real world, there is no dif-ference between those ads. The Su-preme Court has ruled that the secondad, with the word ‘‘defeat,’’ must bepaid for with limited dollars. This is acandidate advocacy ad, and that iswhat the Supreme Court has ruled. Itis said that we can require that adswhich explicitly call for the election ordefeat of a candidate must be paid forin limited dollars. But the first adwhich I have put up is the functionalequivalent of the second ad. It is theapparent equivalent of the second ad.It is the real world equivalent of thesecond ad.

This bill, which has been introducedtoday, would treat these two ads thesame legally because they have thesame apparent effect, the same func-tional effect, the same real world ef-fect, the same practical effect. There isno difference between those ads except

for one word. And to our constituentsthere is no difference when they seethose two ads.

We believe that the Supreme Court,because we maintain a bright-line test,will permit this law to stand. That isour hope, and that is our belief. It isbased on the real world, the real worldof our constituents who, when they seethose two ads I have just read, see andhear no difference between them be-cause they know that the first ad is anad that is attacking a candidate justthe way the second ad does and there isno real world difference between thosetwo ads.

Now, we intended corporations andunions not be allowed to contribute tocandidates. That is the intention of thecurrent law. Corporations are not sup-posed to contribute except through po-litical action committees. Unions arenot supposed to contribute exceptthrough very limited means.

How is it then that, for instance, cor-porations contribute millions of dol-lars? The same thing can be said forunions—millions of dollars to thesecampaigns which do not comply withthe current law? Congress is permittedto restrict the contributions of cor-porations and unions. That was a deci-sion in the Austin case where JusticeThurgood Marshall said that ‘‘we,therefore, have recognized the compel-ling governmental interest in prevent-ing corruption supports the restrictionof the influence of political war chestsfunded through the corporate form.’’

Justice Marshall said, speaking forthe Court, ‘‘Regardless of whether thisdanger of financial quid pro quo cor-ruption may be sufficient to justify arestriction on independent expendi-tures, Michigan’s regulation,’’ whichwas the regulation on corporate con-tributions at issue, ‘‘aims at a differenttype of corruption in the politicalarena, the corrosive and distorting ef-fects of immense aggregations ofwealth that are accumulated with thehelp of the corporate form and have lit-tle or no correlation to the public sup-port for the corporation’s politicalideas.’’

And then he went on:Corporate wealth can unfairly influence

elections when it is deployed in the form ofindependent expenditures just as it can whenit assumes the guise of political contribu-tion.

We intended to restrict corporatecontributions to candidates. We in-tended, in our law, to say that corpora-tions cannot contribute to candidatesat all except through the very strictrules for political action committees.Yet we have corporations and unions,both, contributing millions of dollarsthat effectively get involved in cam-paigns and effectively go to either helpcandidates or hurt candidates. It isthat same soft money loophole that al-lows the frustration of congressionalintent.

Our intent was clear. The SupremeCourt has held that our intent is legiti-mate; that where there is an express

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10128 September 29, 1997advocacy in a campaign for the defeator the election of a candidate, that weare right, we are permitted, it is al-lowed for Congress to restrict thosekinds of contributions. That effort onthe part of Congress over 20 years agoto restrict corporate and union con-tributions has also been frustrated bythe soft money loophole. We are deter-mined to close that loophole. We arealso determined to make it very clearthat advertisements, which are func-tionally the same, that have the exactsame effect on the effort to defeat orelect a candidate, be treated the same.That is part of this bill, the so-calledindependent expenditure part, or issueadvocacy part. We simply are adoptinganother very bright bright-line test.

The Supreme Court did not say itwas the only bright-line test. The Su-preme Court said that a bright-linetest was necessary, relative to satisfac-tory compliance with the first amend-ment. And it gave an example of abright-line test, an example which wasrealistic in the world of the 1970’s. Butanother bright-line test is necessarynow because the first test that weadopted, that the Supreme Court usedas an example, has been evaded. Andthe rules that were permitted by theSupreme Court to apply, the law whichthe Supreme Court said was appro-priate to enact relative to advocacy—to the election or defeat of a can-didate—that has been frustrated, it hasbeen evaded, and we are now simplytrying to implement it in another waywhich is fully compliant, we believe,with the first amendment.

There has been a new study by theAnnenberg Public Policy Center, whichestimates that during the 1996 electioncycle, as much as $150 million wasspent on so-called issue ads by politicalparties and groups other than can-didates. Their research shows that halfof those ads favored Democrats andhalf favored Republicans. It found thatnearly 90 percent mentioned a can-didate by name and, compared to othertypes of political advertising, these so-called issue ads were the highest inpure attack.

Mr. President I ask unanimous con-sent that a summary of the AnnenbergCenter study be inserted in theRECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER ANALYSIS

OF BROADCAST ISSUE ADVOCACY ADS, SEP-TEMBER 1997A national survey of 1,026 registered voters

commissioned by the Annenberg Public Pol-icy Center shortly after election day showedthat a majority of voters (57.6%) recalledseeing an issue advertisement during the 1996campaign. When compared to other politicalcommunications, using data collected fromthe same national survey viewership of issueadvertisements ranked below that of presi-dential candidate-sponsored advertising anddebates. More voters recalled seeing issueadvertisements than recalled watching atleast one of the short speeches delivered byPresident Clinton and Robert Dole using freeair time donated by broadcast networks.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center hascompiled an archive of 107 issue advocacy ad-vertisements that aired on television orradio during the 1996 election cycle. Theseads were sponsored by 27 separate organiza-tions. Data about the content of these adver-tisements are summarized below. The follow-ing figures are percentages of produced ad-vertisements, which do not take into ac-count differential airing and reach of theads. In addition, although the Center’s ar-chive does include independent expenditureadvertisements aired by parties and advo-cacy organizations, only the issue ads are in-cluded in this analysis.

As noted earlier, issue advertisements arethose that do not expressly advocate theelection or defeat of a candidate. If the adsdo not call for viewers or listeners to cast avote in a particular manner, what action dothey call for? In many cases, the advertise-ment makes no call to action at all. Ouranalysis shows that one-quarter of issue ads(25.2%) contained no action step. Of thoseissue ads produced in 1996 that did solicitsome actions on the part of the audience, thegreatest proportion asked voters to ‘‘call’’ apublic official or candidate (37.4%). Someasked individuals to ‘‘tell’’ or ‘‘let a publicofficial know’’ one’s support for or dis-approval of particular policy positions(16.8%), while others asked that a call beplaced directly to the advocacy organizationsponsoring the ad (15.9%). A few of the adver-tisements called for support or opposition topending legislation (4.7%).

Despite the presence of clear calls to ac-tion, many advertisements did not provideinformation, such as a phone number or ad-dress, to enable the individual to carry outthe action. One in three (31.3%) issue adsthat suggest action did not provide sufficientactionable information.

During the 1996 election cycle, it was thenorm for issue advertisements to refer topublic officials or candidates for office byname. Early nine in ten did so. It was alsocommon for television issue advertisementsto picture officials and candidates:

Both ends of the political spectrum wererepresented in issue advertising campaigns.Based on the number of advertisements pro-duced, ads generally supportive of Demo-cratic positions and those generally alignedwith Republican positions were evenly split.Each accounted for 48.6% of the total. A fewadvertisements (2.8%), on term limits andflag burning, were not categorized as Demo-cratic or Republican.

While issue advertising echoed many domi-nant campaign themes, it also raised issuesnot addressed by the major party presi-dential candidates. For instance, abortion,gay rights, pension security, product liabil-ity reform, and term limits were among thetopics that appeared in issue advocacy adver-tising, but were largely absent from the pol-icy debate among the presidential can-didates.

Medicare was the topic most frequentlymentioned in the issue advocacy advertisingof 1996. One in four advocacy ads (24.3%)mentioned the issue.

Consistent with prior Annenberg PublicPolicy Center research on the discourse ofpolitical campaigns, we divided issue adver-tisements into their central arguments. Ar-guments were categorized as advocacy (acase made only for the position supported bythe ad’s sponsor), pure attack (a case madeonly against the opposing position), andcomparison (an argument that pairs a caseagainst the opposition with a case for thesponsor’s position). Comparison is consideredpreferable to pure attack because it allowsevaluation of alternative positions. Pure at-tack contributes to the negative tone of po-litical campaigns.

Compared to other discursive forms, in-cluding presidential candidate ads, debates,free time speeches and news coverage of thecampaign (both television and print), issueadvertisements aired in 1996 were the highestin pure attack. Two in five arguments inissue ads attacked.

Arguments in issue ads were less likely tocompare positions than debates, free timespeeches, and ads sponsored by the presi-dential candidates.

Because pure attack and comparison ac-counted for 81.3% of the arguments, so-called‘‘advocacy ads’’ rarely simply advocatedtheir own position. Pure advocacy appearedin fewer than one in five of the ads (18.7%).

Mr. LEVIN. So the result is now a vi-cious combination, outside of the lim-its of our campaign finance laws, of,one, huge amounts of money; two,funding the worst type of campaign at-tack ads. And the net result is that theexceptions to our campaign financelaws have swallowed the rules. Therules basically no longer exist. It is upto this body and to the House to re-store limits—restore some fencesaround contributions so what we in-tended to do, and the portion of whatwe did that was affirmed by the Su-preme Court in the Buckley case, canbe operative in the real political worldthat we operate in.

It is a daunting task to plug theseloopholes, to make the law wholeagain—to make it whole, to make it ef-fective. If we don’t do this, if we do notact on a bipartisan basis and adopt realcampaign reform, and if we do notmake real what Congress intended todo 20 years ago, and which the SupremeCourt has said we can do, where the ad-vocacy of the election or defeat of acandidate is involved—we are allowedto act relative to campaign contribu-tions. We know that. We were told thatin Buckley. Providing our aim is atthose contributions which go to the ef-fort to elect or defeat a candidate, weare permitted to act providing we actin a way which is clear and has a brightline, and which is aimed at a problem,a societal problem which we identify.Clean elections are something that weare allowed to seek to achieve. We areallowed to seek to achieve the reduc-tion of the impact of aggregated moneyby corporations and power by corpora-tions and unions. That has been per-mitted by the Supreme Court. It is upto us, now, to fashion a bill which com-plies with those standards and we be-lieve this bill does.

If we do not do it, if we do not put astop to the money chase and the attackads that are overwhelming the systemand disgusting the American people, wewill let down our constituents. MarlinFitzwater, who was the press secretaryfor President Bush, made this state-ment in April 1992. He made this state-ment following a dinner for PresidentBush, at which the major contributors,soft money contributors, were offeredaccess, private receptions with thePresident in the White House. It was avery open offer of access in exchangefor major contributions, contributionsof soft money. This is what Marlin

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10129September 29, 1997Fitzwater said very openly and hon-estly in April 1992, following that din-ner: ‘‘It buys access to the system, yes.That’s what the political parties andthe political operation is all about.’’

He spoke the truth. He spoke thetragic truth that buying access to thesystem is what the political operationis all about and, too often, what the po-litical parties are all about. We have tochange that. We have to restore to thepolitical process what the political par-ties and the political operations shouldbe all about, which is listening to peo-ple, communicating with people, orga-nizing people, grassroots effort—yes,raising contributions in smallamounts, limited amounts as we in-tended to do in the 1970’s when wepassed that law. That is what the polit-ical operation and the political partiesshould be all about.

But whether or not they are going to,again, be about that instead of aboutraising $50,000 and $100,000 and $250,000and $1 million in soft money, which isspent in the functionally equivalentway—the same way, apparently, as theso-called hard money—whether we aregoing to be able to do that is going tobe dependent on whether or not we canpull together Democrats and Repub-licans as Americans, realize that wehave a sick system of campaign financeraising and money raising, and changeit—close the loopholes, respond to thedemand of the American people thatthe money chase and the excessive con-tributions and the attack ads end.

In the next week or two, that is a de-cision we are going to make. I believethe majority of the Senate will supportsignificant reforms and the Presidenthas said he will work for the passage ofMcCain-Feingold and will sign it withenthusiasm. The time for waiting whilewe document further campaign abusesthat we all know exist is over. Thetime for ending those abuses is here.

I want to close by again commendingthe sponsors of the bill for their stead-fast efforts and their commitment tocampaign finance reform. It is a privi-lege to be part of their cause.

I ask unanimous consent that a num-ber of documents be printed in theRECORD including the campaign tele-vision advertisements that were in-volved in the Cal Dooley campaign andin the Bill Yellowtail campaign. I askunanimous consent they be printed inthe RECORD at this time. I yield thefloor and thank the Chair.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

CITIZENS FOR REFORM AD

Congressman Cal Dooley makes choices foryou and your family.

Cal Dooley said ‘‘no’’ to increased moneyfor federal prisons.

Instead, Dooley gave the money to law-yers. Lawyers that used taxpayers’ money tosue on behalf of prison inmates and illegalaliens.

Cal Cooley said ‘‘no’’ to increased moneyfor drug enforcement.

Instead, Dooley gave your money to radi-cal lawyers who represented drug dealers.

Is Cal Dooley making the right choices foryou?

CITIZENS FOR REFORM AD AS MODIFIED

Congressman Cal Dooley makes choices foryou and your family.

Cal Dooley said ‘‘no’’ to increased moneyfor federal prisons.

Instead, Dooley gave the money to law-yers. Lawyers that used taxpayers’ money tosue on behalf of prison inmates and illegalaliens.

Cal Dooley said ‘‘no’’ to increased moneyfor drug enforcement.

Instead, Dooley gave your money to radi-cal lawyers who represented drug dealers.

Is Cal Dooley making the right choices foryou?

Defeat Cal Dooley.

CITIZENS FOR REFORM (AS AD RAN)NEGATIVE TV AD ON WIFE BEATING AND

CRIMINAL RECORD

Who is Bill Yellowtail?He preaches family values, but he took a

swing at his wife.Yellowtail’s explanation?He only slapped her, but her nose was not

broken.He talks law and order, but is himself a

convicted criminal.And though he talks about protecting chil-

dren, Yellowtail failed to make his own childsupport payments, then voted against childsupport enforcement.

Call Bill Yellowtail and tell him we don’tapprove of his wrongful behavior.

CITIZENS FOR REFORM (WITH CHANGED LASTLINE)

NEGATIVE TV AD ON WIFE BEATING ANDCRIMINAL RECORD

Who is Bill Yellowtail?He preaches family values, but he took a

swing at his wife.Yellowtail’s explanation?He only slapped her, but her nose was not

broken.He talks law and order, but is himself a

convicted criminal.And though he talks about protecting chil-

dren, Yellowtail failed to make his own childsupport payments, then voted against childsupport enforcement.

Call Bill Yellowtail and tell him we don’tapprove of his wrongful behavior.

Vote Against Bill Yellowtail.

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEETRUSTEE—EVENTS & MEMBERSHIPREQUIREMENTS

EVENTS

Two annual trustee events with the Presi-dent in Washington, DC.

Two annual trustee events with the VicePresident in Washington, DC.

Annual economic trade missions: Begin-ning in 1994, DNC Trustees will be invited tojoin Party leadership as they travel abroadto examine current and developing politicaland economic matters in other countries.

Two annual retreats/issue conferences: Onewill be held in Washington and another at anexecutive conference center. Both will offerTrustees the opportunity to interact withleaders from Washington as well as partici-pate in exclusive issue briefings.

Invitations to home town briefings: Chair-man Wilhelm and other senior Administra-tion officials have plans to visit all 50 states.Whenever possible, impromptu briefings withlocal Trustees will be placed on the schedule.You will get the latest word from Washing-ton on issues affecting the communitieswhere you live and work.

Monthly policy briefings: Briefings areheld monthly in Washington with key ad-

ministration officials and members of Con-gress. Briefings cover such topics as healthcare reform, welfare reform, and economicpolicy.

VIP status: DNC trustees will get VIP sta-tus at the 1996 DNC Convention with ticketsto restricted events, private parties as wellas pre- and post-convention celebrations.

DNC staff contact: Trustees will have aDNC staff member specifically assigned tothem, ready to assist and respond to requestsfor information.

1997 RNC ANNUAL GALA, MAY 13, 1997,WASHINGTON HILTON, WASHINGTON, DC

GALA LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE

Cochairman—$250,000 fundraising goal: Sellor purchase Team 100 memberships, Repub-lican Eagles memberships or dinner tables.Dais seating at the gala; breakfast and photoopportunities with Senate Majority LeaderTrent Lott and Speaker of the House NewtGingrich on May 13, 1997; luncheon with Re-publican Senate and House Leadership andthe Republican Senate and House CommitteeChairmen of your choice; and private recep-tion with Republican Governors prior to thegala.

Vice chairman—$100,000 fundraising goal:Sell or purchase Team 100 memberships, Re-publican Eagles memberships or dinner ta-bles. Preferential seating at the gala dinnerwith the VIP of your choice; breakfast andphoto opportunities with Senate MajorityLeader Trent Lott and Speaker of the HouseNewt Gingrich on May 13, 1997; luncheonwith Republican Senate and House Leader-ship and the Republican Senate and HouseCommittee Chairmen of your choice; and pri-vate reception with Republican Governorsprior to the gala.

Deputy chairman—$45,000 fundraising goal:Sell or purchase three (3) dinner tables orthree (3) Republican Eagles memberships.Preferential seating at the gala dinner withthe VIP of your choice; luncheon with Re-publican Senate and House Leadership andthe Republican Senate and House CommitteeChairmen of your choice; and private recep-tion with Republican Governors prior to thegala.

Dinner committee—$15,000 fundraisinggoal: Sell or purchase one (1) dinner table.Preferential seating at the gala dinner withthe VIP of your choice; and VIP reception atthe gala with the Republican members of theSenate and House Leadership.

(Benefits pending final confirmation of theMembers of Congress schedules.)

MEMORANDUM

To: Tim Barnes, Kelley Goodsell.From: Kevin Kellum.Re: Hot prospects.

These prospects are not ‘‘real hot’’, but arevery realistic.

Gino Palucci, Palucci Pizza. Eric Javitshas spoken with Gino who has committed tojoin Team 100. He asked me to call Gino’smoney man in D.C. (Henry Cashen) who is incharge of fascilitating these transactions. Ihave spoken with Henry who said he wouldget back to me and have since placed a cou-ple of calls to his office with no response. Iwill call him again next week.

Ron Ricks, President, Southwest Airlines.Asst: Linda. Herb Vest has spoken with Ronand said he committed to joining Team 100,but since then Nancy has called and left amessage with no return call. I will call hisoffice next week.

Ole Nilssen (HOT), Retired inventor. Weare working on getting him an appointmentwith Dick Armey, so we can get his other$50,000. We had a meeting set up for thisweek, but Armey cancelled his Florida leg ofhis trip.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10130 September 29, 1997The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Arizona.Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I think,

with some research by some very excel-lent staff members, we may have abasis for an agreement here. I reallybelieve we have a very strong chance,because I think we can use, to a largedegree, as a basis for our negotiations,not so much the McCain-Feingold billbut the bill that was introduced as S. 7by Senator Robert Dole and SenatorMCCONNELL on January 31, 1993.

This was S. 7, remembering in thosedays on this side of the aisle the Re-publicans were in the minority, so themajority had the first five bills and theminority, the Republicans, had thenext five. This is S. 7, so I don’t knowwhat 6 was, but this was the secondone.

I want to talk about this a little bitbecause I think it is important. This isa bill that Senator MCCONNELL intro-duced and spoke on with Senator Dole.I think it is very important. The billwas introduced in the Senate on Thurs-day, January 21, 1993 by Senator Rob-ert Dole. At the present time there are24 cosponsors of the bill—24 Repub-licans. Let me tell you the cosponsorsof this bill. They were BURNS, CHAFEE,COVERDELL, CRAIG, D’AMATO, DOMENICI,Durenberger, GORTON, GRASSLEY,GREGG, HATCH, Hatfield, KEMPTHORNE,LOTT, LUGAR, MCCAIN, MCCONNELL,MURKOWSKI, NICKLES, Packwood, ROTH,Simpson, STEVENS, THURMOND.

So, most of the present leadership ofthe Republican side was represented ascosponsors of this bill. Of course Sen-ator LOTT, Senator COVERDELL, Sen-ator NICKLES, the whip, Senator CRAIG,and of course Senator MCCONNELL.

The bill says: Deal with campaign fi-nance reform. Let me read very quick-ly from Senator MCCONNELL’s remarks.

Mr. President, in 1992, voter turnout in-creased, electoral competition increased,campaign spending increased. Most objectiveobservers of the political system . . ..

Mr. President, Democratic campaign fi-nance bills based on spending limits and tax-payer financing do, indeed, constitutechange. They do not, however, reform. Theydo not improve the electoral process.

Quoting from Senator MCCONNELL:The Democratic bills we have seen in the

past were good public relations . . .. Spend-ing limits were totally discredited in thepresented system . . .. Mandatory spendinglimits are unconstitutional . . .. Taxpayerfunding of the Congressional campaign sys-tem to provide inducements or penalties isnot palatable.

Then he goes on and says:Republicans will not stand by while the

first amendment is sacrificed for a facade ofreform. Campaign finance reform need not beunconstitutional, partisan, bureaucratic ortaxpayer funded. The minority leader and I,joined by Republican colleagues, have todayintroduced the Comprehensive Campaign Fi-nance Reform Act, the most extensive andeffective reform bill before this Congress barnone. It bans PAC’s, the epitome of specialinterest influence and a major incumbentprotection tool. Our bill bans soft money, allsoft money, party, labor, and that spent bytax-exempt organizations. It cuts campaign

costs, provides seed money to challengerspaid for, not by taxpayers, but by the politi-cal parties. It constricts the millionaires’loophole, [which, by the way, happens to bea part of the revised package we have, I amsure by coincidence] restricts and regulatesindependent expenditures, fights electionfraud, and restricts gerrymandering.

Real reform: In stark contrast to theDemocrats’ bill, the Republican bill puts allthe campaign money on top of the tablewhere voters can see it. Nothing would havea more cleansing effect on the electoral proc-ess.

Then:The text of the bill eliminates all special

interest political action committees, cor-porate, union, and trade association, alsobans all non-connected or ideological PAC’sand all leadership PAC’s.

Note, if a ban on non-connected PAC’s isdetermine to be unconstitutional by the Su-preme Court, the legislation will subjectnonconnected PAC’s to a $1,000 per electioncontribution limit.

I could not agree more with SenatorMCCONNELL’s position on that.

Soft money ban: Bans all soft moneyfrom being used to influence a Federalelection. Soft money is defined as the‘‘raising and spending of politicalmoney outside of the source restric-tions, contribution limits and disclo-sure requirements of the Federal Elec-tion Campaign Act and its regula-tions.’’

So we are in complete agreementwith Senator MCCONNELL on that.

Establishes new rules for politicalparty committees to ensure that softmoney is not used to influence Federalelections, including the requirementthat national, State, and local politicalparties establish a separate account foractivities benefiting Federal can-didates and a separate account for ac-tivities benefiting State candidates.

Requirement of full disclosure of allaccounts by any political party com-mittee that maintains a Federal ac-count, and the establishment of mini-mum percentages of Federal fundswhich must be used for any partybuilding program, voter registration,get out the vote, absentee ballots, bal-lot security which benefits both Fed-eral and State candidates.

Exempts certain organizational ac-tivities, as ours does—research, get outthe vote, voter registration—from co-ordinated or other limitations.

Requires disclosures and allocationfor these activities and retains thesame coordinated expenditure limitsfor media expenditures.

Maintains the limit on total con-tributions of Federal party accounts at$20,000; limits to $50,000 per calendaryear the total amount of contributionsan individual or other entity maymake to national, State, or local partyaccounts combined.

Labor and soft money employee pro-tection: Codifies the Supreme Court de-cision in Beck versus CommunicationsWorkers of America and provides cer-tain rights for employees who areunion members.

Soft money restrictions: Prohibitstax-exempt 501(c) organizations from

engaging in any activity which at-tempts to influence a Federal electionon behalf of a specific candidate forpublic office.

Extends to all 501(c) organizationsthe current prohibition on campaignactivity which applies to 501(c) char-ities.

Restricts tax-exempt organizationsfrom engaging in voter registration orget-out-the-vote activities which arenot candidate-specific if a candidate orMember of Congress solicits money forthe organization.

Restricts Federal activities by StatePAC’s created by Members of Congress.

Reduces from $1,000 to $500 the maxi-mum allowable contributions by indi-viduals residing outside a candidate’sState, an interesting take on the influ-ence of outside money.

Indexes the individual contributionlimit, $1,000 per election for in-Statecontributions or $500 per election toout of State.

Congressional candidates usingConsumer Price Index, something thatI think could be very well discussed.

Prohibits bundling, which I think is avery laudable goal, and then it talksabout independent expenditures.

Requires all independently financedpolitical communications to disclosethe person or organization financing it.That is very interesting. I wonder howthe Christian Coalition and the rightto life and other organizations wouldfeel about requiring all independentlyfinanced political communications todisclose the person or organization fi-nancing it. When Senator FEINGOLDand I floated that proposal, it met witha pretty strong opposition from bothsides. This is a proposal that, obvi-ously, as I have said many times, Sen-ator MCCONNELL made around 4 yearsago; requires that that disclosure becomplete and conspicuous.

Requires timely notice to all can-didates of the communications place-ment and content.

Defines independent expenditure toprohibit consultation with a candidateor his agents.

Requires the FCC to hold a hearingwithin 3 days of any formal complaintof collusion between an independentexpenditure committee and a can-didate.

I must say, Mr. President, if, in thelast election campaign, that provisionrequiring the FCC to hold a hearingwithin 3 days of any formal complaintof collusion between an independentexpenditure committee and a candidatehad been the law of the land, theywould have been holding hearings 24hours a day, 7 days a week.

Creates an expedited cause of actionin Federal courts for a candidate seek-ing relief from expenditures which arenot independent.

Allows for a broadcast discount inthe last 45 days before a primary andthe last 60 days before a general elec-tion.

Permits challenger seed money,which I think is a laudable goal, and

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10131September 29, 1997addresses a problem that we have hadwith giving a challenger a level playingfield.

Requires congressional candidates todeclare upon filing for an electionwhere they intend to spend alone over$250,000 in personal funds in a race andraises the individual contribution limitto $5,000 per election, from $1,000 for allopponents of a candidate who declaresuch an intention.

No limits would apply to individualcontributions by party, et cetera.

Then there is a very interesting one,franked mail. Prohibits franked massmailings during the election year of aMember of Congress and requires moredisclosure of the use of franked mailfor unsolicited mailings.

Our proposal, as we know, is to cutoff the name and face being mentionedin drawing a bright line. I have 60 days.Senator MCCONNELL’s 1993 proposalprohibited franked mass mailings dur-ing the entire election year.

It goes into gerrymandering and goesinto enhanced FEC enforcement. Iheard my colleague from Utah com-plaining long and loud about any possi-bility of enhanced FEC enforcement.By the way, my colleague from Utahwas not here in 1993, so I kind of doubtthat he would have cosponsored thisbill, as did 24 Republicans.

Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.Mr. MCCAIN. I guess what I am say-

ing is that we had a very good bill in1993—a very good bill—and one that Iwas proud to cosponsor, along withSenator Dole and Senator MCCONNELLand 24 of our Republican colleagues.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, willthe Senator yield for a clarification?

Mr. MCCAIN. I will be glad to yield.Mr. BENNETT. I was here in 1993,

and I think I probably did cosponsorthat. The Senator is making a goodcase that I probably made a mistake.

Mr. MCCAIN. Thank you. I appreciatethe correction from the Senator fromUtah.

That entire list of 24 Republican co-sponsors of S. 7, as I mentioned, areBURNS, CHAFEE, COVERDELL, CRAIG,D’AMATO, DOMENICI, Durenberger, GOR-TON, GRASSLEY, GREGG, HATCH, Hat-field, KEMPTHORNE, LOTT, LUGAR,MCCAIN, MCCONNELL, MURKOWSKI,NICKLES, Packwood, ROTH, Simpson,STEVENS, and THURMOND.

Mr. President, I haven’t had a chanceto examine all the details of the pro-posal that Senator MCCONNELL’s andSenator Dole’s S. 7 had, and I believethat there are probably some dif-ferences, but I will argue very stronglythat we have the basis for negotiationsand possible agreement based on S. 7.

My understanding is that there is notthe independent campaign bright line.That actually, as my colleagues know,was an idea that Mr. Norm Ornsteinand Mr. Mann and Mr. Trevor Potter,Professor Potter, came up with as away of trying to get about the issue ofthe independent campaigns which weall know are out of control and theyare all negative campaigns.

I was, frankly, encouraged to seethat Senator MCCONNELL had proposedsuch a comprehensive way of reformingthe campaign system as far back as1993, obviously displaying a degree ofclairvoyance that I didn’t have at thetime. So I hope we can go back to that.

Mr. President, I just want to end up—and I know Senator MCCONNELL wantsto respond to that—there is a bookthat Brooks Jackson wrote called‘‘Honest Graft: Big Money in the Amer-ican Political Process.’’ This book issomewhat dated. It was published in1990. A lot of things have happenedsince then. Some things haven’t hap-pened. Some things haven’t changed,they have just gotten worse.

Let me quote from a chapter in hisbook, and I will be brief:

Nearly everyone complains that somethingis wrong with the American political system.Liberals see a Congress bought by businessinterests, while PAC managers complainthey are being shaken down by money-hun-gry legislators. Lawmakers detest the risingcost of campaigning, the inconvenience andindignity of asking for money, and the criti-cism they endure for accepting it. Democratsenvy the Republican Party’s financialstrength and decry the sinister influence ofbig money and expensive political tech-nology while trying to get as much of bothfor themselves as possible. Republicans, por-trayed by the business PACs they nourished,seethe at their inability to dislodge Demo-cratic incumbents. Critics of variousleanings deplore lawmakers who use their of-fice to help themselves or moneyed bene-factors. Liberal and conservative commenta-tors alike call the system ‘‘corrupt.’’

The problem isn’t corruption; it is more se-rious than that. If unprincipled buying andselling of official favors was at fault then thesolution would be simple. Honest legislatorswould refuse to participate, and prosecutorsor voters would deal with the rest. To besure, corruption does exist; it is hard toimagine any other community of 535 soulswhere felonies are so often proven. But thoseillegalities are only symptoms of the under-lying sickness.

The true predicament is that perverse in-centives twist the behavior of ordinary legis-lators. The system of money-based electionsand lobbying rewards those who cater towell-funded interests, both by keeping themin office and by allowing men like FerdinandSt. Germain to enrich themselves while theyserve. It also punishes those who challengethe status quo, as D. G. Martin discovered.And it bends even the best of intentions, likeTony Coelho’s priestly instincts, toward thecourtship of moneyed cliques. As Coelhohimself says, ‘‘the process buys you out.’’The system doesn’t require bad motives toproduce bad Government.

America is becoming a special-interest na-tion where money is displacing votes. Con-gress commands less and less support amongthe electorate as it panders increasingly togroups with money, yet its members cling tooffice like barnacles on a hull of a broken-down steamer.

Mr. President, I would not use thosewords myself. I think they are strongwords. I do respect Brooks Jackson agreat deal. He is one of the foremostauthorities on campaign finance re-form. But if that was the case, if thatwas the view of one of the most re-spected commentators in 1990, can youimagine what the view of many ofthem are today?

Again, I want to say that I hope wecan sit down and have some serious ne-gotiations. I would, to a large degree,move to S. 7 as a basis for a lot of thosenegotiations. Maybe we can get Sen-ator Dole back, most respected by allof us, and see if Senator Dole—I believehe still supports many of those prin-ciples. We could all sit down together.

If I can very seriously say, I hopethat we can understand that what theAmerican people want is not a fili-buster and not a gridlock, not a fili-buster by Republicans, not a filibusterby Democrats, but we have shown cer-tainly this year what we are capable ofdoing when we sat down on both sidesof the aisle and put the Nation on apath toward a balanced budget; whenwe sat down, Republicans and Demo-crats alike, trading off, as is necessary,to reach a goal of giving the Americanpeople their first tax cuts in 16 years.

I believe we can do that if there is awillingness to do so, and I, for one, be-lieve that the majority of my col-leagues would agree that there aresome things that are fundamentallywrong with this system. If the major-ity of my colleagues agree with that,then it seems to me we should be ableto reach some kind of agreement onhow we can reform that system.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.Mr. MCCONNELL addressed the

Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Kentucky.Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I

am sure my good friend and colleaguefrom Arizona will agree that politics isa team sport. In order to be effective,we have to have allies. The bill he wentback 4 years to had 24 cosponsors. I canassure my friend from Arizona, it had agood idea from all 24. Legislation is,someone said, sort of like making sau-sage: a little bit of this and a little bitof that.

I confess to having joined in cospon-soring a bill with a whole lot of thingsthat my friend from Arizona will sure-ly remember that I have consistentlyargued against for 10 years. But thefeeling was, and he remembers it be-cause he cosponsored the bill, that weneeded to have a Republican alter-native. And in the spirit of being a partof the team, I put my name on a bill.I am sure the Senator from Arizona hasnever put his name on a bill with whichhe disagreed with any part. In fact, hesaid here today he is not entirelyhappy with the union provision in thebill that he is putting forward.

The Senator from Kentucky may beguilty of many things, but I think inthis debate rarely guilty of inconsist-ency and many of the things that theSenator from Arizona mentioned I per-sonally argued against prior to comingup with this five-legged dog. Somebodysaid you might be able to make a five-legged dog, but nobody has ever seenone in nature. That is sort of what thatbill was. So I confess to having signedon to a bill much of which I thoughtwas probably not the right thing to do.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10132 September 29, 1997But let me ask the Senator from Ari-

zona—he said on Friday and again, Ibelieve, today, any genuinely independ-ent expenditure made to advocate anycause which does not expressly advo-cate the election or the defeat of a can-didate is fully allowed. Is that the viewof the Senator from Arizona?

Mr. MCCAIN. That is correct. That iscorrect.

Mr. MCCONNELL. I say to my friendfrom Arizona, under the Federal Elec-tion Campaign Act the term ‘‘inde-pendent expenditure″ is defined as fol-lows:

The term ‘‘independent expenditure’’means an expenditure by a person expresslyadvocating the election or defeat of a clearlyidentified candidate which is made withoutcooperation or consultation with any can-didate or any authorized committee or agentof such candidate and which is not made inconcert with or at the request or suggestionof any candidate or any authorized commit-tee or agent of such candidate.

I am wondering if the Senator fromArizona really meant what he said, be-cause an ‘‘independent expenditure’’under the Federal Election Act does bydefinition expressly advocate the elec-tion or defeat of a candidate.

Mr. MCCAIN. I say to my friend fromKentucky, we are changing the defini-tion of ‘‘express advocacy’’ as well asthe definition of ‘‘independent cam-paign.’’ And we feel compelled to do sobecause we see that on both sides thecampaigns are no more independentthan I am qualified to be on the nexttrip to Mir.

We are, on page 13 of the bill, underwhere it says ‘‘Definitions * * * (17)Independent Expenditure—* * *. Theterm ‘‘independent expenditure’’ meansan expenditure by a person—(i) for acommunication that is express advo-cacy; and (ii) that is not provided in co-ordination with a candidate or a can-didate’s agent or a person who is co-ordinating with a candidate or a can-didate’s agent.’’

And then ‘‘(b) Definition of ExpressAdvocacy—Section 301,’’ which theSenator from Kentucky just quotedfrom ‘‘* * * is amended by adding atthe end the following: ‘(20) Express Ad-vocacy—(A) In general.—The term ‘‘ex-press advocacy’’ means a communica-tion that advocates the election or de-feat of a candidate by—containing aphrase such as ‘‘vote for’’, ‘‘reelect’’,‘‘support’’, ‘‘cast your ballot for’’,‘‘(name a candidate) for Congress’’,‘‘name of candidate in 1997’’, ‘‘voteagainst’’, ‘‘defeat’’, ‘‘reject’’, or a cam-paign slogan or words that in contextcan have no reasonable meaning* * *’ ’’

This is the important part—‘‘canhave no reasonable meaning other thanto advocate the election or defeat of 1or more clearly identified candidates;* * *’’

That is, so we are changing both. Isay to my friend, I am changing boththe definition of ‘‘independent expendi-ture’’ and the definition of ‘‘express ad-vocacy.’’ We are doing so because thereis clearly a huge problem in American

politics today, which I am sure theSenator from Kentucky appreciates.There are no longer independent cam-paigns. There is nowhere in any dic-tionary in the world the word ‘‘inde-pendent’’ that would fit these cam-paigns. They are part of campaigns. Tomy dismay, and I am sure to everyMember of this body, they are nega-tive. And they are negative to the de-gree where all of our approval ratingssink to an alltime low.

So that is—I am sorry for the long re-sponse, but the Senator from Kentuckyasked a very good question.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Then the defini-tion of what is ‘‘reasonable’’ would bedetermined by the Federal ElectionCommission; is that correct?

Mr. MCCAIN. And the courts, just asthe previous ones were interpreted, andin the case of the Colorado decision, asthe Senator from Kentucky wellknows, opened up a massive loopholewhich was driven through with alacrityand speed. That is what we are tryingto close here.

Mr. MCCONNELL. I ask my friendfrom Arizona, how would it work? TheFederal Election Commission would ei-ther on its own initiative or as a resultof receiving some complaints fromsomeone intervene in what way to de-termine what is or is not ‘‘reasonable″?

Mr. MCCAIN. First of all, as youknow, any bright line would be thatthe candidate’s name or face would notbe mentioned, which is carrying whatwas, in my view, the original intent,which was obviously that they couldnot say ‘‘vote for’’ or ‘‘cast your ballotfor.’’

So I would be glad to discuss with theSenator from Kentucky exactly how wecould define that in report language orother.

But I want to return to the fun-damental problem here with the Sen-ator from Kentucky. I ask him, in re-turn, does he believe that these so-called independent campaigns are trulyindependent?

Mr. MCCONNELL. Well, if they arenot, if it is an independent expenditurewhich is required under the law——

Mr. MCCAIN. I am talking about, arethey really independent in what any ofus would define as the word ‘‘independ-ent,’’ or are they just additional meth-ods to get around contribution limitsin order to defeat another candidate?Which is it?

Mr. MCCONNELL. Is the Senatortalking about independent expendi-tures or express advocacy?

Mr. MCCAIN. I am talking aboutindependent campaigns. I am talkingabout a problem. What drives independ-ent campaigns, as the Senator fromKentucky well knows, is the definitionof ‘‘independent expenditure’’ and ‘‘ex-press advocacy,’’ which we are chang-ing.

I am asking the Senator from Ken-tucky again, does he believe that in thelast campaign the attacks by labor, forexample, in congressional district 6,where over $2 million was spent by

labor, with Congressman J.D.HAYWORTH’S face distorted on thescreen, sometimes morphing into thatof NEWT GINGRICH, does the Senatorfrom Kentucky believe that that wasan independent campaign against Con-gressman J.D. HAYWORTH?

Mr. MCCONNELL. What I believe itwas is an engagement in issue advo-cacy.

Mr. MCCAIN. You really believe thatwas an issue advocacy ad when theysaid: Congressman J.D. HAYWORTH is anenemy of every man, woman and childin Arizona? Surely, the Senator fromKentucky does not believe that. Sure-ly, the Senator from Kentucky doesnot believe that these independent ads,which are done by both sides, both Re-publican and Democrats, are no morethan character attacks, destruction,but, more importantly, adjunct to po-litical campaigns. Surely, the Senatorfrom Kentucky cannot stand here onthe floor of the Senate and say thatthose are independent campaigns byany reasonable definition.

Mr. MCCONNELL. I say to my friendfrom Arizona, it really does not makeany difference what the Senator fromKentucky says. The Supreme Courtsays——

Mr. MCCAIN. I think it has a lot todo with what the Senator from Ken-tucky believes. I think it has a lot todo with it, because if the Senator fromKentucky thinks that this is just basi-cally an evasion of the law by gettingaround the law, which has contributionlimits, then certainly it matters whatthe Senator from Kentucky believes.

If the Senator from Kentucky be-lieves that these are truly independentcampaigns, set up and run and fundedby individuals who just want to seetheir particular issues, whether it bepro-life or pro-choice or workers’ rightto strike or any of the others, thenfine. But it is beyond me to believethat the Senator from Kentucky couldhave, having seen these ads—he is verydeeply involved in the political proc-ess—that they are independent. Theyare not. They are appendices of the po-litical campaigns. The tragedy of it is,98 percent of them are attack ads, asthe Senator well knows.

Mr. MCCONNELL addressed theChair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. COL-LINS). The Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. MCCONNELL. I believe I havethe floor.

All I was trying to say to my friendfrom Arizona is that worth a good dealmore than the opinion of the Senatorfrom Kentucky is the opinion of theSupreme Court, which has said in orderto avoid—and admittedly these groupswant to criticize us. There is no ques-tion about it. They want to criticizeus. They want to criticize us. And wehate it. They want to criticize us inproximity to the elections. Sometimesthey criticize us earlier than that.

But the Supreme Court has said thatit is issue advocacy unless the words‘‘vote for,’’ ‘‘elect,’’ ‘‘support,’’ ‘‘castyour ballot,’’ ‘‘Smith for Congress,’’

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10133September 29, 1997‘‘vote against,’’ ‘‘defeat,’’ or ‘‘reject’’—or it lists the magic words here. It isnot really vague. I think the reason theCourt did this is because they want toencourage citizens to be free to be crit-ical of us any time they want to.

I would readily concede to my friendfrom Arizona we have gotten a lotmore criticism in the last couple ofyears than we used to. I will also read-ily concede that having been the bene-ficiary, or victim, depending on yourpoint of view, of some of that myself, Ido not like it. But the Court, it seemsto me, has made it rather clear that wedo not have the right to keep thesepeople, these groups, from expressingtheir views about our records at anypoint, whether it is in close proximityto the election or not.

Now, an independent expenditure, asmy friend from Arizona knows, is dif-ferent. That is hard money. That isregulated by the FEC. In order to qual-ify as an independent expenditure, youmust not consult with those whom youare seeking to aid or reject.

Issue advocacy is a different animal.The Court has put that in a separatecategory. Admittedly, the distinctionsare sometimes blurred. The Court an-ticipated in the Buckley case thatmany times the distinction would beblurred. But they erred on the side ofmore expression. They erred on theside of allowing more and more citi-zens, if they chose to, to criticize us atany point they wanted to.

Now, what we all saw in 1996 wasthere was a lot of criticism, a lot ofcriticism by a lot of groups that a lotof people on my side of the aisle did notlike. But I think there is not anychance whatsoever the Supreme Courtis going to allow us by legislation tomake it difficult for people to criticizeus just because it may be in close prox-imity to an election.

Therein lies the dilemma. My goodfriend from Arizona is trying hard todo that. I understand why he wouldlike to do it. These campaigns are asource of great irritation to the peoplewho run for public office. I understandthat.

Mr. MCCAIN. Could I respond?Mr. MCCONNELL. It is just my pre-

diction—just as one Senator here hav-ing read these cases, it is my pre-diction that the courts will not allowus to in effect shut these folks up or tocreate a context in which their criticiz-ing us is more difficult. That is just myopinion. But it is also the opinion ofmany, including the American CivilLiberties Union, who have looked atthis particular area.

Mr. MCCAIN. Could I respond to theSenator very quickly?

Mr. MCCONNELL. Sure.Mr. MCCAIN. First of all, the Senator

well knows better than I, footnote 52 iswhere the magic words are, which is afootnote on the decision. The interpre-tation of many of us is that the lan-guage in the body of the opinion indi-cates that Congress does have a role toplay and can be involved in it.

But that is a difference of opinionthat the Senator from Kentucky and Ihave. That is why I think I would bewilling to try to make a case on thefloor of the Senate here of the con-stitutionality of our view of changingthe definitions of ‘‘independent expend-iture’’ and ‘‘express advocacy’’ just aswhen we passed the line-item veto andthere was significant constitutionalquestion about the line-item veto bygood and principled individuals of thisbody who said, ‘‘Look. What you’redoing here is unconstitutional; so,therefore, I’m voting against it.’’

I am saying that I believe there issufficient good opinions by good andprincipled individuals that differ as towhat the interpretation is and whatCongress has the right to not do.

May I ask unanimous consent,Madam President, to have strickenfrom the RECORD the name of a Mem-ber of the other body, because Imisspoke, and it is against the rules ofthe Senate to say the name of a Mem-ber of the other body. I ask unanimousconsent that that reference be removedfrom the RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection?

Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President,I believe I have the floor. I had yieldedto the Senator from Arizona for a ques-tion.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Kentucky has the floor.

Mr. MCCAIN. So if I could finish myanswer. It is not so much that it aggra-vates me as to whether it is negative ornot. Of course, it pains all of us whenthe approval rating of elected officialsis so low. There was a Fox poll thatsaid, ‘‘I believe that my Member ofCongress is:’’ 36 percent said, ‘‘someoneI can trust,’’ 44 percent said, ‘‘a lyingwindbag.’’ That bothers all of us. Butthat is not the fundamental problemhere, I say to my friend from Ken-tucky, because you can do that withhard money. You should be able to dothat with hard money, any kind of at-tack, any kind of thing you want to do.

What we are objecting to is it beingused for soft money and the fact that itis not independent, does not meet, byany objective measure, at least in myview, the definition of the word ‘‘inde-pendent.’’

I thank the Senator from Kentucky.Mr. MCCONNELL. I believe I still

have the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Kentucky still has the floor.Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator

yield?Mr. McCONNELL. No, not right now.I say to my friend from Arizona, it is

not at all clear that express advocacyhas to be independent. But neverthe-less, the Senator from Arizona is en-tirely correct that the words are in afootnote. There is no question that thewords are in a footnote.

On the other hand, there have beenat least 15 cases in this field. This hasbeen a field that has been very muchlitigated. The Federal Election Com-

mission has been interested in goingafter issue advocacy groups for years.So there has been a lot of litigation onthe issue that my friend from Arizonaraises.

He raises a good point, it is in a foot-note. It is not like we haven’t beenthere before. There have been 15 cases.The FEC has lost every single issue ad-vocacy case seeking to do things simi-lar—similar—to what is sought to bedone by legislation here.

Recently in the Citizens Action Net-work case, not only did the fourth cir-cuit rule against the Federal ElectionCommission trying to do what we aretrying to do here, it ordered them topay the legal fees of the group thatthey were out to quiet.

So the only thing I say to my friendfrom Arizona, he is right, it is a foot-note. On the other hand, this is some-thing that the courts have had a gooddeal to say about, a good deal to sayabout, and there has been a lot of liti-gation on this whole question of tryingto quiet the voices of those who wouldcriticize us for our votes.

I see my friend from Utah is on thefloor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senatorfrom Kentucky yield?

Mr. McCONNELL. Was the Senatorfrom Utah seeking to ask a question?

Mr. BENNETT. I would like to obtainthe floor in my own right at somepoint, but I make a comment to theSenator from Kentucky and ask him ifhe would like at this point with respectto the 126 scholars that have been men-tioned up until now—I will wait until Ihave the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I think this kind of de-bate we need to engage in. I think thisis important. I think the CONGRES-SIONAL RECORD needs to be made and Ilook forward to more of this kind of de-bate and discussion because this isreally the heart of the matter. I thankthe Senator from Kentucky for raisingthis particular issue because this seemsto be one of the major, if not themajor, areas that need to be discussed.

Thank you.Mr. McCONNELL. I believe I still

have the floor.I agree with the Senator from Ari-

zona. I think this is the heart of thecurrent version of MCCAIN-FEINGOLD,and certainly does need to be ade-quately vented.

I see the Senator from Wisconsin wasinterested in getting into the discus-sion.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senatorfrom Kentucky for his courtesy and Iwill have a couple of brief questions forhim on a very interesting discussionthat the Senator from Arizona andKentucky had.

I ask the Senator from Kentucky ifhe voted for the Communications De-cency Act, which was sent up to theSupreme Court?

Mr. McCONNELL. Frankly, I don’tremember. I am sure the Senatorknows.

Mr. FEINGOLD. The answer is yes. Ibelieve there were only 16 Members of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10134 September 29, 1997the Senate—I happened to be one—whodid not think it was constitutional,who thought it was a violation of thefirst amendment to start censoring theInternet.

Does the Senator recall how the Su-preme Court disposed of the Commu-nications Decency Act?

Mr. MCCONNELL. Why don’t I let theSenator from Wisconsin tell us.

Mr. FEINGOLD. It was a unanimousdecision, 9 to 0.

The U.S. Senate, including yourself,voted overwhelmingly for somethingthat in my view, was unconstitutionalon its face.

What was the downside of it? Whathappened? What happened was that thelaw was struck down, isn’t that right?

Mr. MCCONNELL. My friend fromWisconsin, who is a distinguished law-yer and went to Harvard knows thatpornography does not enjoy the samelevel of protection as political speech.The Supreme Court has always put po-litical discourse in a special protectedcategory. Pornography, by its very def-inition, has been excluded from firstamendment protection.

My guess is that in that particularpiece of litigation we didn’t have avery good idea how the Supreme Courtwas going to decide and the Senatorfrom Wisconsin is probably going tosay why not take a chance here and seeif the Court will uphold these restric-tions on express advocacy.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I assume the Sen-ator has no doubt that this SupremeCourt will strike down the provisionsin our bill he is talking about, isn’tthat right?

Mr. MCCONNELL. It is my hope,Madam President, that we won’t givethem an opportunity to do it.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I understand, butmy question is, Don’t you believe thatthis Court would strike down the provi-sions you criticize?

Mr. MCCONNELL. Yes, I believe theSupreme Court would not, in this high-ly protected area of political speech,allow the Congress to reduce the qual-ity of criticism that can be leveled atus in proximity to an election.

I think we are not flying entirelyblind here, Madam President, becausethis whole delicate area of issue advo-cacy has benefited from a lot of litiga-tion.

Mr. FEINGOLD. One other question,a point I am trying to make for theRECORD is I agree with the Senatorfrom Kentucky that should we passthis legislation, this, of course, will goto the Supreme Court. I think it isvery important that we acknowledge aswe make this RECORD that they will re-view it, and that they will want toknow exactly what our intentions werewith regard to this legislation.

I want to ask a question in terms ofmaking this RECORD, following on thequestion of the Senator from Arizona. Iwill read the Senator from Kentuckyan advertisement that supposedly wasan issue advocacy ad, apparently le-gally treated that way, and ask him if

he believes this is properly character-ized as issue advocacy rather than ex-press advocacy or campaign ad.

The ad concerned a Winston Bryant.The announcement said, ‘‘Senate can-didate Winston Bryant’s budget as at-torney general increased 71 percent.Bryant has taken taxpayer-funded jun-kets to the Virgin Islands, Alaska, andArizona, and spent about $100,000 onnew furniture. Unfortunately, as theState’s top law enforcement official, hehas never opposed the parole of anyconvicted criminal, even rapists andmurderers; and almost 4,000 Arkansasprisoners have been sent back to prisonfor crimes committed while they wereout on parole. Winston Bryant: govern-ment waste, political junkets, soft oncrime. Call Winston Bryant and tellhim to give the money back.

Does the Senator from Kentuckyconsider that to be an issue ad withinthe Supreme Court definition, or doeshe think it is possible—possible—thatthe U.S. Supreme Court just might findthat to be a campaign ad?

Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President,that ad sounds very similar to somenewspaper editorials I have read duringthe end of campaigns and in editorialendorsements, another form of criti-cism that we typically find very offen-sive.

My guess is, absent the words ‘‘votefor,’’ or ‘‘vote against,’’ the others thatwe went over in the Buckley case, theCourt would in all likelihood say thosevoters are perfectly free to make can-didate Winston Bryant very uncomfort-able before his election.

And I understand that the Senatorfrom Wisconsin and the Senator fromArizona would like to change thatstandard and give the Supreme Courtanother chance to try to reach a dif-ferent decision.

Let me tell you why, Madam Presi-dent, I think it is extremely unlikelythat the Court would go in the direc-tion that the Senator from Wisconsinwould like it to go. Referring again tothe American Civil Liberties Union,America’s experts on the first amend-ment, dealing with the restrictions onindependent expenditures and issue ad-vocacy in the bill we are discussing.

They say the new restrictions onindependent expenditure are improp-erly intruding upon the core area ofelectoral speech and invading the abso-lutely protected area of issue advo-cacy—absolutely protected area ofissue advocacy.

The ACLU went on: Two basic truthshave emerged with crystal clarity after20 years of campaign finance deci-sions— 20 years. This is not a new areaof the law; 20 years of campaign fi-nance decisions.

First, independent expenditures forexpress electoral advocacy by citizengroups about political candidates lie atthe very core of the meaning and pur-pose of the first amendment. This isnot some peripheral area here—thevery core of the first amendment.

Second, issue advocacy by citizengroups lie totally outside the permis-

sible area of Government regulation.So I say to my friend from Wisconsin,my prediction that no matter howmuch candidate Bryant may not haveliked that criticism, my predictionthat the Court is likely to uphold theability of citizens to band together andengage in that criticism is based not onsome kind of speculation but on 20years of decisions in this field.

So I guess my prediction, in answerto the question the Senator from Wis-consin asked, is that I don’t thinkthere is any chance the Court wouldallow the Congress to make it tougherfor people to criticize us. There is abso-lutely no hint in 20 years of cases inthis area that the Court is going tobacktrack and give us the ability toquiet our critics. We would love to dothis.

One thing I am sure the Senator fromWisconsin and I agree on, we don’t likethis kind of thing. We really would pre-fer not to be criticized by either ofthese avenues, whether it is independ-ent expenditures or whether it is ex-press advocacy, we don’t like it. Ithink we can stipulate that.

However, the Court has been ratherclear over 20 years that we are notgoing to be able to quiet these voices.So my prediction would be that theywould not allow us to do it.

There are others who want to speak.I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Wisconsin.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senatorfrom Kentucky for his candid answersand say I have great confidence in theU.S. Supreme Court. They are perfectlycapable of handling this provision. Ourjob is to pass a law so they can take itup and they can strike it down if theydon’t like it. That is the approach wetake here when there is a good-faithdisagreement about a constitutionalprovision. Surely there are good-faitharguments on both sides, and the rightbody to resolve it is the SupremeCourt.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Utah.

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President,during the hearings we have held in theGovernmental Affairs Committee therehave been a number of headline-grab-bing witnesses who have appeared be-fore us. Unfortunately, when we got tothe phase of the hearings where wewere discussing this issue, the tele-vision cameras all left the room andthe press tables all became vacant.

In that atmosphere I was able to saysome things that I maybe wouldn’thave otherwise said because I knew noone would say anything. It is a bit likethe question, When a tree falls in theforest and nobody is there to hear itdoes it make any sound?

But there was one witness that ap-peared who made a lot of sound andwhose statements are so apropos I havetaken the floor to read most of theminto the RECORD. His full statement isavailable to anyone who wants to gointo the committee. I will not take the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10135September 29, 1997time to read the full statement here,but for the Senators who participatedin this debate I think hearing some ofthe comments this man made will beparticularly enlightening. I am speak-ing of Curtis Gans, the director of theCommittee for the Study of the Amer-ican Electorate. The advisory board ofthat committee includes people such asDavid Gergen, Peter Hart, AbigailMcCarthy, Cyrus Vance, former Sec-retary of State, Ted Van Dyk, AnneWexler, Richard Whalen, and a numberof others whose names I don’t recog-nize but I am sure are equally distin-guished.

Mr. Gans points out he has been thedirector of this nonpartisan nonprofitcommittee for 21 years, engaged in theissues surrounding low and decliningvoter participation. That is his area ofexpertise. He has published publica-tions, organized commissions, testifiedbefore Congress, engaged in this activ-ity for a long period of time.

With my apologies for quoting somuch, I will get into the details of Mr.Gans’ testimony because, as I said, Ithink it is particularly enlightening.

I am now quoting from Mr. Gans:Mr. Chairman, with all respect to this

committee’s good work and the chairman’sgood intentions, I would like to suggest afew verities: that campaign finance is themost overblown issue in American politics,that the problems we face today in campaignfinance are the products of bad law passed in1971 and 1974 and the severability containedin that law and not the result of the Buckleyversus Valeo decision; that there are seriousproblems in the present methods of financingcampaigns, but that they are built into theincentive structure current law creates;that, in attempting to remedy the existingproblems deliberations should be guided bythe principle of ‘‘Do No Harm,’’ (that wehave already seen the unintended con-sequences of good intentions) and that itshould proceed incrementally and with truebipartisanship; and that the case for such in-cremental reform can be done without thegross vilification of individual leaders or thesystem as a whole which is both inaccurateand does a profound disservice by undermin-ing—perhaps more than the laws them-selves—public faith in the political process.

Mr. Gans goes on in another place inhis testimony:

I think the American people have longknown that people give money for essen-tially four reasons:

1. That they are friends with the candidateor officeholder.

2. That the candidate or officeholder hasviews congruent to the giver on one or morekey issues.

3. That the opponent has views which areanathema on one or more key issues.

4. To gain access to the candidate/office-holder to express one’s interest and point ofview.

I don’t believe that the American peoplethink that Representative . . .

He names the Member of the otherbody.is a liberal because he gets liberal money, orthat . . .

He names another Member of theother body.is a conservative because he gets conserv-ative money.

I do believe they understand that access isdifferent from influence—even if money buysaccess. I think they know that access to aleader comes from several different sources—personal friendship, long-time loyalty, fame,grassroots citizens organization and money,and that money does not speak with onevoice. I think the American people know—astheir responses to surveys about their ownCongresspersons and Senators (the ones withwhom they have had first-hand experience)—that the overwhelming majority of leadersare honorable leaders who arrive at publicpolicy decisions on a basis other than con-tributions. And that if there is cynicismabout the profession as a whole, it is not be-cause of its actions, but because they havebeen vilified by those who seek reform.

Later on in his statement, Mr. Gansgives what I find to be two fascinatingquestions:

I am fond of asking the question: ‘‘What doSocial Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Aid toFamilies with Dependent Children, Federalaid to education, the Civil Rights Act, theVoting Rights Act, the Occupational Safetyand Health Administration, the Environ-mental Protection Agency, the Council onEnvironmental Quality have in common?’’

The answer is that they were all enactedand created when individuals could give un-limited and undisclosed amounts of moneyto candidates, often in unmarked paper bags,and when the Republican party usually en-joyed a 3–1 spending advantage over theDemocrats. (As one staff member of thiscommittee has pointed out, it should also benoted that the Hatch and Taft-Hartley Actswere also enacted in this period, lest the Re-publicans think reform would be a goodthing for their policy ends.)

What this incandescently shows us is thatmajor public policy is a matter of leadershipand citizen consensus rather than campaigncash.

Mr. Gans goes on in his second ques-tion, equally compelling in my opinion:

I am also fond of asking a second question,‘‘What do Michael Huffington, Clayton Wil-liams, Rudy Boschwitz, Mark Dayton, LewLehrman, Jack Brooks, Guy VanderJagt,Steve Forbes and, if anyone remembers,John Connally, have in common?’’

The answer is that each and every one ofthem spent millions of dollars of their ownmoney, outspent their opponents by as muchas 5–1 and lost.

When he gets to discussing our cur-rent problems, Mr. Gans has this tosay.

. . . campaign finance laws were enacted in1971 and 1974, whose only beneficially durablefeatures were the mandating of public disclo-sure of some of the money in politics, theprovision for partial public financing of cam-paigns and the establishment of an agency,which for whatever its flaws, has attemptedto do a decent job of disclosure and trackingand improving election law.

Later, he says:That law were challenged and substantial

parts of the law were overturned in Buckley.The Supreme Court ruled, and I believerightly, not, as some would have us believe,that ‘‘money is speech,’’ but rather thatmoney is necessary for speech to be heard.Accordingly, the Court ruled against spend-ing limits—as inhibiting speech and competi-tion (about which there is considerable evi-dence) unless such limits were truly vol-untary and until there were compensatorybenefits to insure that there would be a fulland fair hearing of campaign speech. It over-turned restrictions on the use of personalfunds in campaigns. But it left stand, I think

wrongly, the $1,000 contribution limits (tomeet the ‘‘appearance of corruption,’’ and es-tablished a ‘‘bright line’’ of ‘‘express advo-cacy’’—the specific advocacy to vote for oragainst a particular candidate, so named, asthe only place in which the amount of moneyspent on such advocacy could be regulated.

Because the law law was written so that itwas severable—that the provisions whichwere not struck down—would remain inplace, we emerged with an accident waitingto happen, a partial law for which evasionwould prove not only likely, but perhaps nec-essary. We ended up with contribution limitsthat were constraining and subject to strictdisclosure, hard money for both candidatesand national parties which were severely re-stricted and subject to disclosure both on thecontribution and expenditure level, softmoney—to nonfederal party accounts and tononprofit groups—which were unregulatedand only partially disclosed. . . . The prob-lems with the resulting system became evi-dence early.

Mr. Gans goes on to give us a per-sonal example that I found fascinating.He says:

(On the issue of venture capital, I canspeak from some experience. I provided thetheory for and helped organize in 1967 some-thing called ‘‘the Dump Johnson Move-ment,’’ and by the accident of being one oftwo persons who knew who populated thatmovement, I became staff director of Sen-ator Eugene McCarthy’s 1968 Presidentialcampaign. When the candidate announced onNovember 30, 1967, he was unknown to 57 per-cent of the American people; in early Feb-ruary, he stood at 2 percent in the polls inNew Hampshire, the first primary, and therewas near-universal opinion that one couldnot beat a sitting President within his ownparty. If we had had to live within thepresent contribution limits, that campaignwould never have happened and the people ofthe United States would have been deniedthe opportunity to express their opinion onthe war in Vietnam and Johnson’s leadershipwithin the political process. There was nei-ther the time to raise the money or an ade-quately accessible number of small contribu-tors to make that effort possible. And we donot today know how many other legitimatechallengers have been denied the oppor-tunity since 1974 to compete because of alack of venture capital.)

Now, apropos of this debate, Mr. Ganshas some interesting things to sayabout that great bugaboo, soft money:

Then, there is the question of ‘‘softmoney.’’ I, along with Dr. Herbert Alexanderand Dr. Anthony Corrado, among compara-tively dispassionate and nonpartisan observ-ers, have long been a defender of soft money.I have done so because my research showsthat in competitive campaigns for the U.S.Senate, nearly 60 percent . . . of the hardmoney campaign budget goes to televised ad-vertising, 30 percent usually is expended onfundraising, and the balance on candidatetravel and staff. In this situation, softmoney are the only funds then and nowavailable for activities involving people—grassroots campaigning, voter registrationand education and party development.

But beginning in 1992, soft money has in-creasingly been used for none of these. In-stead, almost all of these unregulated mon-eys have been poured into television adver-tising, which is the antithesis of grassrootsorganization and party development. Theyunderline participation and erode respect foreither party. It is safe to say that one reasonthe Democratic National Committee is sub-stantially in the business of refunding illegalcontributions is that they so denuded their

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10136 September 29, 1997staff during the campaign to put every lastdollar into advertising that there was no oneleft to exercise oversight.

All of which is to suggest that—withoutthe high-flown rhetoric about corruption,elections being bought and public policybeing for sale—both supporters and critics ofcurrent and choice reform proposals seesome of the same problems.

The question is what to do. And thereinlies the rub.

Mr. Gans says:I will leave to others the argument about

the implication of limits on the FirstAmendment guarantees of free speech. WhileI agree with them, leaders like SenatorMITCH MCCONNELL, Ira Glasser, RoySchotland, among a host of others, can carrythis argument better than I. I would ratherdeal in the world of practicality.

He goes on to say:I think there are four verities which will,

at least in my limited lifetime and perhapsthrough the lifetime of my ten-year-oldchild, continue to hold:

1. That because of the recent realignmentin the South, the Republican Party will con-tinue to have, at the very minimum, a clo-ture-proof minority. The impact of this oncampaign finance law is that campaigns willbe run for the forseeable future largely or to-tally on private money.

I think his implication there is thathe knows the Republican Party is op-posed to public funding.

2. That the Supreme Court is highly un-likely ever to rule that an individual cannotspend whatever he or she wants of his or herpersonal money on his or her campaign.Thus, we will continue to have self-financedmillionaires running for office.

3. That the Supreme Court is highly un-likely to rule that like-minded people cannotband together, organize, participate and con-tribute to campaigns. Thus, we will continueto have political action committees.

4. That the Supreme Court is highly un-likely to say that groups and individualsindependent of campaigns cannot expresstheir points of view on the issues and can-didates up for election. Thus, we will con-tinue to have independent expenditures.

(Two things in this regard should be noted.The recent statement by 126 legal scholars,organized by the Brennan Center, was nota-bly silent on these issues. Secondly, Mr.James Bopp’s excellent law review articlewhich chronicles various recent cases regard-ing independent expenditures shows that, ifanything, both the Court—in the Coloradocase, and the courts, in general, are likely toexpand the ability of both parties and inde-pendent groups to exercise their free speechrights in the electoral context.)

All of which suggests to me that no closedsystem can or, from my point of view, shouldbe created and that limits will not work.

Do we really want to continue the currentlow level of contribution limits and continueto advantage millionaires and those withlarge rolodexes of midlevel and large con-tributors?

Do we really want to abolish soft money ifthe net effect will be simply to starve the po-litical parties and drive money toward inde-pendent expenditures?

He says:In some mythical world it might be con-

ceivable to create a system of limits whichwould not have downside effects—that wouldbe high enough to insure competition, thatwould provide for full accountability, andwould provide varying forms of compensa-tion for the inequities that grants the con-stitutional rights to such entities as million-

aires and independent expenditures may cre-ate.

Madam President, I love this sen-tence. It summarizes better than any-thing I could say how I feel about theenforcement procedures that we arehaving discussion about here:

But to administer such a program wouldlikely take a bureaucracy larger than theDepartment of Defense and a litigation budg-et considerably in excess of the Departmentof Justice and the tobacco companies com-bined.

Well, what does Mr. Gans have tooffer in the way of a solution? He saysthis toward the end of his testimony:

I think at this time there is a possibility ofreal bipartisan agreement on a number ofmodest, but not unimportant steps.

1. That we mandate full and timely disclo-sure of all contributions and expendituresabove a certain level and within a certaintimeframe—including the expenditures andlarger contributions to State parties andindependent expenditure groups.

2. That we establish nationwide comput-erization of finance records and mandateelectronic filing and fast release of all thingsmandated to be disclosed.

3. That we define adequately what a for-eign contribution is, provide strict prohibi-tion on such contribution and provide teethin the enforcement of this provision.

4. That, at least within this mandate, weempower the federal election commissionand give it the resources to do its job.

5. That we indeed do something about softmoney. But that we need to think carefullyabout what we do. To abolish soft moneywould send money into independent expendi-tures and, in the absence of substantiallyraising the amount which can be given inhard money, starve already atrophying par-ties.

There is, to my mind, a better way. Whichis that soft money has been justified on thebasis that it exists to provide a source offunds for grassroots activity and party build-ing. Let us limit its use to that. Specifically,let us, as we have not until now, recognize inlaw that such funds exist, deny their use forbroadcast advertising and overrule the Fed-eral Election Commission’s decision that‘‘generic’’ advertising is not broadcast adver-tising as stated in existing law. If we didthat we would either reduce the demand forsoft money or there would be enormousamounts of money moving in the right direc-tion—in activities that educate and engagethe citizenry and strengthen and build politi-cal institutions rather than in destroyingthe will to vote.

This would not solve all the problems con-tained within the campaign finance conun-drum, particularly with respect to contribu-tion limits, independent expenditures andthe overall and spiralling demand for money.But it would be a good start. It would makethe system profoundly more accountable,and it would correct the worst abuses of softmoney without rendering the parties impo-tent.

Finally, as he concludes, Mr. Ganssummarizes this whole circumstance inlanguage that is one of those phrasesyou say afterward, ‘‘Gee, I wish I hadwritten that.’’

This is his conclusion.The dialogue on campaign finance has gen-

erated a maximum amount of heat and aminimum amount of light.

Our political system has been called cor-rupt. Our Congress bought. Our leaders cow-ardly. All in the name of attempting to force

through a particular set of ill-thought outproposals for reform on a Congress whichwell understands their weakness.

Those responsible for this dialogue areCommon Cause, Public Citizen and theirmouthpieces particularly on the editorialboards of The Washington Post and NewYork Times. And while both the latter aregreat newspapers with noble journalistic tra-ditions, with respect to this set of issues, allshould be ashamed.

Not only because it is not true, but becausethey, by this attitude, much more than theadmittedly flawed system of campaign fi-nance, are deepening the cynicism of an al-ready increasingly cynical public.

I know the overwhelming majority of ourleaders are honorable. I know many havedemonstrated courage in their lives and intheir political conduct. I know that, despitemany flaws, this nation’s political system isthe greatest in the world or at least amongthe greatest.

It is time to stand up to the bullies andcool the dialogue—to pinpoint our flaws pre-cisely and address them, but not to teardown the system most of us love and areseeking to improve.

As I said at the outset, Madam Presi-dent, I apologize for quoting so muchfrom one man’s testimony. But I foundit compelling. I find myself in agree-ment with almost all of it, if not all ofit. I am particularly in agreement withhis statements that our problems arisein large part because of the flaws in thecurrent law, and the lack of severabil-ity that occurred when the law camebefore the Court, so that when theCourt found portions of it unconstitu-tional they did not strike down the en-tire law. And we were left with, as Mr.Gans says, ‘‘an accident waiting tohappen.’’

I know in the context of this debatewe cannot start with a clean sheet ofpaper and move in the direction thatMr. Gans outlined. But if in fact, asmany are predicting, and as, frankly, Iexpect nothing comes of the present ef-fort to enact McCain-Feingold, I hopethat instead of walking away from itshaking our heads and pointing our fin-gers at each other that we take a clearlook at Mr. Gans’ approach, whichwould be to, as he quotes Abraham Lin-coln, ‘‘think anew and act anew,’’ andsay, We can solve this problem. We cansolve it in a bipartisan manner. But wecan do it in such a way that would notcreate all of the evils that his testi-mony so graphically describes.

I thank my colleagues for their in-dulgence in allowing me to read somuch.

I yield the floor, Madam President.Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from North Dakota.Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I

must say that it is interesting when weinvolve ourselves in aggressive andcontroversial debates that we find fromtime to time we disagree with col-leagues for whom we have the greatestrespect. That is certainly the case withme for the Senator from Utah. He isone of the best Members of the U.S.Senate, and I have been privileged towork with him on a lot of things. And,yet, I profoundly disagree with him on

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10137September 29, 1997this issue. I want to spend a bit of timeexplaining why that is the case.

In September 1796, George Washing-ton announced that he was retiringafter some 45 years of service. I want toread just a paragraph from his Fare-well Address, which is read each yearhere in this Chamber.

George Washington wrote:This government, the offspring of our own

choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adoptedupon full investigation and mature delibera-tion, completely free in its principles, in thedistribution of its powers, uniting securitywith energy, and containing within itself aprovision for its own amendment, has a justclaim to your confidence and your support.

George Washington was right aboutthat. I wonder today, as perhaps othershave before me, why has the confidenceand support of the American people inthis institution receded? What is caus-ing that?

I happen to enjoy public policy. Irather like politics. I feel that it is anenormous privilege to serve here in theU.S. Senate. And, yet, I think the po-litical system is a system that has be-come distorted in a caricature of itself.The question is, what can we do aboutthat? What should we do about that? Inanswering that, we should probably an-swer, what is the problem? Answer thequestion, what is the problem? Andthen define, what is the solution?

I have listened for the last hour anda half with great interest to my friend,the Senator from Kentucky, who I amsure will be back on the floor momen-tarily. He made references when theSenator from Arizona was speakingthat no one can nor should be pre-vented from involving themselves inissue advocacy, et cetera. No one thatI am aware of on the floor of the Sen-ate has ever proposed such a position.No one that I am aware of is suggestingthat anyone under any circumstancesin this country can be prevented fromspeaking, or prevented from paying fora political message. No one has madethat proposition.

So, to the extent that it is being rep-resented that is so, let us say, yes, thatis the case. And let’s move on to whatwe are debating, and not create a newdebate.

When the Lincoln and Douglas de-bates were well underway, at one point,I am told, President Lincoln was sofrustrated because he couldn’t get Mr.Douglas to understand his point. Andfinally he said to him in great frustra-tion, ‘‘Well, then tell me. How manylegs does a horse have?’’

Douglas said, ‘‘Why, four, of course.’’Lincoln said, ‘‘Well, now if you were

to call a horse’s tail a leg, how manylegs would the horse have?’’

Douglas said, ‘‘Why, five.’’Lincoln said, ‘‘See, that is where you

are wrong. Simply calling it a legdoesn’t make it a leg at all.’’

That is the point in this debate. Onecan take positions. But if they are noton point and totally relevant to whatis being discussed, what is the value ofthe position?

I want to describe that just a bit interms of what I mean by that.

The Senator from Wisconsin read anadvertisement. I want to read it againbecause I think it is at the heart ofthis discussion, and it is at the heart ofthe mess that we find ourselves in incampaign finance reform. This was anad in a Senate race down South. I willjust add as an aside that both politicalparties did this. Independent groups didit. But here is an ad.

Senate candidate Winston Bryant’s budgetas attorney general increased 71 percent.Bryant has taken taxpayer-funded junkets tothe Virgin Islands, Alaska and Arizona, andspent $100,000 on new furniture. Unfortu-nately, as the State’s top law enforcementofficial, he has never opposed the parole ofany convicted criminal, even rapists andmurderers; and almost 4,000 Arkansas pris-oners have been sent back to prison forcrimes committed while they were out on pa-role. ‘‘Winston Bryant: government waste,political junkets, soft on crime. Call WinstonBryant and tell him to give the moneyback.’’

Should there be some position thatsays they don’t have any right to saythis? No. Whoever did this has everyright to put this on television, and did.Do they have a right to put this on TVwith soft money so that those who con-tributed are never disclosed? Do theyhave a right to say this is not part ofthe political process; this is not part ofthe campaign; it is totally unrelated;this is an issue advocacy commercial?Does that pass anybody’s laugh test?Not in a million years.

That is why one Senator, when askedrepeatedly by the Senator from Ari-zona, ‘‘Do you really think these areindependent; do you really believethese are independent expenditures?’’—referencing a series of these kinds ofthings. It was never answered. I sus-pect the answer would be no.

We all understand what is going on.The same people are involved. Theyhire common television producers toproduce the commercials, and the samefundraising networks. But it has be-come a legal form of cheating. It hastaken the old tax reform law and ma-nipulated it and distorted it to thepoint that is no longer recognizable,and becomes what I think is a legalform of cheating. And I say that weought to stop this. Stop it by sayingYou can’t say it? No. You can say that.But if you want to get involved in thisparticular Senate campaign, then youmust abide by the rules. You say it byhard dollars and disclose who donatedthe hard dollars.

That is the point. It is not that theycan’t say it. It is that they are requiredto use the same hard dollars that thepeople involved in the race are using,and getting it from the same sourcesand disclosing who made the contribu-tion.

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President,will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy toyield for a question.

Mr. BENNETT. I hesitate to intrudewhen he is in full cry because I don’t

like to be intruded on when I am in afull cry. But I am emboldened by thekind of words that my colleague of-fered at the beginning.

This is a personal observation. Iagree with the Senator absolutely.That ad should be identified; that itwas clearly part of the campaign. I amnot any more fooled than anybody else.However, we are driven to that kind ofchicanery by the present law.

My solution—and I am speakingclearly just for myself and not for any-body else on this side—would be to re-peal the present law and allow thecampaigns to go back to a degree ofhonesty. I do say to the Senator: I be-lieve that under the present ruling ofthe Court the statement by the Sen-ator from Kentucky is correct. TheCourt would rule that since the magicwords were not in that ad it would infact not be considered a campaign adunder the legal definition.

I agree with the Senator. The legaldefinition is artificial and improper.

But I would solve it in ways otherthan passing the McCain-Feingold.

I thank my friend.Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the con-

tribution because the contributionmade by the Senator from Utah is thatthis sort of thing is improper, and thatit is chicanery.

If that is the case—if in fact what Ijust described is improper and chica-nery—then the question isn’t whetherthere is a problem. The question is,What do we do about the problem?

And there are some people, as theSenator from Utah especially knows, inthis Chamber who would say, Whatproblem? There is no problem. Theonly problem we have, they say, isthere is not enough money in politics.

I want to show my colleagues what ishappening with campaign finance.

This line, the red line, describes whatis happening with funding for politicalcampaigns in this country.

I assume we can find people who willcome to the floor and will wave theirarms, and say on this floor and on thefloor on the other side of this building,Well, the American people spend x hun-dreds of millions of dollars on Rolaids,they spend x hundreds of millions ofdollars on Preparation H, and Oh Henrycandy bars and, therefore—what?Therefore, what? It is totally irrele-vant.

The point is what is happening tocampaign financing is it is mushroom-ing and escalating out of control. Isthere a problem? Or is it just fine?

In the paper today there is a state-ment by one of the leaders of the otherbody saying there is not enough moneyin politics; we need more money in pol-itics. In fact, those who debate thisissue saying there is too much moneyin politics are wrong. We need moremoney in politics, they say.

I could not disagree more. You seewhat is happening. There is too muchmoney in politics. Too much money. InState after State after State, all ofthese campaigns are mushrooming out

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10138 September 29, 1997of control, and it is not just the cam-paigns; it is the independent expendi-tures and all the groups weighing inwith chicanery and with improper, inmy judgment, spending, packaging upthings saying, by the way, this is inde-pendent, this is express advocacy, thisis issue advertising. And all of us knowthat you cannot say that any longerwith a straight face. It is all connected.It is all part of the same campaign. Itbecomes legal cheating. If we do nothave the courage to stand up when wesee this proliferation of legal cheatinggoing on and saying, if that’s the waythe law is going to be interpreted andif, after pulling the teeth of the FEC,we complain they can’t chew, if we areleft in that position, then let us atleast change the campaign finance lawto know what we should do in thiscountry and take at least some of theinfluence of money out of campaigns.

Now, there is a proposal that is beingdebated in the Senate called theMcCain-Feingold proposal. I don’tthink it is perfect. If I had written it,I would have written it differently. Icosponsored it, but I would have writ-ten it differently. But it is a proposalthat deals with a whole range ofthings, and it needs to deal with somemore. I hope that we will add to it anamendment to restore a portion thatwas not included when it was broughtto the floor of the Senate but whichwas included when it was written. Thatprovision is spending limits.

Now, I want to deal just a bit withthis question of spending limits andfree speech. I noticed this weekendsome of the columnists talked aboutthe speech patrol and the infringementof free speech, and so on.

Spending limits, which is not now inthis bill, which I think should be—andI hope there will be an amendment wecan vote on to restore spending lim-its—is an attempt to say let’s establisha set of rules by which campaigns arewaged and let’s try to see if we can, ifnot establish enforceable spending lim-its, at least establish voluntary spend-ing limits with sufficient incentivethat most campaigns would abide byvoluntary limits. The limit might be$1.5 million in one State, $3 million inanother, less than that in a thirdState, in which both candidates agreehere is a practical limit on spending.

As I said, there are lots of ways to dothat. The Supreme Court has alreadyruled by a one-vote margin that en-forceable spending limits is not appro-priate; it is unconstitutional. I thinkthe Supreme Court ought to be askedto rule again on another case because,if it is that close, I think you can makethe case they might rule differently inother circumstances. Notwithstandingthat, I think we ought to try to workto achieve some approach by which weare able to get spending limits in cam-paigns.

The problem is campaigns cost toomuch. That’s why money has such acorrosive influence in politics. Cam-paigns cost too much. How do you get

to the solution of that? Well, you tryto establish some spending limits,some spending limits that are prac-tical, that you can make stick.

John F. Kennedy used to say thatevery mother kind of hoped her childmight grow up to be President as longas they didn’t have to be active in poli-tics. I suppose he was musing abouthow unpopular the process of politicsis. I am not someone who believes thatpolitics is something that is under-handed or dirty. I think politics isnoble and honorable. I am involved init because I enjoy the political process.But I do not enjoy what is going onwith respect to campaign finance. Ithink this system is broken. No one inthis Chamber can look at this systemand with a straight face say, yes, thissystem sure does serve America well.

This system does not serve this coun-try well. This system is a disservice tothe country. Now, do we fix it by sug-gesting, as one Senator today has im-plied, that we prevent this group orthat group from being able to speak inthe political system? No. No one hasever recommended that—no one. So ifyou want to have that debate, havethat debate alone. You can always wina debate that no one else is involvedwith. I say good for you; you just wona debate that I was advocating.

We are not suggesting, none of us,that we would infringe on the right ofany group to say anything at any time.I am saying, however, that when youtake a look at advertisements like theone I described and read in the Cham-ber, as did Senator FEINGOLD, and un-derstand that this is a pole vault overthe legal definition and becomes on itsface a farce and an attempt to under-mine the process, if we are not willingto decide to correct this, then there isno hope for us to deal with the issue ofcampaign financing.

We have a bill in the Chamber that iscalled a reform bill. It is cosponsoredby Senator MCCAIN from Arizona andSenator FEINGOLD from Wisconsin.Both of them are Senators for whom Ihave a great deal of respect. I do notagree with them on everything either,but they brought a reform to the floorof the Senate. It is interesting; at leastfor a half-hour or so today I heard a de-scription of this bill that doesn’tmatch the bill. The description wasthat somehow Senator MCCAIN andSenator FEINGOLD want to prohibitcriticism of the Congress. So I felt,well, maybe I may have missed some-thing here. Maybe they have intro-duced a bill that I hadn’t read pre-viously.

But then I realized that is simplytaking the debate and moving it overhere to create an issue that does notexist because one is uncomfortable de-bating the issue of McCain-Feingold.

No one is suggesting there would beany manner that one could devise inMcCain-Feingoldo prohibit criticism ofthe U.S. Congress. Lord, read a couplehundred years of history and discoverabout a Congress that’s been criticized.

No one is suggesting that you could notdo anything that constitutionally pro-hibits criticism of the Congress. Wehave generous criticism of the Con-gress, always will. The issue that Sen-ator MCCAIN and Senator FEINGOLD ad-dress is not criticism of the Congress.It is the corrosive influence of moneyin campaigns. And ads like this spon-sored and run by organizations whosefunding is secret, undisclosed to any-one in this country, collected in softmoney increments perhaps of $20,000,$50,000, maybe $100,000, could be $1 mil-lion. We have seen 1 million chunks ofmoney go in soft money, undisclosedsecret money, through organizationsused as express advertising or expressadvocacy rather than declare they arenot part of the campaign. What abunch of rubbish. It does not pass anylaugh test in any cafe in this country,and that is why we must be seriousabout trying to find a way to thought-fully reform this system.

I would like to just mention two ad-ditional items before I close. One of theconcerns I have about our political sys-tem is so much of the advertising isnegative. There is nothing you can doabout that; I understand that. We can-not prohibit this kind of advertise-ment. We can say, if you are going toput this kind of advertisement on theair, you have to play by the rules andget hard money and disclose the do-nors.

There is nothing wrong with that.But we cannot prohibit any advertise-ment. So much of it now is negativeand so much of it is a 30-second littlepolitical explosion that goes on acrossour country where candidates are noteven hardly named, at least with re-spect to the person’s campaign, in fi-nancing the 30-second ad. It is a name-less, faceless, little bomb directed todestroy, tar or feather some other can-didate.

One of the small amendments that Iintend to offer is the following. We nowrequire in Federal law that televisionstations provide the lowest cost for tel-evision commercials during certain pe-riods of the year. In other words, thelowest part of their rate card must beoffered to campaigns for those politicalcommercials. I am going to proposethat the lowest cost on their rate cardbe provided candidates whose commer-cials are at least 1 minute in lengthand on which the candidate appears 75percent of the time. I am not suggest-ing you cannot continue the 30-secondslash-and-tear ads. Everybody can dothat. Why should we reward those ad-vertisements with the bottom of therate card? Why don’t we as a matter oflaw say we will provide and require thelowest rate be offered to those com-mercials that are at least 1 minute inlength and on which at least 75 percentof the time the candidate appears inthe commercial.

Well, we will have a debate aboutthat. I suppose some will say, well,that is interference. We interfere al-ready by saying you must charge the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10139September 29, 1997lowest rate that a television station of-fers for advertising for a political cam-paign during certain portions of theyear. Perhaps we could do so providingan incentive that the campaign com-mercials be somewhat instructive andsomewhat related to the candidate whois actually paying for the campaigncommercial.

There are several kinds of air pollu-tion in this country, one of which is po-litical air pollution, and if we can doanything to in any small, measurableway, provide a little more thoughtfulapproach to campaign advertisingthrough an incentive, then I would liketo see us do it. I expect, however, thatwhen and if I am able to offer thisamendment, some will suggest it issome sort of colossal interference. Ithink not. I think it is a sensible,thoughtful way to address that issue.

Finally, if the problem is there is toomuch money in politics and the solu-tion is to reform our campaign financ-ing system in one way or another, thenhow will we reform our system? Well,we reform it by bringing a bill to thefloor and passing it, doing the same inthe House, going to conference, agree-ing in conference and getting a bill tothe President he can sign.

Now, is that likely? What is likely tobe the future of campaign finance re-form? I applaud Senator LOTT forbringing it to the floor of the Senatefor a debate. Giving us the opportunityto discuss this issue is important. Butit is the starting line, not the finishline. The finish line for Congress willbe when we have, on a bipartisan basishopefully, achieved an agreement on acampaign finance reform package thatwill give the American people somebasic confidence that what we are hold-ing are elections not auctions; somebasic confidence that we will step awayfrom this exponential increase inspending on political campaigns.

Senator MCCAIN and SenatorFEINGOLD have taken a first long jumphere to get this legislation to the floorof the Senate, and I hope that in thecoming few days we can open up theprocess and allow some amendmentsand have a vote.

I noticed today, when the Senateopened for business, amendments wereoffered in a very careful way. In fact, ittook, I believe, six different amend-ments today in a series of maneuversto fill the tree which, for those whodon’t know about our parliamentarysituation, means that no one else is al-lowed to do anything at this point be-cause the parliamentary tree is full.Amendments are not allowed. So wehave had a maneuver that was accom-plished today to fill the tree.

So we will see where all that leads.Every time somebody does that—andboth sides have done it about a handfulof occasions—every time someone hasdone it, they have done it to preventsomeone else from doing somethinglater. I hope that is not the case. I hopewe can shake this tree a bit and shakeit sufficiently so that we can offer

some amendments and reach a conclu-sion on campaign finance reform thatis good for this country and restoressome confidence in the American peo-ple that we are moving in the right di-rection.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the

Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. AL-

LARD). The Senator from Connecticut.Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.This, as the tone of the debate indi-

cates, is a critically important debatewith consequences that go well beyondthe subject at hand, campaign financereform, because the infusion of massiveamounts of money into our politicalprocess affects so many other areas inwhich we are supposed to govern and tolegislate, and it is why this appro-priately becomes a priority topic.

As I hear the seriousness of the de-bate in the Chamber, I must share myown disappointment that there is mur-muring outside the Chamber that noth-ing is going to happen this year, thatthere is not going to be any campaignfinance reform legislation adopted,that this is just a lot of sound and furywhich, as the bard reminded us, willsignify nothing.

Well, that would be an infuriatingtragedy, an outrageous, in my opinion,abdication of our responsibility, ashocking refusal to face the facts thathave come out at the hearings of theSenate Governmental Affairs Commit-tee, on which I am privileged to serve.That committee’s hearings show thatours is a system in crisis, and it is acrisis that affects so many aspects ofour Government.

I hope these murmurings are wrong,and I hope that the debate we havebegun in the Chamber will signify morethan noise; it will signify the beginningof a genuine effort to change the laws,to go back in some ways to where wewere after the last great campaign fi-nance scandal, which was the Water-gate scandal, to go back to the lawsadopted after that scandal which setlimits not only on contributions but onspending in a campaign.

In my capacity as a member of theGovernmental Affairs Committee, Ihave had what might be called a front-and-center view of the extraordinaryfailures of the status quo campaign fi-nance system, failures that routinelystem from the corrupting influence ofbig money in politics. As if peelingback the layers of an onion, in thiscase a spoiled onion, our investigationslowly revealed story after story of un-seemly and negligent behavior that alltoo often seemed to cross over the lineinto lawlessness.

I know the Governmental AffairsCommittee’s hearings were controver-sial. Sometimes they were criticizedfor being partisan. In fact, sometimesthey were too partisan. But the fact is,though they were not always orderlyand they weren’t always neat and theyweren’t always pretty, they told astory. They told a story of a system

gone out of control and the con-sequences it has had on our great de-mocracy.

There was the international entre-preneur who never registered to votebecause he thought his money wasmore influential than his franchise.The sad fact is, he was right.

There was the story of the WhiteHouse official who advised a potentialcontributor, whom he had never met,whom he had just talked to over thephone, about how to effectively skirttax liabilities on a proposed donationof somewhere between $1 million and $5million.

There was the Republican Party re-search institute that defaulted on aloan from a Hong Kong businessmanand then swindled him out of the inter-est he had earned on his own money,which was deposited as collateral forthe loan; and the party chairman,Democratic Party chairman, who alleg-edly called on the CIA—although thereis doubt on this, conflicting testimony,but an allegation that the chairmancalled on the CIA to help burnish theimage of a questionable contributor.

In no uncertain terms, as far as I amconcerned, people with fat walletsbought access at the highest levels ofour Government, executive and con-gressional, and some Government lead-ers were perfectly willing to auctionoff their clout.

As California entrepreneur and majorDemocratic donor Johnny Chung ob-served, ‘‘The White House is a subway:You have to put in coins to open thegates.’’

Clearly, the two parties, in their madscramble for money, shamelessly ex-ploited during the 1996 election cyclewell-intentioned campaign financelaws to the point of rendering themmeaningless. In the end, their debasedstandards of the pressure-cooker worldof high-stakes election campaignsmocked one of the basic principles ofour democracy, the principle that allcitizens have an equal vote, an equalvoice in the governance of their coun-try, an equal opportunity to influenceits policies.

Now we have an unfettered politicalfundraising system that neither servesthe public interest nor deserves thepublic trust. No wonder the Americanpeople look on politics with a jaun-diced eye. No wonder more and more ofthem have concluded their vote doesn’tcount, so they don’t vote. I saw a sur-vey awhile ago of 165 countries in theworld today who conduct elections.The United States of America is 139thin terms of those of voting age who ac-tually vote. Our proud democracy—weare proud to call it the greatest democ-racy in the world—we are 139th amongthe countries of the world in the per-centage of our population that can votethat actually does vote. Don’t youthink part of that has to do with theconclusion that millions of our fellowAmericans have made that their votedoesn’t count, not if they don’t havemoney?

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10140 September 29, 1997The proposal offered by Senators

MCCAIN and FEINGOLD is, in my opin-ion, our best hope for changing this un-acceptable status quo and for revivingpublic faith in our Government.

The key to real reform, I concludeafter sitting through the Senate Gov-ernmental Affairs Committee hearings,is less big money and less special inter-est money in the election process. Thatis exactly what the McCain-Feingoldbill would do. The central provision ofthis bill is a ban on soft money; that is,a ban on unlimited contributions tothe two national parties from corpora-tions, unions, and wealthy individuals.

It is hard to believe, but it actuallywas 1907 when a law was passed by thisCongress that made it illegal for cor-porations to contribute to politicalcampaigns. In the 1940’s a similar lawwas passed regarding labor unions. Howis it that in the 1996 election corpora-tions and labor unions contributedhundreds of thousands of dollars indi-vidually, millions in some cases? It isbecause of this so-called soft money,this little opening that was created ina vaguely worded law that was then in-terpreted by the Federal Election Com-mission to allow people to give unlim-ited amounts of money to parties tohelp voter registration, get out thevote, that turned into a loophole largeenough for a fleet of trucks—not Macktrucks but Brinks trucks—to go driv-ing through.

The explosive growth of soft moneyand the way it is spent represents, inmy opinion, the most egregious abuseof our campaign finance laws today.Most of the controversial donationsfrom the 1996 campaigns were soft-money contributions. Most of the for-eign money contributions that we tookevidence on at the governmental Af-fairs Committee hearings were soft-money contributions.

Soft money has played a role in Fed-eral elections since 1980, the year afterCongress tried, the way I mentioned, toenhance the role of national parties.But in 1996 it exploded—$272 millionthat we know of spent by both nationalparties in soft money in 1996, 13 timesthe amount spent in 1984, an increasethat has dramatically changed thelandscape of campaign fundraising andof American democracy. By the No-vember 1996 elections, the soft-moneyloophole had become a cash bonanzafor the two parties, an irresistible op-portunity to raise and spend money,each driving the other to keep up, andthe easiest way to do it was to raise bigmoney. It became, for that reason, themost expedient way for an elite class ofcontributors to buy access; frankly, foran elite class of contributors to be ex-ploited, in some sense coerced, by thepolitical class into giving contribu-tions of unprecedented size.

The quintessential example of trad-ing money for access was the brutallyhonest and now legendary RogerTamraz. An international banker-busi-nessman, Tamraz donated $300,000 tothe Democratic Party because he want-

ed to talk to President Clinton andother high officials of our Governmentabout his plans to finance an oil pipe-line through the former Soviet Union.The National Security Council warnedagainst admitting Tamraz to the WhiteHouse. They had already decided, inthe due and diligent exercise of Gov-ernmental decisionmaking, that hisproposal was not the right proposal fora pipeline in that particular part of theworld. They understood that he wasfalsely claiming White House supportfor his projects. They warned that, ifhigh officials of our Government gavehim even a meeting, even were seenclose to him, he would trade on thatproximity in the area of the world inwhich he was doing business.

But Tamraz was nothing if not per-sistent. He said to us at one point that,‘‘I’m the kind of person, if I can’t findmy way through a door, I’ll go througha window. And if that window is closed,I’ll go through another window until Iget in.’’ He went so far as to enlist abuddy at the CIA to lobby the adminis-tration on his behalf. But what he real-ly did was kept going to the windowwith his checkbook. Eventually, he wasinvited to six different social gather-ings.

The very troubling clincher is this.When I asked Tamraz when, not wheth-er he registered to vote—because I thenwas going to ask him what party hewas in, trying to prove the fact thatparties didn’t matter to him, ideologydidn’t matter to him, he was just buy-ing access, he was trying to influenceour Government with bucks—when Iasked him when he registered to votehe shocked me by saying he wasn’t reg-istered to vote. When you think aboutit, in his world, the world that softmoney invites, there is no need to reg-ister to vote. His money was more im-portant and bought more access thanany vote could. It was as if he was say-ing: Oh, voting is a nostalgic exercisefor those millions of people out therewho don’t have influence—most Ameri-cans. They are the ones who can takethe time to register and vote. I buy myway, in America, to the highest levelsof power. So Mr. Tamraz seemed to besaying.

The right to vote, which was centralto the creation of our country, theright to vote, for which our foundersand succeeding generations of Ameri-cans have fought and died, didn’t mat-ter to Tamraz. He figured it out—$300,000 bought him a lot more accessin this democracy than anybody whojust votes had. This standard is so wellembedded in our political system thatwhen I asked him whether he got hismoney’s worth, even though he neveractually won White House support forhis pipeline nor got a separate privatemeeting with the President, Tamrazsaid next time he’d double that dona-tion to $600,000.

I am not naive. People have alwaystried to do what Roger Tamraz did. Aslong as there have been governments,as long as there have been people with

any power in any human society, peo-ple have tried to seek favor by convey-ing items of worth, and they will con-tinue to do so. But, when soft moneycontributions open the door to unlim-ited contributions, when the competi-tive pressure of our political cam-paigns raises leads to spending withoutlimits, the temptations will be thatmuch greater for the influence peddlersand purchasers, for the hustlers to tryto buy something big. Frankly, thetemptation will be that much greaterand, ultimately, for many, irresistible,for those in power to sell what the in-fluence purchasers are trying to buy.That is why, in short, we have to bansoft money.

The attempt to influence Govern-ment with purchases is nothing new.Look in the Bible. There is a prohibi-tion there against judges or other lead-ers accepting gifts from anyone whocomes before them for judgment, any-one who is affected by their leadership.

The wisdom there was based on anunderstanding of human nature andthe need for those in government to setlimits to protect themselves and thosethey governed. People in governmentwho exercise power are, after all is saidand done, beneath their titles, no mat-ter how high they are, just humanbeings with the same frailties as every-one else. Put them in the public com-petitive reality of a political campaign,and too many will not be able to sayno, particularly while they see theiropponents saying yes.

The Governmental Affairs Commit-tee’s hearings have built significantsupport for banning soft money. Justlast week, John Sweeney, the presidentof the AFL–CIO—his organization, infact, contributed millions in softmoney, almost all of it to the Demo-cratic Party in the 1996 cycle—said,soft money donations are ‘‘pollutingour political system.’’

Last week, a group of business lead-ers made essentially the same state-ment demanding a ban. Chief execu-tives at Monsanto, General Motors, andAllied Signal have already dropped outof the soft money game. Why? Theysaid it is impossible to track contribu-tions to gauge their success. In otherwords, the payoff for five- or six- orseven-figure contributions is simplynot worth the expense.

I will tell you something else theydidn’t say. Members of the Senate mayhave heard, as I have, from people whowere solicited for soft money contribu-tions, large contributions. They felt co-erced. They felt it hard to say no.Think about it, if you are the executiveof a business and you have a lot of con-tact with the Government and are reg-ulated by the Government, if you arethe executive of a business that hasmatters before Congress and a high of-ficial in the executive branch or thelegislative branch calls you and asksfor a large soft money contribution, itis hard to say no.

If we are successful only in banningsoft money, however, as important as

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10141September 29, 1997that is, our work will still be incom-plete. Although I must say, if we couldjust ban soft money, I think we willhave achieved enormously significantreform.

But in the best of all worlds, it is notenough, and in the best of all bills, theMcCain-Feingold bill, they don’t stopat banning soft money. It is importantto go on. Money is like water, it flowsto the weakest point. Just as waterspills through an unplugged gap in thedike, once one hole is filled, it will findthe next hole, or it will find the weak-est point in the dike to make a hole.Political money seeks unregulatedgaps in our election laws.

I do not say this simply as a matterof physics or theory. I say this, again,as a result of what we heard in thehearings before our committee. Moneyblocked by contribution limits to can-didates flows instead into unlimitedsoft money contributions to parties.Money blocked by a soft money banwill be diverted in increasingly largeamounts to unregulated issue ads.

Issue ads are paid for by soft moneyraised by independent advocacy groupsand parties. They are supposed to beabout specific policy issues, not spe-cific candidates. That is why unlimitedamounts of money may be spent. Butissue ads, as we heard discussed on thisfloor in the 2 days of this debate, haveactually become stealth candidate ads.

Widespread abuse in the last electionsaw these ads hiding behind the veil ofissue advocacy, even as they promotedor attacked individual candidates.

A study by the nonpartisan independ-ent Annenberg Public Policy Centerfound that 87 percent of the so-calledissue advertisements broadcast in 1996mentioned a candidate by name—87percent mentioned a candidate. Almost60 percent showed the likeness of a can-didate.

The Annenberg study further foundthat more than 40 percent of the 1996ads plainly attacked candidates, not is-sues. One of the witnesses before ourcommittee said last week that by hisreview of the ads, the issue ads wereactually more negative to candidatesthan the candidate ads were. Some adsdon’t bother with issues at all.

One of these ads, run by opponents ofa congressional candidate in Montana,simply used the air time to rehash thecandidate’s marital problems. Adsbroadcast by the Democratic and Re-publican parties ostensibly on the is-sues in the 1996 Presidential campaignwere little more than biography spotsat best, promoting the election ofPresident Clinton or of our formerleader, Bob Dole.

Issue ad sponsors, like the AFL–CIOor the National Rifle Association, areunder no obligation to disclose themoney they spend when they do issueads. But when the ad zeros in on spe-cific candidates, as we all know wasthe case and as the Annenberg study sobrilliantly documents, clearly there isat least a violation of the spirit of theFederal spending limits. It is an end

run on what the law says can be spenton a campaign.

No one can be held accountable forthe false or misleading informationthose ads might convey, because thepublic doesn’t know who paid for theads. And yet in the 1996 election cycle,advocacy groups and the two partiesspent more than $135 million on issueads. That is about one-third of the $400million that was spent on broadcast ad-vertising by all Federal candidates lastyear.

Kathleen Hall Jameison, director ofthe Annenberg center, concluded thatissue ads ‘‘set an agenda different fromthat of either candidate and, in somecases, drown out the voices of thesewho are actually running for office.’’

We run the risk here, Mr. President,of the candidates becoming bit playersin a contest that occurs at a higherlevel between dueling interest groupsspending millions of dollars runningissue ads with soft money.

McCain-Feingold appropriately pro-poses a more precise distinction be-tween ads supporting or opposing anissue versus those supporting or oppos-ing a candidate. I am convinced, basedon my own reading of the SupremeCourt decisions, that that provisionwill withstand the constitutional test.

The soft money ban and the crack-down on illegal issue ads, which I havespoken to, are two of the most criti-cally important and politically realis-tic reforms that we can hope to make.I say politically realistic in the senseof being related to the political realitythat we all have experienced in cam-paigns, and it was vividly documentedin the hearings that the committeeheld.

Other provisions in the McCain-Feingold bill—strengthening disclosurerequirements, outlawing the solicita-tion of campaign donations in Federalbuildings and limiting the amount ofpersonal money that candidates maycontribute to their own campaign—willalso help bring our fundraising systemback under control.

But, Mr. President, I regret that thebill has been stripped of the voluntaryspending limits in it, because I believethat ultimately the best way to endcorruption or the appearance of corrup-tion in campaigns is to impose spend-ing limits on campaigns.

I know that there is a disagreementamong Members on whether that wouldbe constitutional. Under the Buckleyversus Valeo decision, mandatoryspending limits would not be constitu-tional. If I had my druthers, as Li’lAbner used to say, personally I wouldlike to see that 1976 Supreme Court de-cision overturned, because I think thecentral principle established by thatcase, that money equals speech, is notright, and, even if it had some validityin theory in 1976, it no longer reflectsthe reality of the last 20 years of cam-paign raising and spending.

Money doesn’t equal speech. How canspeech be free if it costs money? Howcan speech be free if you have to spend

money to get it or, as I believe myfriend and colleague from Georgia,Senator CLELAND, who is on the floor,said in our committee—and I para-phrase knowing I will not achieve thepungency that he did—if money equalsspeech, if you have to have big bucksto have speech, that means the peoplewho don’t have big bucks aren’t goingto have any speech. Is that what theFramers of the Constitution intendedwhen they adopted the first amend-ment? I can’t believe that they did.

Several times in the history of theSupreme Court, the Justices have ap-plied principles of law that did damageto our country and that experience ul-timately proved were not realistic.That most tellingly was the case whenthe Court upheld segregation laws on atheoretical basis of equal protectionwhen the reality of equal protectionwas not there.

It took until 1954 when a massiveamount of evidence was brought beforethe Supreme Court to show that sepa-rate but equal was in fact not equal—only then did the Court strike downthose discriminatory laws. In anotherway, this was true with some of thelabor laws adopted in the earlier partof this century.

Minimum wage laws were originallystruck down as violations of employ-ee’s rights to contract until a case wasbuilt by advocates for those laws whichshowed that the right to contract,though noble in theory, was not realwhen you had two unequal parties ne-gotiating the contract. So the SupremeCourt reversed itself, and upheld theminimum wage laws and maximumhour laws to protect working peoplefrom being exploited.

Respectfully, I think the same sce-nario is true with regard to the inter-pretation of the first amendment ren-dered by the Supreme Court of 1976 inBuckley. Let me just point out for therecord, which a lot of folks forget—Iforgot myself before I went back andread the Buckley decision—that thepost-Watergate reforms, the 1974 Fed-eral Election Campaign Act didn’t justsay that Mr. Buckley, who was a part-time resident of my State and trulyone of the Lord’s noble people, couldspend his own money and not being re-stricted from doing so by the law, butthe Buckley decision struck down thepreexisting limits on what Members ofCongress could spend in their cam-paigns—the 1974 act actually had limitsthat Members of both the Senate andthe House could spend on their cam-paigns based on a certain amount pervoter in the State—the Court struckthat down on the theory that that wasan element of free speech.

But what is the reality? The realityis that the unlimited spending that hasoccurred has distorted and constrictedfree speech. It has limited the freespeech of those who don’t have themoney. It has undercut the other fun-damental bedrock principle of our Gov-ernment that everybody should haveequal access to Government. All people

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10142 September 29, 1997are created equal, all created in God’simage. Our rights were given to us notby Congress, but by our Creator, as itsays in the first paragraph of the Dec-laration of Independence. That prin-ciple clearly has been compromised bythe enormous sums of money peopleare spending in political campaignstoday.

I must also say that the testimonywe heard, and I understand we didn’thear exactly a random sample of con-tributors of big soft money contribu-tions, but it seemed to me, at least,that those generous contributions werenot political speech in the way we nor-mally contemplate.

Roger Tamraz did not give $300,000because he had a particular feelingthat he wanted to express about an ide-ology, a candidate or a party. He wasbuying access. He was trying to makemoney. It was clear that he was willingto spend $300,000, $600,000 because hewould have made hundreds of millionsof dollars if his pipeline proposal hadbeen adopted.

Johnny Chung, Yogesh Ghandi, thewhole range of people who were buyingaccess through soft money, they werenot interested in political speech as weknow it, the kind of political speechthat the Founders of our country es-tablished in our formative documents.

They were buying a picture with thePresident to take back home, as onesaid, ‘‘to put powder on my face so Iwould look better so I could convertthat into business.’’ They were lookingto do business. They were looking toinfluence Government to make themricher. That is not political speech inthe traditional way in which it hasbeen known. They were advancingtheir interests.

White House coffees, photo-ops withthe President, breakfasts, lunches, din-ners with Members of Congress—theseare the things that top-dollar contribu-tors enjoy. These are the things thatare protected by the Buckley decision.These are things that we do not nor-mally consider to be speech in the full-est sense of our democracy.

Jefferson, I think, would be sur-prised—Madison, Hamilton, Adams, nomatter which side they were on, in theearly debates of our country’s history,they would be surprised to see that itis the rights of Roger Tamraz andJohnny Chung that we are now usingthe first amendment to protect. TheSupreme Court adopted that theory in1976, but now we have the facts. Andwith the facts, I hope someday we canreverse this decision.

I know that more than 20 State at-torneys general of both parties haveformed a task force to see if they canfind a case to take back to the Su-preme Court to relitigate the Buckleydecision, because the fact is that youcannot really have contribution limitswithout spending limits that are effec-tive.

When candidates and parties are freeto spend as much money as they want,they will. That is what the record

shows. They will find ways to raisethat money in larger and largeramounts even if it means ignoring theresults and breaking the law becausethe stakes are enormous. Those whocontinue to argue for the Buckley deci-sion are just not considering the reali-ties of what has happened under thatdecision. And those realities are basedon the realities of human nature andthe give-and-take of today’s real politi-cal world.

Despite all of that, we have to legis-late within the Buckley decision. Wehave to recognize that reality. Withinthat decision, I think the McCain-Feingold proposal, by banning softmoney and regulating issue ads, doesas much as we can possibly do and doesa lot to put us back on course to pro-tect the equal access to and foundingprinciples of our Government.

If we do not adopt something likethis, I hesitate to think about what thefuture is going to look like. Despite allthe congressional hearings, all the spe-cial investigations, all of the concernabout foreign money and big money inthe 1996 campaign, the fact is thatwhile all this attention has been given,Federal Election Commission recordsshow that the two parties have actu-ally raised $34 million in soft money inthe first half of this year, which is notless than the last comparable period, itis 21⁄2 times the $13 million raised inthe 6 months after the last election.

These numbers are going to continueto escalate, Mr. President, unless wefind the courage to rein in the system,to rein in ourselves. If we face the 2000Presidential election without anychange in the law, I am afraid it isgoing to be the biggest auction inAmerican history.

What is going to be for sale is ourGovernment. And what is going to belost is the people’s faith in public serv-ice, which will erode at ever-alarmingrates unless we give them, by our ac-tions, reason to respect the politicalsystem. Our own integrity, human aswe are, full of frailties as we are, ourown integrity will continue to bethreatened by the pressure to spend bigmoney in an unlimited system and theneed, therefore, to raise it.

Mr. President, the people are watch-ing. They are skeptical. We can controltemptations that inevitably arise whengigantic amounts of money are avail-able for political campaigns. Millionsof them have, in fact, given up on usand our system, bringing our great de-mocracy I am afraid to one of the low-est points in its proud history.

We have it within our capacity tochange all this, to work togetheracross party lines to reform the statusquo of the campaign finance system, toreturn our politics to a higher groundand revive our citizens’ trust in theirGovernment by adopting genuine cam-paign finance reform like that includedin the McCain-Feingold bill.

The question remains, and it willecho throughout the debate this weekand next, will we do it? Will we seize

the moment or will this debate ulti-mately be just a lot of sound and furythat will ultimately produce nothing?

I thank the Chair and I yield thefloor.

Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Oklahoma.Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish

to speak on campaign reform, but Ialso see my colleague from Georgia ishere. I have kind of come in two orthree times to speak thinking maybewe are going to alternate. I do notwant to impugn on his time.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I yieldto the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleaguefrom Georgia. It is a pleasure to serveon the Governmental Affairs Commit-tee with him. He is one of the mem-bers, as well as the Senator from Con-necticut, who spends a lot of time onthe committee and does a very goodjob, I will say, in really trying to findout what has happened and what thefacts are.

Mr. President, just a few generalcomments on campaign reform. Every-body says, ‘‘Well, now we change thelaw. It’s vitally important for us tochange the law.’’ I think it is more im-portant, and maybe the best campaignreform that we could have would be en-forcement of the existing law.

Why in the world, if the statutes arevery clear on the books—and some peo-ple say they are ambiguous; I think Iwill show in a moment they are notthat ambiguous—why in the worldshould we be worried about changingthe law if we are not going to enforcethe law as it is written?

We have numerous cases that, I be-lieve clearly, laws were broken, and insome cases flagrantly broken, and yetwe have seen almost no enforcementfrom this administration, and yet theyare out there beating the drum, saying,‘‘Change the law. Change the law.’’ Itreminds me of something like some-body has been robbing banks and says,‘‘Oh, yes, let’s have a tougher lawagainst bank robbing. Oh, yeah, I’vebeen doing it a long time. Oh, yeah, ifI get caught, I’ll send the moneyback.’’ I don’t think that is goodenough.

As a matter of fact, this administra-tion has been caught with their hand inthe cookie jar for millions of dollars.They have sent millions of dollarsback, and they say, ‘‘Well, that’s OK.’’Well, I do not think that is OK.

If the law has been broken, it shouldbe enforced. If we would enforce thelaw, if we would actually indict people,if we would arrest people, if we wouldseek their participation and commentsbefore a grand jury, I think that woulddo more for campaign reform than anyof the bills that we have before us.

And we have a lot of bills, good billsI will say, Democrat bills, Republicanbills. Before we do that, we have sev-eral statutes that are on the booksthat ought to be enforced. Frankly,they have not been enforced. You

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10143September 29, 1997might say, ‘‘Well, give me an exam-ple.’’

One that has been kind of famous is18 United States Code 607: prohibits so-liciting and receiving contributions inGovernment building.

I know we heard from Mr. Sandler,who is general counsel for the Demo-cratic National Committee say—well,he interprets that to mean that youcan be in a Federal building, you canmake all the phone calls you want onhard money, soft money, as long as youare calling somebody that does nothappen to be a Federal employee in aFederal building, that you can do it.

That is an absurd reading of the stat-ute. I do not see how an intelligent per-son can read the statute and come tothat conclusion, but that is the Demo-cratic National Committee’s generalcounsel, that was his general summary.It seems to be the advice that the VicePresident has followed, to say he hasbroken no law.

But the law is very clear. It says itshould be unlawful for any person tosolicit or receive campaign contribu-tions in a Federal building, period. Ifyou look further, the definition of‘‘contribution,’’ is ‘‘money received toinfluence an election.’’ So I think theyhave broken the law.

Maybe we will just ignore the lawand say there is no controlling legalauthority because that law has notbeen enforced. But my guess is noother administration in history hasever broken the law like this adminis-tration, never abused the law, neverpushed the envelope. I think theypushed well beyond the envelope. I donot think it is into the gray area. I donot think it is a couple cases wheresomebody called you back and, ‘‘Well,yes, we’d like for you to host some-thing.’’ I think this was systematic,flagrant—‘‘Let’s raise a lot of money.’’I believe very much that the Presidentand the Vice President were involvedin it. The President had a memo thatsaid, ‘‘Start the overnighters at $50,000and $100,000.’’ I happen to think that isthe silver bullet people are talkingabout.

The President of the United Statessaid, ‘‘Let’s start the coffees.’’ He istalking about raising money. They had103 coffees. They raised $26.4 million. Inthe President’s own handwriting hesaid, ‘‘Start them.’’ Guess what, theystarted right after he said, ‘‘Startthem.’’ ‘‘Start the overnighters’’—theystarted the overnighters. They hadhundreds of people spending the night,hundreds of people spending the nightin the White House, more than anyother administration, a volume thatthey have never seen before. And awhole lot of them were contributing$100,000. We had the FBI testify that 51averaged over $107,000 each to spendthe night in the White House. I happento think that is a flagrant violation ofthe current law, the law as it is writtenright now.

We could just go on and on.And 18 United States Code 600: pro-

hibits promising any Government bene-

fit in return for political support.Johnny Chung is reported to have do-nated $25,000 to Ms. O’Leary’s favoritecharity at her direction in order forMr. Chung to obtain a meeting withseveral Chinese businessmen. He con-tributed the money. He got the meet-ing. Ms. O’Leary’s charity got the$25,000. He also donated more than$360,000 to the DNC from 1994 to 1996.

And 2 United States Code 441(e): pro-hibits a foreign national from makinga political contribution either directlyor through another person. Also pro-hibits anyone from accepting such con-tributions.

Pauline Kanchanalak contributed$135,000 which the DNC had to returnwhen it was revealed the contributionwas actually from her mother-in-law.She visited the White House 26 times,she testified. Yet, has she been before agrand jury? Has this administrationdone anything to compel her testimonyfor laundering funds? I do not think so.

Charlie Trie contributed $789,000 tothe President’s legal defense fundwhich we heard testimony that some ofthe checks were laundered through aTaiwan-based religious sect, SumaChing Hai. He also received a steadystream of wire transfers from foreignsources from 1994 to 1996, totally $1.4million, some of which came from Mr.Wu, his Macao-based business partner.

Some people said, ‘‘Well, we haven’tseen any foreign money.’’ They havenot had their eyes opened.

Mr. Trie had a lot of foreign money,$1.4 million, wired in, and he had greataccess. This is a person who is a LittleRock restaurant businessman. And allof a sudden he is spending millions ofdollars, had unbelievable access to theWhite House. He visited the WhiteHouse at least 37 times. He received aPresidential appointment to a foreignpolicy commission, one that the Presi-dent had to expand the number of com-missioners so he could serve on it.

John Huang directed a $50,000 con-tribution to the DNC through Hip HingHoldings which was reimbursed fromLippo’s Indonesian headquarters. JohnHuang and a DNC fundraiser, MariaHsia ‘‘Shaw,’’ collected $100,000 to$140,000 from Vice President GORE’sBuddhist Temple fundraiser of whichhalf had to be ordered returned fromforeign sources. A lot of that moneywas laundered as we found out throughtestimony. It happens to be illegal.

United States Code 201: prohibits anyFederal official from receiving anybenefit in return for official action.Johnny Chung brought in six Chineseofficials to hear the President’s radioaddress and gave the First Lady’s chiefof staff a $50,000 check in the sameweek that he was able to get them in.In exchange for $50,000, they were ableto attend the radio address. That hap-pens to be illegal. Has Mr. Chung beenindicted? Has he been brought before agrand jury? Has he testified before theSenate committee? No. Mr. Chungmade a statement, ‘‘I see the WhiteHouse like a subway; you have to putin the coins to open the gates.’’

I could go on and talk about CharlieTrie getting a Chinese arms dealer intoa White House coffee with PresidentClinton. Only 4 days before the coffee,it is reported, Mr. Huang’s arms trad-ing company received special permis-sion to import 100,000 special assaultweapons, although there was a ban onthe importation of these assault weap-ons.

United States Code 7201 prohibitsevasion of income tax; United StatesCode 371 prohibits conspiracy to de-fraud the United States. The Buddhisttemple is a tax-exempt organization.They made contributions to Vice Presi-dent GORE, they made contributions toother colleagues in this body, theymade contributions at the DNC withtax-exempt dollars. People were get-ting tax deductions, writing checks tothe Buddhist temple, and the Buddhisttemple wrote political checks. Every-body else in the country who writes po-litical checks has to do it with after-tax dollars. In this case, people got atax deduction for contributing to aBuddhist temple, and it was the Bud-dhist temple who was making contribu-tions.

That is wrong. That is against thelaw. That is against the IRS Code. Ijust quoted the IRS Code. Who hasbeen indicted on that? This is an egre-gious violation of the law. It has hap-pened time and time again.

My point is we need campaign re-form. In my opinion, one of the beststeps we could take toward campaignreform would be to enforce the existinglaw. Maybe we should enforce the ex-isting law and find out where its short-comings might be before we try to ex-pand the law or redefine the law orchange the law.

Now, Mr. President, I want to make acouple of comments concerning thelegislation that we have before theSenate, the so-called McCain-Feingoldlegislation. First, let me complimentthe authors of the legislation because Ithink they made some steps in theright direction. They have improved itand taken off, as I can see, the spend-ing caps. They have taken off the banwhich, incidentally, I think is clearlyunconstitutional. They have taken offthe ban on PAC’s, political action com-mittees. Those are steps in the rightdirection.

They did a couple of things, though,that need to be improved upon, one ofwhich is they said, well, we are goingto codify Beck. We are going to makesure union members can get theirmoney back. That is the language Ihave heard bandied about on the floor.Mr. President, that is not good enough.

I firmly believe we should make surethat all Americans have voluntary con-tributions to campaigns. No Americansshould be compelled to contribute to acampaign, whether they work for abusiness, whether they are a member ofthe union, or whether they are not amember. Some say that is an antiunionprovision, a killer amendment. I beg todiffer. If we are going to pass campaign

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10144 September 29, 1997reform this year, we will pass a provi-sion that makes campaign contribu-tions voluntary for all Americans.

I feel very, very strongly about this.You might say, where did this comefrom? It came from a town meeting Ihad in Collinsville, OK, when an em-ployee of American Airlines held hishand up, and one of the first questionshe asked was, ‘‘Senator NICKLES, I real-ly don’t like my money being takenaway from me on a monthly basis with-out consent to be used to elect peopleand support issues I don’t agree with.That is not America. That is notright.’’ The company the personworked for happened to be AmericanAirlines. He happened to be what somepeople call a blue-collar, middle-in-come American. He is a great Amer-ican. He is a union guy. He is prounion.He just wants to have a voice onwhether or not he is going to contrib-ute to a political party or not.

I happen to agree with that. I happento be a Republican, but I don’t wantanybody taking my money to spend itfor political purposes without my con-sent. It would be over my body. I don’tthink anybody should be compelled tocontribute to a different campaign orto a campaign they don’t agree with. Ifyou are going to have compulsory cam-paign contributions, you have lost realfreedom, you have lost your politicalfreedom. To say, ‘‘We will give you in-formation on how you can get a re-fund,’’ is not satisfactory. That is afterthe fact. That is after your money hasalready been taken away from you,spent in a way you didn’t like, and,‘‘Oh, yes, you can file for a refund. In-cidentally, you have to go through alot of trouble if you file.’’

Guess what? You can’t be a memberof the union. Under the Beck languagewe have in the McCain bill and underthe language that is currently out, ifyou get a refund, you have to be basi-cally a nonunion member. You can’tvote in union elections. You can’t de-cide who would be president of thatunion. You can’t have any impact onthe collective bargaining strategy.Maybe you want to be a member of theunion. Maybe it is the thing to do, butyou disagree with the union’s politicalagenda. Right now you don’t have achoice. You can’t have both. You can’tbe in the union and say, ‘‘No, I don’twant my money going to elect liberalDemocrats or to elect people who havea social agenda that I disagree with.’’You don’t have that option under cur-rent law.

We will change that. If we are goingto have campaign reform this year, wewill have the underlining promise thatall campaign contributions will be vol-untary, period. Every employee thatworks for any company should knowhis campaign contributions will be vol-untary. If he doesn’t want to makethem, he doesn’t have to make them,period, whether they are a member ofthe union, not a member of the union,whether they work for a company thatdoesn’t have a union, they should all

know, nobody should be compelled tocontribute to a political campaignagainst their will. Nobody.

So that is one of the amendments wehave up here. I don’t look at it as akiller amendment. I tell my colleaguesI am willing to negotiate. I heard Sen-ator MCCAIN say he is willing to nego-tiate. I am willing to negotiate. Sen-ator LOTT asked me to see if wecouldn’t work out a bipartisan bill. Iam willing to work with my colleagues.

I mentioned earlier, I think theMcCain-Feingold bill took some stepsin the right direction. I think it maybehas a couple of steps further to go. Thisis one of them. This is one of them. Ifwe are going to have campaign reform,in this Senator’s opinion, it will haveto start with the premise that all cam-paign contributions will be voluntary;make sure that no one is compelled.

Then what else can we do? We can doa lot of things. Some say ban softmoney, others have proposals to limitsoft money. Some say allow individualsto do more. Some people have ideas re-quiring that a certain percentage hasto be raised within an individual’shome State or district. I think allthose things are legitimate for discus-sion. Let’s put them all on the table.Some people have a proposal that saysyou can’t contribute to campaigns un-less you can legally vote. I think thatis a good proposal. Other people wantto have free TV time. I don’t happen toagree with that. Some people want tohave subsidized TV or half-rate TV forpolitical candidates. I don’t agree withthat.

I am willing to talk about it. I amwilling to negotiate. I am willing to ne-gotiate everything I mentioned, butthe one fundamental thing I draw aline on is that the campaign contribu-tions have to be voluntary.

I take issue with anybody who saysthat is an antiunion bill. That is aproworker provision. That is aprofreedom provision. It is basicallysaying no one should be compelled tocontribute to a campaign against theirwill. That is a fundamental Americanfreedom. We should be ashamed of our-selves for making anybody be com-pelled to contribute to a campaignagainst their will.

We will fix that. I hope we will fix it.I believe we will fix it. I also believethat will be part of our bill, and then Iwill tell my colleagues I don’t look atit as a killer amendment, because I’mwilling to work with them to try topass real, substantive campaign re-form.

Keep it constitutional, do not limitspeech, encourage participation, makeit possible for more people to partici-pate, do not come up with a systemthat guarantees incumbents’ advan-tage. I am more than willing to doother things that would limit incum-bents’ advantage. We can say, incum-bents, you can’t do any mailings in anelection year. That will crimp it downa little bit. Incumbents, you cannothave carryover funds. We can do a lot

of things for real campaign reform thatwe could pass in a bipartisan fashion.

I believe one fundamental freedomshould exist that we should all agreeon, Democrats and Republicans, andthat is that all campaign contributionsshould be voluntary. That is the reasonwhy we have the Paycheck ProtectionAct. We don’t want anybody reachinginto your back pocket, taking yourmoney out, and spending it for politi-cal purposes unless you say OK. That isyour back pocket. You are the one whoworked hard; you are the one who putthe money in there. Nobody—no group,no association, no employer—should beable to reach in and say, ‘‘I will take alittle bit out and spend it the way Iwant without your permission.’’ Wewill protect your paycheck and let youhave control over it. That will be partof this bill. It will be the first amend-ment I believe we will vote on.

I urge my colleagues to vote for it.Mr. CLELAND addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Georgia is recognized.Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I en-

joyed the remarks of my colleaguefrom the great State of Oklahoma.

Mr. President, this is a day I havebeen waiting for since I had the greathonor and privilege of taking my oathof office as a U.S. Senator back in Jan-uary: a day when we are debating pend-ing campaign finance reform legisla-tion on the Senate floor. It has been along and tortuous road since January,and on more than one occasion, wehave all heard pronouncements thatcampaign finance reform was dead forthis session, if not for all time.

That we are here today is a greattribute to the perseverence an effec-tiveness of my friends and colleagues,Senators MCCAIN and FEINGOLD, as wellas the relentless commitment of theDemocratic leader, Senator DASCHLE,to the cause of campaign finance re-form.

I wish also to thank the distin-guished majority leader for affordingus the opportunity to debate, and castmeaningful votes, on this vital issue.

This is also a testimony to thegroundswell of public opinion that iscompelling us to act on a very embar-rassing matter, the way we raise politi-cal money.

Will Rogers said it best: ‘‘It takes alot of money now days to even get beatwith.’’ That was said over 70 years ago.It is certainly even more true today.

But, in describing the currentunremitting, unforgiving money chasewhich has overtaken our democraticprocess, especially, at the Federallevel, in such a manner as to have a‘‘for sale sign’’ on both ends of Penn-sylvania Avenue, I like the quote byW.C. Fields to the extent, ‘‘We musttake the bull by the tail and face thesituation.’’

As we begin this Senate debate onwhether or not we should enact far-reaching restrictions on the currentway money is raised and spent for Fed-eral office in America, we must face

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10145September 29, 1997the situation that this current systemis fatally flawed. It has enough loop-holes in it to drive a fleet of 18 wheel-ers through it and is rendering ourdemocratic process and our Govern-ment, which flows from that process,vulnerable to influence peddling, theinordinate impact of special interestpressure groups, foreign influence andoutright corruption.

It’s time to take the bull by the tail.I for one have been fighting this bat-

tle for campaign financing reform formany years.

In 1974, in the wake of the Watergatescandal, I introduced legislation in theGeorgia Senate when I was a State sen-ator limiting campaign expendituresand contributions. As Georgia’s sec-retary of state in the 1980’s and early1990’s, I fought for tighter limits oncampaign giving, and full disclosure oflobbying expenditures.

As a U.S. Senator sworn in this yearon January 7, the first legislation Isigned as a cosponsor was the McCain-Feingold campaign financing reformbill. I am 1 of 45 of my Democratic col-leagues and 4 of my Republican col-leagues pledged to support the McCain-Feingold bill in its present form whenit comes to the floor of the Senate.

Also, as a new Member of the Senate,I volunteered for service on the Gov-ernmental Affairs Committee, whichhas been conducting a far-reaching in-vestigation into the multitude of al-leged illegal and improper activitiesassociated with the 1996 campaign.Just last week, the committee turnedto consideration of suggested remediesfor such abuses. All year long, I havelistened to numerous witnesses, siftedthrough countless pages of testimony,read scores of media reports, and other-wise immersed myself in the nitty-grit-ty of the financing of Federal cam-paigns last year. I also had the per-sonal experience of enduring the cur-rent process in my own race for theU.S. Senate in 1996.

Sitting in these hearings and seeingthe sordid tale of the money chase in1996, has turned my stomach. I alsothink the American public has viewedall this with increasing disgust. What Ihave witnessed, heard, and read hasmade me even more convinced thanever that we must strengthen our cam-paign financing laws, now, and providestrong enforcement through the Fed-eral Election Commission of theselaws, or risk seeing our elections proc-ess, which is supposed to be conductedbetween the candidates, the press, andthe voters, be swept away in a tidalwave of big bucks. Unless we act now,we will only see the power of special in-terest groups, corporations, and unionsto pedal influence grow. We will onlysee our system more and more vulner-able to foreign governments and un-scrupulous individuals. Unless wetighten our laws, we will see our sys-tem more and more operating againstthe public interest.

I don’t think our Founding Fathers,especially Thomas Jefferson and James

Madison, had that in mind when theyhelped create this Government.

Mr. President, the other day I wasover in the Library of Congress and re-ceived a marvelous book by JamesMadison, titled ‘‘The Search for Na-tionhood.’’ Mr. President, I am afraidthat more and more candidates forFederal office are not so much insearch of fulfilling our search for na-tionhood as they are for fulfilling thesearch for money.

I certainly don’t think they had thatin mind when they led the effort to cre-ate the U.S. Senate. Jefferson andMadison led the way to create the Sen-ate to look at the long view of Amer-ican government, and provide a bal-anced approach for the future of ourcountry.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of theDeclaration of Independence stated inthat magnificent document that theFounding Fathers had pledged theirlives, fortunes and sacred honor. Theydidn’t say that in order to set up ademocratic form of government thatone had to spend their lives to pursuea fortune to run for public office andjeopardize their honor in the process.

Opponents of McCain-Feingold tendto concentrate their spoken criticismson its alleged violations of free speech.Those criticisms mistakenly equatemoney with speech. It is an equationwhich inevitably leads to the conclu-sion that the paid speech of the mil-lionaire will have greater weight andinfluence than the opinions and expres-sions of the common man and woman.

Certainly there can be little doubtabout the commitment of James Madi-son, Father of the Constitution, an ar-chitect of the Bill of Rights, and Presi-dent of the United States, to the greatcause of free speech. But listen to whatMadison wrote in The Federalist Pa-pers:

But what is government itself, but thegreatest of all reflections on human nature?If men were angels, no government would benecessary. In framing a government which isto be administered by men over men, thegreat difficulty lies in this: you must firstenable the government to control the gov-erned; and in the next place oblige it to con-trol itself.

While he was certainly both a revolu-tionary and a visionary, Madison neverallowed himself to stray too far fromthe practical realities of the world inwhich he lived. To him, the lack ofhuman perfection was thus the basisfor government, and a factor whichmust be taken into account in provid-ing a government with sufficient pow-ers to accomplish its necessary func-tions, while at the same time holdingit fully accountable to the governed.We must hold those who run for Fed-eral elective office fully accountable totight regulations and complete disclo-sure in the raising and spending ofcampaign dollars.

Last week on the Senate floor, Sen-ator THOMPSON delivered a very finestatement on campaign finance reformand free speech in which he pointed outthat, in the real world, this current de-

bate about campaign finance reformand free speech is not one of absolutes,as some would have it. This is not achoice between a system of unfetteredfree speech and government regulation,for our current system recognizesmany, many instances in which thereis a legitimate, and constitutional,public interest in regulating speech,from slander laws, to prohibitions onthe disclosure of the identities ofAmerican intelligence agents, to thecampaign arena itself, with a long-standing ban on corporate contribu-tions, and quarter-century and olderlimits on other forms of contributionsand disclosure requirements.

So the debate really isn’t about freespeech. TV isn’t free, yet it’s the mainvehicle by which Federal candidatesconnect to their voters, and the singlemost important factor driving up cam-paign costs. In the words of Dr. NormOrnstein, a noted political scientistand recent witness in the Govern-mental Affairs hearing, the question isnot free speech, but whether we willerect some fences to prevent the worstabuses of campaign financing to occur.I’m for tighter fences, to prevent thehorse from getting out of the barn nexttime.

Campaign finance reform opponentsalso sometimes claim to be concernedthat such efforts will further increasethe advantage currently enjoyed by in-cumbents. Even on its face, I have ahard time taking this argument seri-ously. I am aware of very, very fewcases in the real world of contemporaryAmerican politics, whether at the Fed-eral, State, or local level, where in-cumbents do not enjoy a substantialadvantage over challengers under thecurrent system. And, it is difficult toimagine any situation under which anyform of campaign limits, whether orcontributions or spending, will not con-strain far more the incumbents ratherthan the challengers.

For example, earlier this year, thegroup Public Citizen presented one ofthe first detailed analyses of the likelyimpact of the expenditure limits con-tained in the original version ofMcCain-Feingold, based not on theo-retical conjecture, but on the actualresults had S. 25 been in effect in themost recent elections for each of the100 U.S. Senate seats, based on the 1992,1994, and 1996 Senate elections. Thefindings of the Public Citizen studyclearly demonstrate that had the pro-visions of McCain-Feingold been in ef-fect since 1992, Senate campaign spend-ing would have been reduced by $259million—that’s $259 million—with farmore of this reduction coming amongincumbents than challengers. Whilefully 90 percent of all the Senate in-cumbents were able to exceed McCain-Feingold’s spending limits, just 24 per-cent of all the challengers did so. Inother words, 9 out of 10 Senate incum-bents would have been forced to spendless by McCain-Feingold, while onlyone in four challengers would have seentheir spending constrained. This should

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10146 September 29, 1997put to rest any legitimate argumentthat spending limits are an incum-bent’s protection measure. The recorddoes not bear this out, and as the fig-ures demonstrate, this is not even aclose call.

Some also charge that McCain-Feingold, in whatever version, wouldsomehow advantage Democrats morethan Republicans. First of all, one ofthe prime sponsors of S. 25 is my goodfriend and fellow Vietnam veteran, thedistinguished senior Senator from Ari-zona. Senator MCCAIN is many things.He is a wonderful human being, and afine Senator. But, he is also a veryfaithful Republican. He would neverput forward a proposal which wouldharm is party.

Once again, the Public Citizen reportbears out this commonsense wisdom.

Since 1992, almost identical portionsof Democratic and Republican Senatecandidates would have exceededMcCain-Feingold spending limits: 54percent of Democrats, 59 percent of Re-publicans. You can’t get much more ofa level playing field than that.

And, while the revised version ofMcCain-Feingold does not containspending limits, the principles of great-er constraint on incumbents than chal-lengers, and of relatively even partisanimpact, applies to soft money and issueadvocacy advertising as well.

As I have told anyone who has asked,I like being a U.S. Senator. Having theprivilege of representing my State inthis body, where such giants as Clay,Webster, Calhoun, Norris, LaFollette,Dirksen, and Russell have served withdistinction is the greatest honor of mylife. But, sitting here day by day, withevidence continually mounting in theGovernmental Affairs Committee hear-ings of campaign abuses, and publicopinion surveys chronicling the loss ofpublic trust in the political process,not to mention the ongoing massivefundraising which takes place all thetime in the Nation’s Capital, I cannotbut conclude that the current cam-paign finance system is broken andcries out for reform.

We have heard a lot of talk, and wewill hear more talk this week and next,about these abuses, and about the gen-eral topic of campaign finance reform.But, the time is coming when we musttake action. Certainly, the revisedMcCain-Feingold package is not per-fect; it is not all that I think needs tobe done to remedy our problem, but itis an essential first step aimed at deal-ing with the worst of these abuseswhich currently plague our campaignsystem.

The revised bipartisan campaign fi-nance reform proposal does not containspending limits, does not contain lim-its on PAC’s, and does not provide freeor discounted broadcast air time forFederal candidates, all of which I per-sonally favor. It places no limits onwhat groups or organizations say intheir campaign-related communica-tions.

What the proposal does do is this: Itbans soft money contributions to and

spending by the national political par-ties—something that has been the baneof those that care about campaign fi-nance reform, and who have witnessedthe testimony before the GovernmentAffairs Committee. It should be notedthat the pursuit of soft money is at theroot of almost all of the questionablefundraising activities identified to dateby the Governmental Affairs Commit-tee upon which I sit.

I might say also that if you ban softmoney then all contributions, whetheryou are a union member, a citizen,stockholder, would be voluntary be-cause you would have only two waysyou could contribute: Independently onyour own, or through a political actioncommittee registered with the FederalElections Commission. That is volun-tarily as well.

The bill modifies the definition of‘‘express advocacy.’’ These are ads, un-fortunately, that don’t provide a cleardistinction between communicationsused to advocate issues from those usedto back or oppose candidates. This billwould require that clear distinction.

Under the proposal, independentgroups will be free to air either kind ofad, but to qualify for the ‘‘issue ad’’designation and thereby to avoid thedisclosure and financing requirementsapplied to candidates and party com-mittees, they merely have to not use acandidate’s name or else run more than60 days before the election. This hardlyrepresents an infringement on freespeech.

It improves the enforcement of exist-ing laws by expanding disclosure andFederal Election Commission monitor-ing capability. It strengthens currentlaw in such areas as fundraising fromFederal property, and the use of theCongressional franking privilege.

It strictly codifies the Beck decisionconcerning the right of nonunion mem-bers to have a refund of any union feesused for political purposes to whichthey object.

It bars political parties from makingcoordinated expenditures on behalf ofcandidates who do not agree to limittheir own personal spending on theirown behalf.

It bans all campaign contributionsand expenditures by foreign sources.

In addition to this core package, Sen-ators MCCAIN and FEINGOLD will offeran amendment, which I strongly sup-port, to establish a voluntary systemin which those candidates who raise amajority of their contributions in theirhome State, accept no more than 25percent of total contributions from po-litical action committees, and spend nomore than $50,000 of their own moneyin the election would receive a 50-per-cent discount on television costs.

We must have controls—rigid, well-enforced controls—on campaign financ-ing because campaigns are the embryoof democratic government itself. Menare not angels, yet we must find waysto govern ourselves in a fair and demo-cratic manner. Therefore, we mustenact laws to control the financing of

campaigns for Federal office in a fairand democratic manner.

My colleagues, the country is watch-ing what we do on campaign finance re-form. Make no mistake about this.They are understandably skepticalthat we will take action to reform thesystem under which we all were elect-ed. Their expectations for our actionare quite low. Let’s surprise the publicas well as ourselves. Let’s prove thatphysicians can heal themselves. Let’stake the bull by the tail.

I urge my colleagues to support thedistinguished efforts of two courageousSenators, JOHN MCCAIN and RUSSELLFEINGOLD, who through their diligence,persistence, and strong belief in up-holding the finest traditions of ourdemocratic process have brought us tothis hour.

I yield the floor, Mr. President.Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Wisconsin.Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let

me first thank my friend, the Senatorfrom Georgia, for his kind remarks, butmore importantly for his steadfast sup-port on the issue of campaign financereform.

The first thing that the Senator fromGeorgia did when he became a Memberof this distinguished body was to co-sponsor our legislation. But he didn’tstop there. He has been out here everysingle time we have had to fight thebattle. And I know he will be again. Ithank very much the Senator fromGeorgia for his support.

I also want to thank my colleagues,Senators LEVIN, LIEBERMAN, DORGAN,COLLINS, and, of course, SenatorMCCAIN for taking the time on what isusually a quiet Monday to have a veryintense debate to continue this discus-sion on campaign finance reform.

Mr. President, one of the most impor-tant tactics that has been used alreadyin this debate is to single out a coupleof provisions of the McCain-Feingoldmodification and to suggest that theyare the entire bill. It happens that theprovisions that have been discussed—the issues having to do with express ad-vocacy, and a couple of others—arevery important provisions, but youwould swear that they were the wholebill. That is because it is virtually im-possible to criticize or attack the restof the bill. Let us remember what is in-cluded in the entirety of the McCain-Feingold modification—the bill that weintroduced today.

First of all, it completely bans softmoney. We have heard virtually noth-ing on the floor effectively criticizingbanning these $100,000, $200,000, and$500,000 contributions that have clearlyundermined our political process andmade a mockery of the fact that for al-most a century corporations have notbeen allowed to give contributions tocampaigns directly, and for almost halfa century labor unions have not beenallowed to give contributions directlyto campaigns. Our bill bans that, andthe other side apparently has droppedtheir concern about that.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10147September 29, 1997There is also virtually no discussion

of the fact that our bill strongly im-proves the provisions having to do withdisclosure of information about cam-paign contributions; and strengthensthe hand of the Federal Elections Com-mission so it can do its job; so we canenforce the current laws—the very ar-gument that we have heard the major-ity leader and the Senator from Ken-tucky make. ‘‘Why don’t we enforcethe current law?’’

Why no comment about the series ofimportant provisions in our bill that doexactly that, that improve disclosureand improve enforcement?

Why no comment on the lowering ofcontribution limits from $200 to $50? Ifsomebody gives $100 to a candidate, wethink this ought to be reported.

Why no comment on the fact thatour bill strengthens the hand of theFederal Election Commission by tri-pling the penalty for knowing, willfulviolations of Federal election law? Thisis exactly the kind of provision thatthe other side claims we should haveand yet fails to mention it is part ofthe bill.

Why no mention of the fact that ourbill does provide for electronic filingwith the FEC on a daily basis of cam-paign contributions so that the publicdoes not have to wait and the media donot have to wait for 6 months to findout whether a contribution occurred inclose proximity to a vote? Our bill pro-vides for that. Our bill provides thatthe FEC would make campaign financerecords available on the Internet with-in 24 hours of their filing.

The bill also strengthens the hand ofthe Federal Election Commission bypermitting the FEC to conduct randomaudits at the end of a campaign to en-sure compliance with Federal electionlaw. We are strengthening the hand ofenforcement under the current law.

Why no discussion at all of the factthat our bill, in addition to the otherissues, makes it absolutely clear thatcampaign contributions cannot be usedfor personal purposes? You cannot buya new suit with campaign contribu-tions. You cannot finance various fam-ily activities or mortgage payments orcountry club memberships. Some ofthis has been done in the past. Why nocomment on the fact that our billtightens up on that?

Why no reference to the fact that theMcCain-Feingold bill requires politicaladvertisements to carry a disclaimerthat clearly identifies who is respon-sible for the content of the campaignad?

Do you know what really irritatesmy constituents in Wisconsin? It is allthose negative ads and the fact thatthe candidates who put them out makesure that they are not identified, thatpeople do not know who made the ad?The McCain-Feingold bill says if youwant to say it, you can say it, but howabout letting us know you are sayingit. The other side completely ignoresthis provision that I think would be ofgreat appeal to many members of thepublic.

Why doesn’t the other side say any-thing about the fact that the McCain-Feingold bill bans the practice of usingmass mailings under the frankingprivilege in an election year? We getrid of that. We get rid of that incum-bent protection provision in currentlaw that allows Senators to send outthousands, tens of thousands, of itemsat public expense, at Government ex-pense when they are running for reelec-tion. We get rid of that. I happen to notdo these mailings anyway. A number ofSenators do not do them anyway. Butwe get rid of that in an election year.But no comment whatsoever from theother side.

Our bill also clarifies, which is longoverdue, that it should be absolutelyunlawful to raise any money or solicitany money on Federal property, wheth-er it be in the White House or whetherit be in the Capitol or whether it be inone of these Senate or House officebuildings. We do know that even Mem-bers of Congress have already said thatthey have done that. This bill makes itclear that there are no excuses fordoing that in the future.

No reference from the other side ex-cept for a brief one to the fact that wedo begin in this bill to voluntarily pro-vide an incentive to candidates to limittheir spending. Our bill, as we intro-duced it today as a modification to theunderlying bill, says that if you con-tribute over $50,000 of your own per-sonal money to a campaign, you can dothat, but you shouldn’t be able to getthe large party-coordinated expendi-tures to assist you. We do that.

We have provisions relating to clari-fying contributions regarding moneycontributions from foreign nationals.

All of this is in the bill. They arevery good provisions. But yet, in an ef-fort to distort what this bill is about,the focus has been on only one or twoprovisions rather than the heart of thebill.

Mr. President, I should like to sum-marize the debate today by pointingout that all of this emphasis on a cou-ple of items in the bill to the exclusionof the rest of the bill is merely a prel-ude to the three principal argumentsthat our opposition has raised thus faras we have debated the issue on Fridayand today.

The first argument has been the pri-mary argument in the past, but it isflagging. The argument that our billwill be deemed unconstitutional by theU.S. Supreme Court just is not havingthe same luck it has had in the past.

The senior Senator from Kentuckyrecently said on one of the nationalnews shows with reference to me, hesaid:

Russ has got no constitutional expertswith any credentials who will say that this isgoing to be upheld in court.

That was on Fox News Sunday, Sep-tember 14, 1997. Not one constitutionalexpert, the Senator from Kentuckysaid, would support our view that thebasic provisions of the bill are con-stitutional.

That was an unfortunate claim be-cause 1 week later we were able to re-lease a letter signed by 126 constitu-tional experts across this country rep-resenting 88 different institutions, in-cluding those in Kentucky, saying justthe opposite—126 constitutional schol-ars specifically said that the ban onsoft money and those provisions thatrelate to providing voluntary incen-tives to candidates to limit theirspending are perfectly constitutionalwithin the ruling of the Supreme Court20 years ago in Buckley versus Valeo.

It is hard to read this chart becausethere are so many of them, because 126of the leading constitutional experts inthis country say that this constitu-tional argument is wrong. In fact, theconstitutional argument is nothing buta smokescreen because it has beenshifting from month to month. First, itwas the claim that the PAC ban wasunconstitutional, even though the Sen-ator from Kentucky knew very wellthat we had a backup provision becauseof that concern which he himself hadintroduced in the past. The Senatorfrom Kentucky had proposed the veryprovision that he said was unconstitu-tional. So then he shifted to sayingthat banning soft money was unconsti-tutional.

Well, that is not working out verywell after 126 constitutional scholarssay just the opposite. There is no credi-ble argument under current law thatbanning that kind of contribution isunconstitutional. There simply is nocredible authority who believes that.

So the Senator from Kentucky shiftsagain. He says that providing vol-untary incentives to candidates tolimit their spending is unconstitu-tional. But that is the very thing thatBuckley versus Valeo laid out as amechanism by which you could limitspending voluntarily.

So now the Senator from Kentuckyseems to have dropped all of these con-stitutional arguments and all he hasleft now is to try to say that our at-tempt to clarify the meaning of expressadvocacy is unconstitutional. Well, heis wrong about that, too. But as he ad-mitted in the Chamber today—and thisis critical—in the worst-case scenario,in the very worst-case scenario, if he isright and we are wrong, the SupremeCourt will simply strike that provisiondown.

Our bill is severable. What does thatmean? It means that if the SupremeCourt determines a provision is uncon-stitutional, they can sever that provi-sion, leaving the rest of the bill intact.That’s exactly what the Court did inthe landmark case of Buckley versusValeo, where the Court said you can’thave mandatory spending limits, and itsevered that from the bill, but theCourt did say you could have contribu-tion limits, which is what we have hadfor 20 years. This is where PAC’s arelimited to $10,000 per campaign, whereindividuals are limited to $1,000 per in-dividual. So the fact is that these con-stitutional arguments, if they are

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10148 September 29, 1997right, in the worst-case scenario, willsimply be dealt with by the SupremeCourt doing their job. Now, why can’twe do our job and let the SupremeCourt do their job?

Where was the concern of the Sen-ator from Kentucky about this when hevoted for the Communications DecencyAct, saying that it violated the firstamendment? And the Supreme Courtvoted 9 to nothing: No, you can’t dothat. It was taken care of, it wasstruck down. It is not a law. So, this isa smokescreen. Mr. President, 126 con-stitutional scholars have already saidthat the basic provisions of our bill areconstitutional.

So, the constitutional argument isflagging. So the opponents of reform,who I think sometimes can also beknown as the filibusterers, go to a sec-ond tactic, that is killing the bill bytrying to force a filibuster. Today, notsurprisingly—the majority leader hadhis choice of any amendment he couldoffer. That is his right. He could offera substitute amendment, a whole newbill, he could offer a simple amendmenthaving to do with certain kinds of con-tributions or aspects of soft money orFEC enforcement—he could choose anyamendment he wanted. What did themajority leader choose? And what didhe use to fill up the tree? He used aprovision specifically and harshly di-rected at labor unions. The majorityleader, and I do appreciate his lettingus have this bill come to the floor,came out here and said that thatchoice, to be the first item we debate,was not intended as a poison pill.

What does that mean? What it meansis, he is saying he didn’t pick thatamendment as a way to cause a fili-buster. But this does not square withwhat the majority leader said last Fri-day. He was quoted in the Wall StreetJournal, saying ‘‘I set it up so they willbe filibustering me.’’ That is what I amtalking about. He had his choice. Hecame out here, he purposely offered astrong antilabor amendment, he set itup in the hope that he would forceMembers on the other side of the aisleto filibuster the bill so that he and hiscolleagues would not be blamed forkilling it. How can you say that’s nota poison pill, if your very statementwas that you set it up so the other sidewould filibuster? That is the definitionof a poison pill. Let no one mistakethis. This is an intentional effort tokill campaign finance reform.

Why, if this concern about this issuewas so great, was it not brought up ear-lier? This is S. 9, that he has broughtup. It is a bill I believe offered by theSenator from Oklahoma. Why was thisnot brought out to the floor earlier?Why is this the item that we lead with,if it is not intended to destroy cam-paign finance reform and make suresomebody else gets blamed for it? It isa poison pill. It’s a more dangerous at-tack than the flimsy constitutional ar-guments. It does run the risk—it doesrun the risk of destroying the bill, andeveryone should know that when we

vote on the poison pill antilaboramendment, that is exactly what itdoes.

Most of the time that has been takenup on the floor of the Senate by thosewho seek to kill this legislation hasbeen devoted to a third attempt. Thatthird attempt is to make the public be-lieve that this bill somehow creates agiant Government bureaucracy that isgoing to regulate their speech. If Icould just show a copy of the bill—theproblem with that is, in the past, whenfolks have tried to argue that a bill isa huge Government bureaucracy bill,they hold up the bill. They hold up thePresident’s budget: 2,000 pages. Theyhold up the health care bill and theyweigh it on a scale. But this is notgoing to work with the McCain-Feingold bill. It is only 55 pages. It ispretty hard, the way lawyers write, toset up a giant Government bureaucracyin 55 pages.

But that is what they want folks tobelieve. They want folks to believethat somehow we are creating a newworld of campaign financing that willchange the way things are done in thiscountry and will change the ability ofmembers of the public to speak theirmind in an election. I think it is justthe opposite. I think what the currentsystem is, I think the status quo, thatthe Senator from Kentucky defends sovigorously, is so at variance with thesystem that I grew up to believe inthat it is shocking. I think we havecome so far from the notion of one per-son one vote; so far from the notionthat every child born in this countrycould grow up to serve in the House orserve in the Senate, or perhaps even bePresident, that it is an embarrassment.

Look at what Mr. Tamraz said re-cently about this system and how heapparently gamed it. He said, beforethe Governmental Affairs Committeeon September 18, 1997, in response to aquestion—the question was a very di-rect question:

Was one of the reasons that you madethese contributions because you believed itmight get you access? That’s my question.

Mr. Tamraz’ response was verystraightforward. He said:

Senator, I’m going even further. It’s theonly reason—to get access, but what I’m say-ing is once you have access, what do you dowith it? Is it something bad or somethinggood. That’s what we have to see.

When I heard that comment from Mr.Tamraz I just couldn’t help but thinkhow far we had come from the Americathat I was brought up to believe in.Maybe I was naive, growing up back inJanesville, WI, but I really believed itwhen my parents told me that, ‘‘Youmay not be the richest kid in town,you may not be the most powerful per-son in the town or in the State or inthe country. But every American hasthe same vote. Your vote counts thesame as a Rockefeller’s.’’ That was thename we used in those days.

So, when you look at the story ofwhat has happened in the last 30 years,I can’t help but reflect that when I was

7 years old and John F. Kennedy wasrunning for President, the way that wewould sort of observe a Presidentialcampaign was not just through the tel-evision. There were a few televisionsets. You could go out to the SaukCounty 4–H fair. There was a littleDemocratic booth. Just a few feet awaywas a little Republican booth. Andthere was a little ribbing going backand forth. You know, those booths havenot moved an inch in 37 years. Theyare in the exact same place they al-ways were. That is where the campaignwas, people talking to each other.

Nobody said anything about raisingmoney. I’m sure they had to fund theircampaigns, but that was not what thenews stories were about. I’m sure theSenator from Utah, who is on the floor,would agree with me, that that was notthe nature of the discussion, who hadthe most money to win an election inthose days. Then, as I got into my teenyears, the civil rights movement cameupon us, the Vietnam war, the begin-ning of the environmental movement,the women’s movement—so many po-litical movements; on the other side ofthe political spectrum, the great con-cern that arose about law and order inthis country. These were the great dis-cussions of our time, as well as others.

I recall some kind of conversationabout Howard Hughes giving somemoney to both Presidential candidates,but it was sort of an odd story, an eso-teric story. ‘‘What is going on? Whywould this rich fellow, a recluse, giveall this money to Presidential cam-paigns?’’ It was not the stuff of publiclife. It was not the news, who was giv-ing what money to what politicalparty. In fact, the gentleman who usedto hold this seat before I did, a coupleof Senators back, my friend GaylordNelson, told me recently that in hisdistinguished career in Wisconsin poli-tics as a Member of this body for 18years, he never once made a phone callto raise money. He never once pickedup the phone and said: Hey, I’m run-ning for reelection, can you give mesome money?

I suggest that those were the goodold days. What the Senator from Ken-tucky is trying to defend is a newworld, where not only are Senators ex-pected to make phone calls almostevery day to raise money for theircampaigns, but where Senators andothers are encouraged to call up peopleand ask them for $100,000. This is notthe system that I grew up with. This isnot the system that led the late RobertKennedy to refer to politics as an hon-orable profession.

Then, in high school, the people usedto rib me a little bit. I guess I was alittle bit too open about my desire togo into politics. Some of them wouldsay, because I talked so much I wouldbe a good politician, and other com-ments like that. But the one thingthey never said to me was, ‘‘RUSS, ifyou want to go into politics you haveto go out and make $10 million first;that there is an opening ante, there is

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10149September 29, 1997an opening fee, that you must be a mil-lionaire.’’ That we are, in effect, re-creating here in Washington the Houseof Lords, which we freed ourselves fromover 200 years ago. Nobody ever saidthat to me.

Politics was still church dinners andRotary clubs and the State fair and allthose things that one may regard ascorny. But the fact is, it was a prettygood system. This is a lousy system; asystem where somebody pays $300,000to get in a room to be with his com-petitor who has paid $300,000, a roomthat none of us could ever get in. Thatis a lousy system.

I was still under the perhaps naivebelief, in 1982 when I sought election tothe State senate in Wisconsin, my firstrace for public office—I was under theillusion that money wasn’t important.Thanks to the good laws of the State ofWisconsin it wasn’t terribly important.

I had no money, but the State lawprovided that if I could raise $17,000,the State would match it with $17,000 ifI agreed to a $34,000 limit and that thatwould be a reasonable amount for acampaign voluntarily. That’s what Idid.

I wrote to every relative I had. Iwrote to a few former professors andteachers of mine. They all sent in a fewdollars. We had $17,000 by August, andwe went out and campaigned. I went tothe Sauk County Fair, walked in pa-rades, and had some very civil and nicedebates with my opponent.

I do remember a brief moment,though, at the end of that campaignwhen one of the senior Democratic offi-cials in the State called me up andsaid, ‘‘RUSS, you’re going to lose if youdon’t borrow $10,000 for the last fewdays.’’

I said, ‘‘I can’t do that. I’m just notgoing to do that to my family.’’

He was almost right, because I onlywon that election by 31 votes out of47,000. It was the closest election in thehistory of the Wisconsin State Senate.But the fact is, it was reasonable—$35,000. It was something I could atleast think about as a person of aver-age means.

Now the same races in that same dis-trict, just 15 years later, cost some-thing like $250,000, $300,000 just for aWisconsin State Senate seat that payssomebody some $35,000 to $40,000. Butyet I still believe, because I won by theslimmest of margins, that running foroffice was not equal to having a lot ofmoney.

I got a bit of a rude awakening, Mr.President, in 1987 when I started think-ing about running for the U.S. Senate.I thought I had amassed a decentrecord over the years as a WisconsinState Senator, and I wanted to runagainst the incumbent senator. But asI went around the State gradually forseveral years trying to build a grass-roots organization, I wasn’t asked whatI had done in the State Senate; Iwasn’t asked what I had done before Iwas in the State Senate; I wasn’t askedwhat my views might be. Almost every

single encounter, whether with themedia or with a potential supporter,was, ‘‘RUSS, this is fine and good andyou seem like a nice young fellow, butwhere are you going to get themoney?’’

‘‘Where are you going to get themoney, RUSS?’’

‘‘How can you possibly think youhave a right or an opportunity to runfor the U.S. Senate unless you are inde-pendently wealthy or if you are wellconnected to Washington?’’

That was the message I was givenover and over again. Anybody whoknows the kind of race I wentthrough—I had a lot of good fortune,obviously, because I am standinghere—that was my biggest problem. Iwasn’t considered credible because Iwasn’t wealthy. That didn’t feel to melike what my parents had told me.That didn’t feel to me like the assur-ance that I would have a fair chance tocompete with everyone else simply be-cause I am an American citizen. It feltreally bad. Maybe it made me workhard. Maybe it made me stay thecourse.

It got particularly difficult when Iwould go to a group with whom I had agood relationship; for example, theindependent bankers, a group withwhom I have a very good relationship.I always admired their independence inWisconsin. And I said to them, ‘‘Couldyou give me some support for myrace?’’

They said, ‘‘Well, we think you havedone a good job, but we have to checkin with Washington.’’ There is a guy inWashington who makes this decision.

Then when I checked in with some ofmy friends in the labor unions, whom Iprobably do support on many, many is-sues, I thought they would be able todecide at the local whether or not theywould want to back me. But, no, theyhad to check in with Washington, withthe Washington gatekeepers who wantto kill this bill. That is what I learnedabout the system.

Of course, partially because my twoprimary opponents were both verywell-heeled and attacked each otherthat I wound up winning the primary.They used their money to make eachother look pretty bad, and I wound upwinning the primary because I was theother guy who was running. And thatgave me momentum to win the finalelection.

As I stand here with these colleaguesI admire greatly, sometimes I wonder,am I the last person of average wealthand income who will ever serve in thisbody? Is the door going to slam on peo-ple who actually worry about makingends meet, people who actually worryabout their mortgage payment, as I do?Am I the last person who is not a mil-lionaire who will be invited to serve inthis institution?

I don’t think that is the way it willend up, but I can tell you this, if wedon’t pass a reform like the one wehave before us today, it will be. I can-not in good conscience look at a high

school senior today, as I was in 1971,and say, ‘‘You know, it would be greatif you pursued a political career; it willbe wonderful; just learn the issues,work with people, show people that youare a natural leader.’’ I can’t just leaveit at that. If I am being honest with ayoung person, I would have to say,‘‘And you better darn well come upwith $10 million or nobody is going totake you seriously.’’ That hurts myimage of America that I have to saythat to a high school senior today.

The opponents of this bill have abso-lutely no answer for those high schoolstudents. They say somehow that freespeech in America means that theydon’t matter, it means that they can’tparticipate, it means that they don’thave the same right that everyone elsedoes to run for an office in the Houseor Senate and have some kind of a be-lief that they can prevail.

Each of us, I suppose, wants to tellour own story of how we got here, as Ijust did. It is a great honor to serve inthis body. Less than 2,000 Americanshave ever done so. I appreciated itwhen the majority leader the other dayspoke to some of his concerns when hewas running for office. This is the onlyissue where all the Members of theSenate are experts, because we havebeen through it and we know.

But the reason I am involved withthis bill is that the senior Senatorfrom Arizona had the courage to cometo me and say, ‘‘Look, we’ve got to dosomething to change this system, toput aside our partisan differences.’’ Wejust decided that we couldn’t live witha country where a Presidential can-didate would begin his campaign, makethe high point of his announcement forPresident the following statement:

I have the most reliable friend you canhave in American politics and that is readymoney.

That was a leading comment in anannouncement for President of theUnited States. I don’t remember eitherJohn F. Kennedy or Richard Nixonleading their campaigns in 1960 withthat comment, on anyone else. That isa tragic commentary on where we havecome over the years.

So that is what this really comesdown to. You have heard the constitu-tional arguments and have seen themfall. You see already an attempt tobring a ‘‘poison pill’’ out on the floorto kill this bill by making it too harshfor either side to accept and destroy itsbipartisan nature. You have heard theeffort to distort what this bill reallydoes by suggesting that somehow ourbill will create a large governmentalinvolvement in free speech.

The fact is, it is this system that isdestroying free speech. It is a systemwhere people can give hundreds ofthousands of dollars of unregulatedmoney or give huge contributions orfundraisers of hard money to can-didates that cut the average person outof the process. This is the corporate de-mocracy that we have come to.

So, in the coming days, we will hearmore of the efforts of our opponents to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES10150 September 29, 1997take each little piece of the bill and in-dicate that there is a problem here ora problem there. Of course, that is thepurpose of the debate. But we areready, Senator MCCAIN and I, to nego-tiate to solve some of the real prob-lems. But what we will not tolerate isthe suggestion that we should do noth-ing. Our opposition has no alternative.They have no answer to the careeningrole of money in American politics.They just want to kill this bill and getback to the business of running elec-tions.

Mr. President, there will be muchmore to say on this bill.

All I can say is that we will not allowthis debate to become mired in the mi-nutia of important issues that ulti-mately would be resolved by the U.S.Supreme Court. We will come backagain and again to the central pointthat this is still a country of one per-son-one vote, not $1 million-1 millionvotes. And it is still a country whereevery high school student should atleast be able to think or dream aboutparticipating in the process withouthaving to become a multimillionairefirst.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Utah.Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have

listened to my colleague from Wiscon-sin chat about these problems. Youknow, in all honesty, I wonder some-times if we do not treat the Americanpublic like they are idiots, when in factthe American public is a very smartcollective group of people.

You know, I just do not see why inthe world we have to have governmentinterfere with the first amendmentprivileges of free speech, just to men-tion one constitutional issue involvedhere, just because some think there aremillionaires in the Senate. There havealways been millionaires in the Senate,as far as I know, at least in this cen-tury. But there have always been anumber of Senators—and there is agreat number of Senators here today—who are not millionaires who made ithere the hard way, even under thispresent system, and who will always beable to make it because the Americanpeople are not idiots.

They are smart. They know what isgoing on. They have the ability tochoose between competing candidacies.Every once in a while you know someof us worry about it because of somepeople who make it here, but, in allhonesty, it seems to me that to put an-other layer of Federal regulations onwhat people can say and do in politicsis not the way to do it, and it presump-tively seems to believe that the Amer-ican people do not have the capacitycollectively or individually to makeright decisions for themselves with re-gard to politics.

The thing that I find heinous and of-fensive in the current political struc-ture is that we have all kinds of advo-cacy groups out there, some of which

support only one party to the exclusionof the other, who spend millions andmillions of dollars that are never re-ported in this political process.

I will just cite with particularity onegroup. I remember when the AFL-CIOdecided they were going to spend $35million in advocacy during the lastcampaign. Now, we Republicans all un-derstand that because virtually everypenny of that goes for liberal Demo-crats. The only Republicans that theyever support —and there are very fewof those; and if there is a moderate-to-liberal Democrat, they will support theDemocrat every time over even a lib-eral Republican for the most part—very few of the liberal Republicans aresupported by them, but if any are, theyhave to be very liberal.

So virtually every dollar of the unionmovement goes into liberal DemocraticParty politics. But $35 million is a dropin the bucket because the Congres-sional Research Service mentions thatin every 2-year election cycle the tradeunion movement puts between $100 and$500 million into the political process,not one penny of which is reported inany filing or disclosure form.

There is nothing in the RepublicanParty that comes close to that type ofeconomic leverage, and yet I have tosay McCain-Feingold does absolutelynothing about that. There is good rea-son for it, because you would be re-stricting the right of the trade unionmovement in this country to expresstheir viewpoints with regard to theirpolitical beliefs. But you are not talk-ing about distortion.

Mr. President, $100 to $500 millionevery 2 years in local, State, and Fed-eral politics, not one penny of which isreported. The $35 million was reportedbecause those were direct contribu-tions to individuals, or actually mostof it was not reported because most ofit was soft money that was used to ad-vocate for Democratic, liberal Demo-cratic Party politics.

In fact, ask conservative Democratshow much union money they get as ageneral rule. Not very much. So youknow, I sometimes think that we beatour gums in here over what appear tobe on the surface important principlesbut which really in reality would un-dermine the very constitutional proc-ess that we have.

In that regard, let me just mentionthat I think one of the most prescientarticles on this subject ever writtenwas written by George Will in theWashington Post yesterday. I know ithas been mentioned here on the floorbefore. But let me just read a little bitfrom that article.

I did not come here wanting to talkabout campaign finance ‘‘reform,’’ butI did want to say these few remarks.But I did read this today, and I broughtit with me. He just says, ‘‘Here Comethe Speech Police,’’ which is the titleof the article—‘‘Here Come the SpeechPolice.’’ George goes on to say:

Almost nothing that preoccupies Washing-ton is as important as Washington thinks al-

most all its preoccupations are. But nowCongress is considering some version of theMcCain-Feingold bill, which raises ‘‘regime-level’’ questions. It would continue thechange for the worse of American govern-ance. And Washington’s political class hopesthe bill’s real importance will be underesti-mated.

With a moralism disproportionate to themerits of their cause, members of thatclass—including the exhorting, collaborativemedia—are mounting an unprecedentedlysweeping attack on freedom of expression.Nothing in American history—not the left’srecent campus ‘‘speech codes,’’ not theright’s depredations during 1950s McCarthy-ism or the 1920s ‘‘red scare,’’ not the Alienand Sedition Acts of the 1790s—matches themenace to the First Amendment posed bycampaign ‘‘reforms’’ advancing under theprotective coloration of political hygiene.

I ask unanimous consent that thefull article be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 28, 1997]HERE COME THE SPEECH POLICE

(by George F. Will)Almost nothing that preoccupies Washing-

ton is as important as Washington thinks al-most all its preoccupations are. But nowCongress is considering some version of theMcCain-Feingold bill, which raises ‘‘regime-level’’ questions. It would continue thechange for the worse of American govern-ance. And Washington’s political class hopesthe bill’s real importance will be underesti-mated.

With a moralism disproportionate to themerits of their cause, members of thatclass—including the exhorting, collaborativemedia—are mounting an unprecedentedsweeping attack on freedom of expression.Nothing in American history—not the left’srecent campus ‘‘speech codes,’’ not theright’s depredations during 1950s McCarthy-ism or the 1920s ‘‘red scare,’’ not the Alienand Sedition Acts of the 1790s—matches themenace to the First Amendment posed bycampaign ‘‘reforms’’ advancing under theprotective coloration of political hygiene.

Such earlier fevers were evanescent, leav-ing no institutional embodiments when par-ticular passions abated. And they targetedspeech of particular political content. Whattoday’s campaign reformers desire is a stead-ily thickening clot of laws and an enforcingbureaucracy to control both the quantityand the content of all discourse pertinent topolitics. By the logic of their aims, reformerscannot stop short of that. This is so, regard-less of the supposed modesty of the measureCongress is debating.

Reformers first empowered government toregulate ‘‘hard’’ money—that given to par-ticular candidates. But there remains the‘‘problem’’ of ‘‘soft’’ money—that given toparties for general political organizing andadvocacy. Reformers call this a ‘‘loophole.’’Reformers use that word to stigmatize anysilence of the law that allows unregulatedpolitical expression. So now reformers wantto ban ‘‘soft’’ money. But the political classwill not stop there.

Its patience is sorely tried by the insuffer-able public, which persists in exercising itsFirst Amendment right of association to or-ganize in groups as different as the SierraClub and the National Rifle Association. Onereason people so organize is to collectivelyexercise their First Amendment right of freespeech pertinent to politics. Therefore re-formers want to arm the speech police withadditional powers to ration the permissibleamount of ‘‘express advocacy,’’ meaning

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10151September 29, 1997speech by independent groups that advocatesthe election or defeat of an identifiable can-didate.

But the political class will not stop there.Consider mere issue advocacy—say, a tele-vision commercial endorsing abortion rights,mentioning no candidate and not mentioningvoting, but broadcast in the context of acampaign in which two candidates differabout abortion rights. Such communicationscan influence the thinking of voters. Can’thave that, other than on a short leash heldby the government’s speech police. So re-striction of hard money begets restriction ofsoft, which begets restriction of express ad-vocacy, which begets regulation of issue ad-vocacy—effectively, of all civic discourse.

The political class is not sliding reluc-tantly down a slippery slope, it is eagerlyskiing down it, extending its regulation ofpolitical speech in order to make its life lessstressful and more secure. Thus is the FirstAmendment nibbled away, like an artichokedevoured leaf by leaf.

This is an example of what has been called‘‘the Latin Americanization’’ of Americanlaw—the proliferation of increasingly rococolaws in attempts to enforce fundamentallyflawed laws. Reformers produce such lawsfrom the bleak, paternalistic premise thatunfettered participation in politics by meansof financial support of political speech is a‘‘problem’’ that must be ‘‘solved.’’

One reason the media are complacentabout such restrictions on (others’) politicalspeech is that restrictions enhance the powerof the media as the filters of political speech,and as unregulated participants in a shrunk-en national conversation. Has the newspaperin which this column is appearing ever edito-rialized to the effect that restrictions on po-litical money—restrictions on the ability tobuy broadcast time and print space andother things the Supreme Court calls ‘‘theindispensable conditions for meaningfulcommunication’’—do not restrict speech? Ifthis newspaper ever does, ask the editors ifthey would accept revising the First Amend-ment to read:

‘‘Congress shall make no law abridging thefreedom of the press, but Congress can re-strict the amount a newspaper may spend oneditorial writers, reporters and newsprint.’’

As Sen. Mitch McConnell, the KentuckyRepublican, and others filibuster to blockenlargement of the federal speech-rationingmachinery, theirs is arguably the most im-portant filibuster in American history. Itsimportance will be—attested by the oblo-quies they will receive from the herd of inde-pendent minds eager to empower the politi-cal class to extend controls over speechabout itself.

Mr. HATCH. Let me just quote a cou-ple of other paragraphs because I thinkthis article really sums it up. I do notknow how anybody could disagree withthis article. I am skipping over quite abit of it which I think is worthy of con-sideration by anybody, but let me justread a couple more paragraphs:

The political class is not sliding reluc-tantly down a slippery slope, it is eagerlyskiing down it, extending its regulation ofpolitical speech in order to make its life lessstressful and more secure. Thus is the FirstAmendment nibbled away, like an artichokedevoured leaf by leaf.

This is an example of what has been called‘‘the Latin Americanization’’ of Americanlaw—the proliferation of increasingly rococolaws in attempts to enforce fundamentallyflawed laws. Reformers produce such lawsfrom the bleak, paternalistic premise thatunfettered participation in politics by meansof financial support of political speech is a‘‘problem″ that must be ‘‘solved.’’

One reason the media are complacentabout such restrictions on (others’) politicalspeech is that restrictions enhance the powerof the media as the filters of political speech,and as unregulated participants in a shrunk-en national conversation.

What a comment, terrific comment.And it sums it up pretty well:

Has the newspaper in which this column isappearing ever editorialized to the effectthat restrictions on political money—re-strictions on the ability to buy broadcasttime and print space and other things theSupreme Court calls ‘‘the indispensable con-ditions for meaningful communication’’—donot restrict speech? If this newspaper everdoes, ask the editors if they would accept re-vising the First Amendment to read:

‘‘Congress shall make no law abridging thefreedom of the press, but Congress can re-strict the amount a newspaper may spend oneditorial writers, reporters and newsprint.’’

As Sen. Mitch McConnell, the KentuckyRepublican, and others filibuster to blockenlargement of the federal speech-rationingmachinery, theirs is arguably the most im-portant filibuster in American history. Itsimportance will be attested by the obloquiesthey will receive from the herd of independ-ent minds eager to empower the politicalclass to extend controls over speech about it-self.

What an article. He sums it up betterthan anybody I know. Frankly, I com-mend this article to anybody who caresabout free speech rights, that this bill,as modified, would eviscerate.

I don’t quite agree with George Will,that this may be the most importantconstitutional filibuster in history, butit is certainly one of the most impor-tant. I know of others that have been,I think, equal in importance, not theleast of which is the debate we had onthe resignation of the President a fewyears ago.

f

MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent there be a period ofmorning business with Senators per-mitted to speak for up to 10 minuteseach.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

f

THE VERY BAD DEBT BOXSCORE

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at theclose of business Friday, September 26,1997, the federal debt stood at$5,387,382,191,644.62. (Five trillion, threehundred eighty-seven billion, threehundred eighty-two million, one hun-dred ninety-one thousand, six hundredforty-four dollars and sixty-two cents)

One year ago, September 26, 1996, thefederal debt stood at $5,198,325,000,000(Five trillion, one hundred ninety-eightbillion, three hundred twenty-five mil-lion)

Twenty-five years ago, September 26,1972, the federal debt stood at$437,507,000,000 (Four hundred thirty-seven billion, five hundred seven mil-lion) which reflects a debt increase ofnearly $5 trillion—$4,949,875,191,644.62(Four trillion, nine hundred forty-ninebillion, eight hundred seventy-five mil-

lion, one hundred ninety-one thousand,six hundred forty-four dollars andsixty-two cents) during the past 25years.

f

WHY A PRIVATE SCHOOL VOUCH-ER PLAN FOR D.C. SCHOOLS IS ABAD IDEA

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, tomor-row morning the Senate will vote onthe creation of the first federally fund-ed private school voucher program inthe Nation.

It is no accident that this new vouch-er program is being debated on the D.C.appropriations bill. None of us has aconstituency in the District of Colum-bia. We can do anything to the Dis-trict, and we are unaccountable to itsvoters for our actions. And in recentyears, Congress has done quite a bit tothe District of Columbia.

Two years ago, in recognition of poorcity management and extreme budg-etary problems, Congress created a fi-nancial control board to help get thecity back on its fiscal feet. Not quite ayear ago, the control board announcedthe formation of an emergency man-agement team for the city’s schools.The elected school board was relievedof its authority. The superintendentwas urged to resign, and a new teamwas established, which is headed by re-tired Gen. Julius Becton.

General Becton signed on for a 3-yeartour of duty in D.C. schools, yet beforeeven a full year has passed, Congress ispoised to pull the rug out from underhim by creating a private schoolvoucher plan.

Supporters of private school vouchersprefer to call them school choice. Butparents don’t choose the schools theirchildren will attend. Private schoolsselect the children they will accept.This is not a luxury our public schoolsenjoy. Public schools are committed toproviding an education to all children:To children who come to school at anytime of the year, to children with dis-abilities, to children whose primarylanguage is not English, to childrenwith disciplinary problems, and to chil-dren with low IQ’s.

Private schools have the ability toselect the smartest, the least difficultstudents with the fewest challenges toovercome. Supporters of the voucherplan point out that there are a numberof inner-city, parochial schools thattake whatever child comes to the door.There is no doubt that parochialschools have an important role to playand are doing a good job, but that doesnot mean that they should receive Fed-eral funding. It does not mean thatthey have taken on all of the obliga-tions of our public schools.

I believe that it is wrong to provideFederal dollars to private or parochialschools to enable them to skim thebest students from the public schools.Vouchers also would skim the studentswhose parents are involved in theirchild’s education, leaving the publicschools with the greatest challenges.