E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 104 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

Vol. 142 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1996 No. 95 Senate

The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT wage issue, beginning on Monday, July called to order by the President pro I understand that there has been a re- 8. tempore (Mr. THURMOND). quest for an extension of that debate, I yield the floor. therefore I now ask unanimous consent f PRAYER that debate be extended until 1 p.m. The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John today under the previous conditions, RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME Ogilvie, offered the following prayer: and further that Senators have until 1 The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martin Luther said, ‘‘The very ablest p.m. in order to file second-degree DEWINE). Under the previous order, youth should be reserved and educated amendments to the campaign finance leadership time is reserved. not for the office of preaching, but for reform bill as well as first-degree f government. Because in preaching, the amendments to the DOD bill. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM Holy Spirit does it all, whereas in gov- The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With- ernment one must exercise reason in out objection, it is so ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- the shadowy realms where ambiguity Mr. LOTT. I might just note that has ate will now resume consideration of S. and uncertainty are the order of the been cleared by the Democratic leader- 1219, which the clerk will report. day.’’ ship. This just does provide for an addi- The assistant legislative clerk read Gracious God, infinite wisdom, we tional 30 minutes of debate on the cam- as follows: thank You for reserving and preparing paign finance reform bill. A bill (S. 1219) to reform the financing of the women and men of this Senate to At 2:15 today, under the previous Federal elections, and for other purposes. serve You in the high calling of govern- order, the Senate will proceed to a roll- ment. So often politics and politicians The Senate resumed consideration of call vote on the motion to invoke clo- are denigrated in our society. We for- the bill. ture on the campaign finance reform get that politics is simply the doing of The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- bill. If cloture is not invoked, the Sen- government. Bless the Senators, their ator from Texas. ate is expected to resume consideration faithful staffs, and all who are part of Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I of the Department of Defense author- the Senate family. Give all of them a want to speak against cloture on this ization bill; therefore, further rollcall renewed awareness that they are here bill, but I also want to talk about what votes are expected throughout today’s by Your appointment and You will give I think is good about the bill and why session. vision in the ambiguities and clear I am voting against cloture. As a further reminder, a cloture mo- convictions in the uncertainties that First, I want to say, if I were titling tion was filed on the DOD authoriza- occur today. Send out Your light; lead this bill, it would be called the Incum- tion bill last night, with that vote to us; empower us. We commit ourselves bency Protection Act, because that is occur on Wednesday of this week. Also, anew to excellence for Your glory and what limitations on expenditures for the Senate will recess from the hour of the good of our beloved Nation. In the campaigns will do. It will take away 1 to 2:15 p.m. today, in order for the name of our Lord. Amen. the right of a challenger to be able to weekly policy conferences to meet. raise more money than an incumbent f I hope the cloture vote on DOD au- with the advantage of name identifica- RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY thorization may not be necessary, but tion and to be able to go forward with LEADER from what I saw last week, the Senate a message. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The has not yet gotten serious about com- What they say in this bill is that it is able majority leader, Senator LOTT, is pleting this legislation. We must do it voluntary. It is voluntary, but you pay recognized. this week. We will do it this week. We quite a price if you do not adhere to f just have to get on with the amend- the limits. You, then, will be faced ments. So we probably can expect to go with 30 minutes of free broadcast time SCHEDULE into the night tonight and may very against you, if you do not adhere to the Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this morn- well tomorrow also. limits. You will have reduced postal ing there will be a period for continued I might also just say, I plan to meet rates against you. This is really coer- debate on S. 1219, the campaign finance later on this morning with the Demo- cive. Then there is the cost. My gosh, reform bill, with the time equally di- cratic leader and see if we can come to the Postmaster General has said he vided between the two leaders or their an agreement on how to handle the will have to raise all postal rates if he designees. small business tax relief and minimum has to provide reduced rates.

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

S6761 S6762 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 So I want to talk about why I think goes against everything that freedom $100,000 for a campaign for a State of- this is the most important part of the in a democracy stands for, and that is fice, and we are talking about $1,000 bill. But I also want to talk about what the limitations on contributions, vol- limitations on contributions or $5,000 I think is good in the bill because, if we untary, but nevertheless I think it cre- from a PAC that is an amalgamation of ever want to come back to this, there ates a very uneven situation. many employees in a company, I think are some improvements that we really I am a person who could be on the we are assuring that there is going to ought to make, and I will be supportive other side of that because in my per- be a grassroots base. We have that as- of these things. I love the idea of re- sonal experience I ran against an in- surance right now. quiring 60 percent of campaign funds to cumbent who was much better funded I had 40,000 contributors to my cam- be raised from individuals in a State. I than I was, who had the PAC contribu- paigns for the U.S. Senate. I ran twice think that is something that will en- tions from Washington that I have within 2 years. Forty thousand. My av- able the people in the State to have the heard so much talk about on this floor. erage contribution was about $100. I right say in the election of their Mem- I had a very hard time raising money think that is a grassroots effort. I had bers of the U.S. Congress, in the elec- against this incumbent. But you know many $5 and $10 contributions. That tion of their Senators. what? The people were looking at the does make sure that no one has par- I am for limitations of personal message. And even though my message ticular access to a person because of money for a campaign. I think you was much less generously funded than some huge contribution. have to make sure it would be con- my opponent’s message, nevertheless I think we can do a lot to improve stitutional, so you would say a person the people were able to make this our campaign finance in this country, can spend any amount of his or her own choice. Mr. President, but I just think this bill money that he or she wants to, but he I do not want to limit the incumbent is not the right approach. I hope that or she could only be repaid a certain or the challenger. If the message is we can work on this and continue to amount. I think that is a wise thing, right, we need to have the freedom to work on it, because as I said, I think, because I, too, am alarmed, as many of get it out. I, of course, think that lim- having limitations on personal use of us are, by people who would just pour iting an incumbent and saying you can funds, having the 60 percent require- millions of their own money into a only spend this much, and limiting the ment of raising money in your home campaign and, in effect, be able to buy challenger and saying you can only State, not using the franking privilege an election; because that is what peo- spend this much, is going to favor the in an election year are very good, solid ple see. They have the access to the incumbent. There is just no question recommendations from this bill. So I airways with money, and it does be- about that. And even though I was on hope that we will be able to work on come, I think, an inequitable situation. the other side of that, I think it is something, but, Mr. President, this is Limitations on the amounts of con- wrong and I think I will stand always not the right vehicle. Thank you, and I tributions by PAC’s to the same against any kind of limitations, wheth- yield the floor. amount as individuals contribute is er it is cloaked in a voluntary cloak of The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who good. I do think PAC’s, however, have armor or not, because it is not really yields time? Mr. MCCONNELL addressed the Chair. been misrepresented, not only on this voluntary when you are then going to The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- floor but around the country, because I the television stations or the postal ator from Kentucky. think political action committees, service or going to the radio stations Mr. MCCONNELL. Let me thank my most often, are grassroots efforts with- and saying, ‘‘Ah, yes.’’—these people good friend from Texas for her excel- in a company. Why would we not want that are voluntarily saying that they lent statement on the issue before us. I the working people of this country to are going to stay within the limit— appreciate her contribution to this de- be able to contribute $25 or $100 or $500, ‘‘You’re going to pay for that dif- bate, not only at this time but in pre- if they desire to do it? PAC’s are vol- ference.’’ vious rounds. She is right on the mark, untary and they should be voluntary. What is the nexus? Why are we tell- it seems to me, in concluding that this But if people want to participate in our ing television stations or the Postal bill falls well short of anything the process, I think they should be encour- Service, which is going to have to raise Congress ought to foist on to the aged. Frankly, I think many of the rates on everyone else in America, that American people, and particularly the companies in this country have done a you should subsidize this arbitrary lim- restrictions on all the individuals wonderful job of encouraging their em- itation that is voluntary? It just does across the country that want to par- ployees to be a part of a PAC. When not make sense, Mr. President. ticipate in the political process. they do that, the employees are able to So I am going to vote against cloture I would just say to my friend from have the candidates come before them. because I think the overriding issue Texas—I did not get a chance yester- They will have the Democrat and the here is limitations. If you want to see day to tell her this—even the National Republican. They will be able to have the hardship of limitations, look at the Education Association, almost never debates. I think that is healthy. That States that have the limitations in aligned with people like the Senator makes more people interested in the place. Look at the Presidential elec- from Texas and myself, wrote me a let- process, have a stake in the process, tion right now. One candidate has a ter yesterday saying how awful this and be good citizens. That is what we primary and therefore has to spend the bill was, and said they hoped it would want to encourage in our democracy. money in the limitation. The other be defeated. They also pointed out that I am for the provision that would not candidate does not have a primary. the average contribution to the NEA allow the franking privilege for mass This could be reversed. It could be the PAC was $6, and asked the question, mailings in an election year. I do not year that there is a Republican incum- why in the world participation of that use the franking privilege for mass bent and the Democrats have a pri- sort would be a bad thing for American mailings at all. I have not detected I mary. Either way, it makes for an arti- democracy and something the Congress am any less in contact with my con- ficial limitation that is not fair. I do ought to eliminate? stituents. I think it is a good thing, in not think we want to put that in place Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator an election year, not to have the frank- now for Members of Congress and Mem- yield for a question? ing privilege for mass mailings. I think bers of the Senate. Mr. MCCONNELL. Certainly. we could easily do that. Let me just say that we do have limi- Mrs. HUTCHISON. Is it not true that So these are things that I think are tations on contributions that I think the Postmaster General has raised seri- great steps in the right direction, and I are quite reasonable. Could they be ous questions about this bill, and what commend my colleagues, Senator lower? Yes. I mean, $500, $1,000—it he would be required to do is in the MCCAIN and Senator FEINGOLD, for could be lower if we wanted it to be way of raising postal rates for everyone bringing these forward because these lower. I would certainly be flexible in because of the subsidy that would be are things I could vote for. that area. But you know, when I look required under this bill for lower postal The reason I am going to vote at the States around this country that rates in an election year? against cloture is because the over- have no limitations whatsoever on con- Mr. MCCONNELL. In a letter I re- riding, most important part of this bill tributions and there are people taking ceived from the Postmaster General June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6763 yesterday, he comes out against the First of all, it seems, almost as if in limits will get, but do not let anyone bill. Obviously, the Postmaster General an effort to stop this bill from even tell you people have to pay more under is not accustomed to taking positions being amended, that the kitchen sink our bill. They can still spend as much on legislation up here. But his point is is being thrown at this bill. Now we as they want, and they will not have that this is in effect a transfer of cost hear the Postmaster General is one of any higher cost for what they do. to the postal ratepayers across Amer- the lead opponents of the bill. But this Finally, Mr. President, what this is ica. completely disregards the resolution about, really, is whether candidates That is one of the reasons the Direct that we have placed in the bill, the who are more rooted back in their Marketing Association, the direct mail Senator from Arizona has placed in the home States will have a better chance, people—they are a private business— bill, that would provide that the money or whether those who are dominated by also opposes this, because in effect it is that is saved from preventing Members big money or by D.C. special interests passing on to the postal ratepayers an of Congress from franking during an will dominate. enormous expense. election year would be used to provide I have this cartoon from one of the This bill is not free. The notion has a relatively modest funding necessary most distinguished political cartoonist been put forth that somehow the to provide the postal discounts which of the 20th century. This is the context spending limits are free. In fact, it will only be given to those Senators in which the vote today is being seen. passes the cost on to the broadcasting and Members of Congress who agree to We can talk here about how important industry and on to the postal patrons the spending limits. So that again is PAC’s are, and somehow this will put of this country. another red herring. artificial limits on candidates. This is Mrs. HUTCHISON. Not only that, Second, it does not matter how many what the American public knows to- since we have virtually a monopoly in times the other side says that this bill day’s vote is about. It shows a gen- the postal system, it is like a taxpayer is not voluntary, it is voluntary. There tleman from the U.S. Congress talking subsidy because it is requiring every are no such mandatory restrictions to a lobbyist with a lot of money and a person in America that wants to send a across the board for citizens as has cigar. The guy says, ‘‘No more little letter to pay more for this limitation been suggested by the Senator from gifts or junkets—from now on, it’s that we are putting in place. It just Kentucky and the Senator from Texas. strictly campaign cash.’’ does not qualify as a true voluntary It does not matter how many special Mr. President, the American public limitation. interests—whether it is the NEA, the knows we have finally done something Mr. MCCONNELL. No, it is not vol- AFL–CIO, or business PAC’s—it does about lobbying disclosures. The Amer- untary and not free, I say to my friend not matter how many times they tell ican public knows we have cracked from Texas. It is not voluntary because you our scheme for allowing people to down on the practice of gift giving, one if you choose not to shut up, if you voluntarily abide by limits and give of the most offensive practices to the choose not to take the Government them benefits; it does not matter how American people. But they also know prescribed speech limits, you have to many times they say that is not vol- the big granddaddy of them all, the im- pay more for your television. So it is untary. It is. It is voluntary. portant issue is the money that is not voluntary. And it is not free be- Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator awash in this campaign because of cause the broadcasting industry is yield? campaign financing. called upon to subsidize campaigns and Mr. FEINGOLD. I am happy to yield If we do not take the action today to the postal patrons are called upon to to the Senator. move this bill forward, if we fail in this subsidize campaigns. So it is neither Mrs. HUTCHISON. I want to ask the bipartisan effort, this cartoon will be voluntary nor free. Senator, what would happen under prophetic. This cartoon will show that I thank very much my friend from your bill if there was not enough all that has happened is that the gifts Texas for pointing this out. money saved from the use of the frank and the lobbying are being transferred Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield the floor to cover the cost of the discounted through the campaign cash system. I back to the Senator from Kentucky. mailing? do not think we should let that happen. But I commend the Senator from Ken- Mr. FEINGOLD. If that happens, Mr. President, with that, I yield 15 tucky for his great leadership in this which I doubt, it would have to come minutes of the proponents’ time to the area because he is the person who has out of the budget of the post office. distinguished Senator from West Vir- studied this issue thoroughly and has Mrs. HUTCHISON. In other words, it ginia. taken things that sound very good, and does not necessarily cover all of the The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. has talked about what the real impact costs? BROWN). The Senator from West Vir- is going to be on the consumer that has Mr. FEINGOLD. Our estimates are ginia. to pay 32 cents to send a letter right from—— Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank now. And that is a lot to ask when you Mrs. HUTCHISON. The Postmaster the distinguished manager of the bill, look at the fine print here. I commend General says he would have to raise all and I thank the Chair. the Senator from Kentucky for helping of the rates, because it comes from the Mr. President, for nearly 2 years now us understand it. post office. many of our Republican colleagues, Mr. MCCONNELL. I thank the Sen- Mr. FEINGOLD. Our estimates are particularly those in the House of Rep- ator from Texas. that it would cover it. We go on the resentatives, have trumpeted the glo- Mr. President, how much time does basis of estimates here. That is our as- ries of their so-called Contract With my side have left? sumption. Even if there was a small America. To listen to some, this was The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- gap, the effect would be minimal. the document that held the secrets to ator has 87 minutes. Let me quickly wrap up—because I solving the Nation’s problems. It was Mr. MCCONNELL. I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. want to turn to the Senator from West the primer for a reform-minded Con- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- Virginia—and indicate again a very se- gress—something that would bring ator from Wisconsin. rious distortion. The Senator from great respect to this institution and its Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how Kentucky keeps saying that it will cost Members. Yet, there is one item con- much time do the proponents of the people who do not abide by the limits spicuously absent from the much-tout- bill have? more. That is just not true. They will ed, so-called contract. I note with The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- not pay a dime more than they pay amazement that what is completely ator has 103 minutes. today. They will still be eligible for the missing from that celebrated ideologi- Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. lowest commercial rate as the TV sta- cal text is any mention of campaign fi- Mr. President, before I turn to my tions are required to give them. They nance reform. I have looked and I have very distinguished colleague from West will not have to pay more for their looked and I have looked and it is just Virginia for his remarks, let me just postal rates. It is simply untrue they not there. make a couple points in response to the will have to pay more than they do We are told by those who promote Senator from Texas and the Senator today. True, they will not get the the contract that a balanced budget from Kentucky. lower costs that those who abide by the constitutional amendment is good for S6764 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 the country. We are told that the line- I can say after 50 years in politics, been called campaign grease is making item veto is good for the country. But, there is nothing so demeaning, nothing us all less able to be good public serv- for seemingly inexplicable reasons, so demeaning as having to go out with ants. Ironically, we spend much time many of those who have spent their hat in hand, passing a tin cup around and raise huge sums of money in order time clamoring for change have de- and saying, ‘‘Give me, give me, give to be reelected to the Senate so we can cided that putting an end to our cur- me, give me.’’ Not that old song, ‘‘Give serve our States and our country. rent grotesque and out-of-control cam- me more and more of your kisses,’’ but Then, once here, we cripple our ability paign spending system is just not wor- ‘‘Give me more and more of your to serve our State and our country by thy of attention. money. Give me more and more of your spending an inordinate amount of our How unfortunate, Mr. President, be- money.’’ time on the money treadmill so we can cause I, along with many of my col- Sophocles said, ‘‘There’s nothing in come back for yet another try at serv- leagues, truly believe that until Mem- the world so demoralizing as money.’’ ing our States and our country. bers of Congress come to grips with the And, indeed, in this Senate, the need That kind of system sends the clear simple fact that campaign finance re- for Members to constantly focus on message to the American people that it form is much more important than any raising the huge sums necessary to is money, not ideas and not principles, of these other reforms, this institution stay in office has taken a heavy toll. that reigns supreme in our political will continue to be perceived as the The incessant money chase is an in- system. No longer are potential can- property of the special interests—that sidious demand that takes away from didates judged first and foremost on is exactly what it is, the property of the time we have to actually do our job their positions on the issues, or by the special interests—owned lock, here in Washington. It takes away their experience and capabilities. No stock, and barrel. We all know it. And, from the time we have to study and to longer. Instead, potential Senators are as the public opinion polls indicate, the understand the issues, to meet with our judged by their ability to raise the mil- American people know it, too. constituents, to talk with other Sen- lions of dollars that are needed to run It is a great disappointment to me ators, and to be with our families and an effective campaign. Publilius Syrus that too few Members seem to under- to work out solutions to the problems said that, ‘‘a good reputation is more stand this. Time and time again, those that face this Nation. valuable than money.’’ Senators should of us who have pushed for these re- Mr. President, consider this: Accord- stop and reflect on that observation be- forms have seen our efforts rebuffed. ing to data provided by the Congres- cause our reputations and the feeling Indeed, Mr. President, as Majority sional Research Service, the combined that we can be trusted by the Amer- Leader in 1987 and 1988, I tried eight cost of all House and Senate races in ican people are both in severe free-fall. times—eight times—to get cloture on the 1994 election cycle was $724 million, The American people believe that the campaign finance reform legislation. a sixfold increase from 1976. Even more key to gaining access and influence on And eight times I lost. More impor- troubling, though, at least from the Capitol Hill is money. Can anyone tantly, however, eight times the Amer- perspective of our colleagues, is that blame them for coming to that conclu- ican people lost. the average cost of a winning senato- sion? That is why this legislation before us rial campaign rose from barely $600,000 Now, Mr. President, if I were starting today is so important. It is an effort, a in 1976 to more than $4 million in 1994. out in politics today, with a back- bipartisan effort, to put a stop to the Four million dollars. And that, of ground like mine—working in a gas noxious system currently in place for course, is just the average. station, being a small grocer, a welder the financing of senatorial campaigns. In 1994, nearly $35 million was spent in a shipyard, a meatcutter, just com- It is a measure that does not favor by the two general election candidates mon ordinary trades—I could not even challengers or incumbents, or can- in California, while the candidates in hope to raise the sums of money needed didates from either political party. On the Virginia Senate race spent $27 mil- for today’s campaigns. In 1958, when the contrary, this bill, the McCain- lion. Jennings Randolph and I ran together Feingold bill, takes a balanced ap- What do those astounding numbers for the two Senate seats that were proach that will go a long way toward say to someone who may wish to stand open—he ran for the short term, and I creating a level playing field. for election to the Senate? What does ran for the full 6-year term—we ran on Mr. President, one needs to look no the prospect of needing $35 million, or a combined war chest of something further than this Chamber to see the $27 million, or even $4 million say to like $50,000 or less. When I first started pressing need for this type of reform. I the potential Senate candidate? What out in politics, I would win a campaign believe that the primary problem in it says, Mr. President, is that unless for the House of Representatives and this body, the root problem plaguing you win the lottery, or unless you spend as much as $200, perhaps. Think the Senate today is what I would term strike oil in your backyard, or unless of it. If I had been forced to raise $1 the ‘‘fractured attention’’—the frac- you are plugged into the political million, $2 million, $4 million, or $10 tured attention of Senators. Countless money machines, unless you actively million the first time I ran for the Sen- times, action on the Senate floor has compete to be part of the ‘‘aristocracy ate, in 1958, I would not have given it a been slowed or delayed because Sen- of the money bag’’ you are a long shot, second thought. In fact, I would not ators are not in Washington, or if they at best, to win election to the United even have gotten past the first are, they are away from the Capitol. States Senate. And that fate is meted thought. I would not have been able to That absence is not because those Sen- out to prospective candidates before even contemplate running for office—a ators are off on vacation or taking they have even presented an idea, or poor boy like myself. their leisure. They are not off some- given a speech, or offered a policy posi- The ever-spiraling cost of public of- where lounging in the sun, neglecting tion. fice is not a healthy trend. The Con- their duties here. On the contrary, as The money chase is like an unending gress could become the exclusive do- each of us knows all too well, Senators circular marathon. Since the share of main of the very wealthy. The common are often elsewhere because of the need money coming from small contributors man, without the funds to wage a high- to raise unthinkable sums of money— has declined while the share contrib- powered, media-intensive campaign unthinkable sums—money essential for uted by big political action committees could be removed from effectively com- running for reelection. has increased, candidates have to look peting in the political arena, reserving Plato thanked the gods for having more and more outside their home it for the exclusive use of the very been born a man, and he thanked the States to raise big bucks. The travel- wealthy and the well-connected. gods for having been born a Greek. He ing, the time away from the Senate, That is why we must stop this mad- also thanked the gods for having been the time away from talking with con- ness. We must put an end to the seem- born in the age of Sophocles. Sophocles stituents, the time robbed from reading ingly limitless escalation of campaign said, ‘‘There’s nothing in the world so and reflection, the personal time stolen costs. We must act to put the U.S. Sen- demoralizing as money.’’ Sophocles from wives, children, and grand- ate within the reach of anyone with was not an American politician, but he children, the siphoning off of energies the desire, the spirit, the brains, and knew what he was talking about. to the demands of collecting what has the spunk to want to serve once again. June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6765 We must bring into check the obscene try a system that would voluntarily spend more than $1 million, as hap- spending which currently occurs. The cap campaign spending with a high of pened in my case where my opponent Bible says, ‘‘The love of money is the about $8.2 million in the big States like spent about $30 million of his own root of all evil.’’ In politics, the need California, going down to $1.5 million money, it is impossible to catch up for huge sums of money just to get in States with lesser population. with the smaller contributions. There- elected is certainly at the root of most I believe that efforts should be made fore, raising the limit to $5,000 only in of what is wrong with the political sys- to limit the amount of personal funds instances where in individual States tem today. that can be used in a campaign. I be- they are going to spend more than $1 Mr. President, I congratulate Mr. lieve that an effort to promote honesty million of their own money would en- MCCAIN and Mr. FEINGOLD. I urge my in advertising and reducing the influ- able a more level playing field. colleagues, for the sake of this institu- ence of connected PAC’s in the out- The amendment I will propose would tion if for no other reason, to support come of elections is important. also address the issue of PAC’s. As you cloture on this vital legislation. As always in an election year, we know, McCain-Feingold would prohibit I yield the floor. hear a lot of talk about Congress en- all PAC contributions whether or not Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. acting meaningful campaign spending these PAC’s are connected PAC’s; that The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- reform. But when it comes to actually is, connected to a business or a labor ator from Wisconsin. doing something about it we tend to union or a nonconnected PAC. By that, Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I hide behind one procedural maneuver I mean organizations that are devel- thank the Senator from West Virginia. or another that allows us to vote the oped let us say to promote women for I cannot think of a more eloquent tes- right way but gets us nowhere toward public office, or let us say to support a timony to the need for this reform achieving a piece of legislation. cause in candidates who support that than the statement that this great In the last Congress a campaign fi- cause for public office. The law permit- Senator, if he were starting out today, nance bill passed both the Senate and ting nonconnected PAC’s would remain probably would not even have consid- the House but got bogged down because unchanged in my amendment. As a ered running for the U.S. Senate be- the necessary 60 votes to invoke clo- fallback, if the ban on connected PAC’s cause of the incredible barrier of the ture on a motion to proceed with a con- is found to be unconstitutional, it pro- money to be raised. ference were not present in the Senate. vides that contributions from con- Our bill is a voluntary scheme that I understand that this will likely be nected PAC’s be limited to 20 percent allows people who would try to follow the problem here today. I hope we do of a campaign’s receipts. in Senator BYRD’s tradition to raise a get the 60 votes for cloture, and I hope In my view, a blanket ban on all po- modest amount of money and have ben- that in the ensuing debate a solid cam- litical action committees in a sense efits for agreeing to do that. I greatly paign finance reform bill can emerge. throws the baby out with the bath Legislation I introduced last year appreciate that. water. I think we need to be encourag- and which, for the most part, forms the Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank ing people to be involved in politics basis of McCain-Feingold, addresses the Senator. and not discouraging them. Virtually what I believe are the areas most in Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how every legal scholar who has examined need of reform: The limiting of spend- much time remains? this question believes that a complete The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ing; creating a level playing field be- ban on all PAC’s is unconstitutional. ator has 82 minutes remaining, and tween wealthy candidates who finance The Congressional Research Service Senator MCCONNELL has 89 minutes. their own campaigns and candidates Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I now who rely on contributions; and finally has advised the Senate, and I quote: ‘‘A yield up to 15 minutes to the distin- ensuring honesty in campaign advertis- complete ban on contributions and ex- guished Senator from California, who ing. penditures by connected and noncon- has been a stalwart in support of cam- One of the problems where I have a nected PAC’s appears to be unconstitu- paign finance reform. very real difference with the present tional in violation of the first amend- Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. bill is on the issue of a candidate using ment.’’ President. vast sums of his or her own money to I support the ability of a group or or- I thank the Senator from Wisconsin finance a campaign. Either the sub- ganization to encourage small dona- and the Senator from Arizona. I want stitute bill, or a second-degree amend- tions from their members to candidates to compliment both Senator MCCAIN ment which I will offer if we gain clo- of their choice. In some cases, these and Senator FEINGOLD for this effort. ture on this bill, mirrors parts of the members send their contributions I intend to vote for cloture, and campaign finance bill introduced by made out directly to the candidate’s should cloture on this bill be success- Senator DOLE in the last Congress. It campaign to that organization to be ful, I will either propose a substitute of also attempts to limit the ability of a gathered or bundled and presented col- the whole or two second-degree amend- wealthy candidate to buy a seat in lectively to the candidate. In other ments to this bill. Congress. The provisions of the amend- cases, the organization simply asks for I would like to take the time allotted ment I would propose are a little dif- donations to be made directly to the to me this morning, Mr. President, to ferent than anything that has been in- candidates they recommend. This is explain my position on campaign fi- troduced before now. not the same as writing a check to an nance reform. Under my substitute bill, after quali- intermediary or to a political action I believe very strongly that the time fying as a candidate for a primary, a committee and then having the politi- has come to engage the debate. If noth- candidate must declare if he or she in- cal action committee decide how to ing else, I believe I am kind of a walk- tends to spend more than $250,000 of disburse the funds. ing, talking case for campaign spend- their own funds in the election. If the The McCain-Feingold bill bans bun- ing reform. In the 1990 race for Gov- candidate says ‘‘I am going to spend dling in all political action commit- ernor, I had to raise about $23 million. more than $250,000 of my own money in tees. My amendment would not affect In the first race for the Senate in 1992, this election’’ then the contribution bundling, and I believe this is a crucial $8 million; in the second race, $14 mil- limits on his or her opponent are raised difference in these two bills. lion. from $1,000 to $2,000. If a candidate de- For example, there are two organiza- One newspaper just estimated that in clares that he or she will spend more tions which have helped women run for the big States a candidate really has to than $1 million on the race from their political office. One is EMILY’s List, raise about $2,000 a day just to run for own pocket, then the contribution and one is WISH List. One is a Demo- reelection to the Senate of the United limit on his or her opponents would be cratic organization and one is a Repub- States. It certainly should not have to raised to $5,000. This is different from lican organization. Both of these be this way. McCain-Feingold where there is only groups collect smaller donations pri- Essentially I agree with the basic te- the jump to $2,000. And the reason it is marily from women. They bundle those nets of the McCain-Feingold legisla- different is because in the larger funds from many sources to a single tion. I agree that the time has come to States, if an individual is going to candidate. S6766 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 In the 1994 election cycle, EMILY’s gree amendments or the substitute of such rights, and I believe that organi- List members supported 55 women can- the whole to do the two items that I zations like EMILY’S List, which en- didates. They raised a total of about mentioned. courage political participation by aver- $8.2 million. The average donation to I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. age citizens, are in the best tradition of EMILY’s List was less than $100. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the American democracy.’’ WISH List, a much smaller and Chair. I just wanted to quote what Colonel newer organization than its Demo- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who Bobbitt, an active member of EMILY’S cratic counterpart, supported 40 Repub- seeks recognition? The Senator from List, had to say about the underlying lican women candidates and raised ap- Kentucky is recognized. legislation, which she obviously be- proximately $400,000. None of these Mr. McCONNELL. Let me just say lieves would greatly restrict her rights funds were given directly to either of briefly in response to the speech of the to participate in the political process. these groups and neither group used Senator from California, which I lis- Mr. President, I wanted to take a mo- the funds to lobby on legislation before tened to carefully, she also is a mem- ment here to make some observations Congress. Both EMILY’S List and ber of the Rules Committee and par- about the injunctive authority that I WISH List researched the records of ticipated in the hearings. I do not re- view in this bill as provided to the Fed- women candidates and advised their member whether she was there—she eral Election Commission. As I read members which candidates they rec- may have been—the day that Col. Bil- the underlying bill which we are debat- ommended supporting. Based on that lie Bobbitt, retired U.S. Air Force offi- ing, section 306, ‘‘Authority to Seek an information, the members decided who cer, testified before the committee in Injunction,’’ basically, what this sec- to support and how much they wished opposition to this bill. I want to take a tion does is give to the Government, to donate, and they donated directly to minute to quote some of her observa- the Government of the United States, the candidates, sent their check to ei- tions. She is a member of EMILY’S the right to step in and, prior to the is- ther WISH List or EMILY’S List who List, which would effectively be put suance of speech, restrain it. It gives then put the checks together and sent out of business by this legislation, as the Government the authority to en- them to the candidates. the Senator from California has, I be- gage in prior restraint of political I believe that has been helpful in lieve, acknowledged. That might have speech by stepping in and getting a electing women to both Houses of this been one of the amendments she would temporary injunction. This is but one Congress. Currently, there are nine offer were she in a parliamentary posi- of a number of clearly unconstitutional women in the Senate. When I came to tion where that were permissible. But, measures granted to the Government this body, there were only two elected in any event, Colonel Bobbitt, retired by this bill. In addition, obviously, if this bill women. Air Force officer, said, ‘‘I’m in one of Groups like WISH List and EMILY’S the organizations,’’ referring to were somehow to pass constitutional List are an important factor in helping EMILY’S List, ‘‘35,000 active members muster, which is extremely unlikely, more women run for office. Frankly, I from all 50 States, and along with vot- the Federal Election Commission, which today has great difficulty in au- do not have a problem with any organi- ing, I haven’t missed an election,’’ she diting the races of the candidates run- zation going out and endorsing can- said, ‘‘in 51 years. EMILY’S List is the ning for the one race in America at the didates, writing to their members, and primary means through which I par- Federal level where we have, arguably, saying if you would like to contribute ticipate,’’ said Colonel Bobbitt, ‘‘in the spending limits—it takes 5, 6 years to to these candidates, please go ahead electoral process.’’ audit those few races that they have to and do so. I have no problem whether She goes on in her testimony, ‘‘In the audit—it is just, I think, reasonable to that group is the Christian Coalition, decade since EMILY’S List began, ask the question: How big would the whether it is the National Rifle Asso- more women than ever have been elect- Federal Election Commission be if it ciation, whether it is EMILY’S List or ed to Congress, and EMILY’S List is a had to regulate the speech of 535 addi- big reason why. EMILY’S List has al- WISH List. I think the encouragement tional races as well as engage in the in- of small contributions to candidates lowed women to compete and win.’’ She went on to say, with regard to junctive relief powers apparently given that support a cause that you believe to it by the bill, as well as whatever the bundling, in effect, that EMILY’S in is important to the American politi- additional regulatory authority it List does—she describes it. She says, cal system. might be able to assert over independ- My separation from what Senators ‘‘This is what’s called bundling, which ent expenditures? MCCAIN and FEINGOLD have done is that I know Common Cause and some others In short, I think it is reasonable to this bill wipes out all PAC’s, connected have criticized, but to me it’s just good assume, Mr. President, that we would and unconnected. I would ban con- old American democracy at work.’’ So have an FEC the size of the Veterans nected PAC’s but permit unconnected said Colonel Bobbitt. Administration. If there is anything PAC’s to continue their bundling ef- She goes on to say, ‘‘That’s not bad this Congress is about, it seems to this forts. for the system. That’s good for the sys- Senator it is not building more large The other difference I have would be tem. Thousands of small contributions Federal bureaucracies. in how you would voluntarily have the are able to offset the big money coming We have been trying to balance the spending limits to create two different from the rich and powerful. We are budget, to downsize the Government, levels. If a wealthy candidate were to making the system more participatory to restrain our appetite for not only enter a race and say, I do not intend to and more competitive,’’ said Colonel spending but for regulation, and, clear- adhere to the spending limits; I intend Bobbitt. ly, this is a regulatory power grab of to spend $250,000 to $1 million of my Then she concluded by saying, ‘‘My enormous proportions, I would say, Mr. own money, then your opponent’s limit membership in EMILY’S List is a way President—of enormous proportions. It goes to $2,000. If the wealthy candidate for me to be connected to the political could well be that is one of the reasons says, I am going to spend more than $1 life of the Nation and to my fellow citi- an awful lot of the groups in this coun- million, then the limit of the opponent zens. It allows me to band together try this time, across the ideological goes to $5,000. with others who share my views and spectrum, have decided to get off of the I strongly support the $50 disclosure work toward a common end. I do not sidelines and into the game and stand requirement. I strongly support the in- pretend to be a constitutional schol- up for their rights to participate in the centives that are built into this bill ar,’’ she says, ‘‘but like most Ameri- political process. which would provide free radio time, cans, I carry within me an almost in- This bill is not just about us, that is, special mailing to those who do comply nate knowledge of the first amendment the candidates for office; it is also with the voluntary spending limits. rights of citizenship—freedom to prac- about all the groups organized that, I believe this is an important bill. I tice religion, freedom to speak my under the first amendment, have a con- am proud to vote for cloture. I hope mind, freedom to assemble with fellow stitutional right to participate in the that the Senators of this body would citizens in support of a common goal. I political process. see some merit in either the two believe without a doubt that any mem- Let me just go down some of the let- amendments I will offer as second-de- bership in EMILY’S List is secured by ters that I have received on this bill, June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6767 first from the Christian Coalition, a the new provision still threatens the dis- and other forms of speech on federal public letter dated yesterday, June 24, 1996, in tribution of candidates’ positions on the is- policy issues, including but not limited to response to an effort to modify this sues (voter guides). speech that refers to candidates for federal office. Therefore, NRLC again urges you to bill, which was agreed to, and we do This new definition of express advocacy is but just one of the bill’s many egregious pro- vote No on the motion to invoke cloture on have a modified version in the Cham- visions. Under subsection (a) of Section 241, S. 1219, which will be scored as a key pro-life ber today. the expenditures made by a Christian Coali- vote for the 104th Congress. The Christian Coalition says it tion chapter leader for voter education could The substitute bans PACs and therefore strongly urges a no vote on cloture. be considered contributions to a candidate if bans independent expenditures—except for political parties and rich individuals. [Sec. Contrary to the letter sent out by Senators that same chapter leader happened to merely 201] This ban would prevent citizens of ordi- McCain, Feingold, and Thompson on June 19, retain the same lawyer or accountant as a nary financial means from effectively ex- the amended version of S. 1219 still contains candidate, even though the chapter leader did not cooperate or consult with the can- pressing their political viewpoints. the flawed provisions that seriously threaten If the PAC ban is declared unconstitu- didate at all. voter guides. The voter guide problem has tional, the substitute contains ‘‘backup’’ Section 211 is so broadly written that it NOT been corrected. provisions to suppress independent expendi- could prevent a Christian Coalition chapter According to the Christian Coalition. tures by requiring advance notice of in- leader from also holding a local party posi- The letter goes on: tended expenditures—even though some of tion even though the two activities are sepa- those expenditures will never actually occur The amended S. 1219 continues to place the rate and not interrelated. First Amendment right to educate the public [Sec. 242(3)]—and by rewarding candidates Section 306 would give the FEC the author- who are thought to be disadvantaged by on issues in serious jeopardy. It redefines ity to seek injunctions if it believes ‘‘there is ‘‘express advocacy’’ so that for the first time independent expenditures [Sec. 101]. a substantial likelihood that a violation . .. In addition, the substitute [Sec. 241] says ever the Federal Elections Commission is about to occur.’’ Such a prior restraint of that an independent expenditure can no would regulate issue advocacy by citizen free speech is unconstitutional. It is only longer be conducted at all by anyone who groups. justified in weighty cases such as national ‘‘has played a significant role in advising or The Supreme Court has repeatedly pro- security concerns, but should never be per- counseling the candidate’s agent at any time tected voter education from Government mitted to prevent core political free speech. on the candidate’s plans, projects, or needs regulation unless it expressly advocates the The free speech rights of citizen organiza- relating to the candidate’s pursuit of nomi- election or defeat of a clearly identified can- tions should not be infringed by the FEC at nation for election, or election, to Federal didate. the eleventh hour of an election. office, in the same election cycle, including The letter goes on: The Christian Coalition does not have a po- any advice relating to the candidate’s This interpretation ensures that the First litical action committee. However, as a free desision to seek Federal office.’’ [emphasis Amendment right of like-minded citizens to speech issue, we believe citizens should be added] In other words, any person or group discuss issues is not infringed by federal able to pool resources to form political ac- that remarked to a potential candidate, campaign law. But under S. 1219, this free tion committees under reasonable restric- ‘‘We’d like you to consider running for Con- speech would be subjected to great uncer- tions. We therefore object to section 201. gress,’’ would thereby trigger a ‘‘gag rule’’ tainty, and as it is likely to be interpreted On behalf of the members and supporters of under which any subsequent independent ex- by the FEC, possible illegality. S. 1219 could the Christian Coalition, we strongly urge penditure on behalf of that candidate would effectively cripple the Christian Coalition’s you to vote on the side of the First Amend- be illegal. Moreover, this clause could be voter education activities, including the dis- ment and free speech. Please vote NO on clo- triggered by even one-sided communication tribution of voter guides. ture. Thank you for your attention to our from an interest group to an incumbent, dis- concerns. I will not read further from that let- cussing (for example) public opinion in a Sincerely, given state regarding a piece of pending leg- ter, but I ask unanimous consent the BRIAN LOPINA, islation. entire letter be printed in the RECORD. Director, The substitute [Sec. 241(a)] seeks to broad- There being no objection, the letter Governmental Affairs Office. en the definition of ‘‘express advocacy’’ far was ordered to be printed in the Mr. MCCONNELL. In addition to beyond the definition enunciated by the Su- RECORD, as follows: that, the National Right to Life Com- preme Court in Buckley v. Valeo (1976). The bill would enact the ‘‘taken-as-whole’ test CHRISTIAN COALITION, mittee, in a letter dated June 22, says that has been rejected by the federal courts Washington, DC, June 24, 1996. that it has ‘‘* * * analyzed the new on constitutional grounds. Under this expan- Vote No on Cloture on the McCain-Feingold substitute and finds that, to an even sive definition, the bill would restrict the Campaign Finance Bill. greater degree than the original bill, it distribution of issue-oriented material that DEAR SENATOR: Tomorrow the Senate will does not, in fact, urge the election or defeat vote on whether to invoke cloture on S. 1219, rides roughshod over the First Amend- ment.’’ The National Right to Life of any candidate. the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. In a June 19 ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ letter Sen- Christian Coalition strongly urges you to Committee also opposes this bill. ators McCain, Feingold, and Thompson said vote NO on cloture. Contrary to the letter I will not read further from that let- that they added a provision to exempt ‘‘vot- sent out by Senators McCain, Feingold, and ter, but I ask unanimous consent the ing guides’’ from the bill’s restrictions, but Thompson on June 19, the amended version entire letter be printed in the RECORD. the actual provision in the substitute is of S. 1219 still contains the flawed provisions There being no objection, the letter vastly narrower than what is described in that seriously threaten voter guides. The was ordered to be printed in the the ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ letter. The purported voter guide problem has NOT been corrected. RECORD, as follows: ‘‘exemption’’ [see Sec. 241(a)] applies only to The amended S. 1219 continues to place the ‘‘a communication that is limited to provid- First Amendment right to educate the public NATIONAL RIGHT TO ing information about votes by elected offi- on the issues in serious jeopardy. It redefines LIFE COMMITTEE, INC., cials on legislative matters.’’ On its face, ‘‘express advocacy’’ so that for the first time Washington, DC, June 22, 1996. this ostensible ‘‘exemption’’ does not apply ever the Federal Elections Commission Re In opposition to McCain-Feingold sub- to information regarding the public policy (FEC) would regulate issue advocacy by citi- stitute (S. 1219) to regulate and restrict positions of non-incumbents, or to dissemi- zens groups. political speech. nation of any information on candidates’ po- The Supreme Court has repeatedly pro- Senator MITCH MCCONNELL, sitions obtained from press accounts, can- tected voter education from government reg- U.S. Senate, didate questionnaires, speeches, interviews, ulation unless it ‘‘expressly advocates’’ the Washington, DC. or a host of other sources. Moreover, even election or defeat of a clearly identified can- DEAR SENATOR MCCONNELL: On June 18, we the purported exemption for information on didate. This interpretation ensures that the sent you a letter expressing the strong oppo- ‘‘votes’’ is effectively meaningless because of First Amendment right of like-minded citi- sition of the National Right to Life Commit- other provisions and definitions in the bill, zens to discuss issues is not infringed by fed- tee (NRLC) to the McCain-Feingold ‘‘cam- such as the definition of what constitutes a eral campaign law. But under S. 1219, this paign reform’’ bill (S. 1219). Since then, the ‘‘contribution’’ to a candidate (see below). free speech would be subjected to great un- sponsors have produced a new substitute The substitute [Sec. 241(b)(3)] would re- certainty, and as it is likely to be inter- amendment, on which the Senate will con- strict ads and other forms of speech that preted by the FEC, possible illegality. S. 1219 duct a cloture vote on Tuesday, June 25, at contain no reference whatever to an election could effectively cripple the Christian Coali- 2:15 p.m. or even to any candidate, by defining certain tion’s voter education activities, including NRLC has analyzed the new substitute and speech on legislative issues as a contribution the distribution of voter guides. finds that, to an even greater degree than to a like-minded candidate with whom there Although the sponsors of this legislation the original bill, it rides roughshod over the has been communication regarding those is- have amended the bill to exempt the dis- First Amendment. Through multiple overt sues. For example, if NRLC communicated tribution of elected officials’ voting records and covert devices, the substitute attempts with a senator regarding the merits of a cer- (vote ratings and congressional scorecards), to suppress advertisements, publications, tain abortion-related bill, which the senator S6768 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 later voted for, and if NRLC later ran adver- ticipate in the political process in a mean- nizations to communicate with their mem- tisements in that senator’s state discussing ingful way and limit the ability of organiza- bers and the general public in the political that bill, this could be regarded as a ‘‘con- tions to make their voices heard in an open, process. tribution’’ to the incumbent (even if the sen- democratic process. We have examined the draft text of that ator is not mentioned in the ad), and there- Political action committees have encour- possible substitute amendment and our oppo- fore subject to all of the other restrictions aged millions of Americans to become in- sition to S. 1219 is not only unabated—it is, and penalty clauses in the bill. The costs of volved in the political system, many for the if anything, stronger than before. The ban on non-partisan voter guides that contain infor- first time. Many Americans are able to make activities of political action committees re- mation obtained from candidate question- small political contributions that serve as mains in the substitute, and would have a naires or other communications with an in- entree into greater political participation. devastating effect on the ability of ordinary cumbent or a challenger could also be re- Individuals are more likely to work for a citizens such as our members to act jointly garded as ‘‘contributions’’ under this provi- candidate or issue when they have contrib- in support of candidates. sion. uted money, and they are more inclined to Additionally, the new proposed reporting The substitute [Sec. 306] explicitly author- make a contribution when they know it will requirements for independent expenditures, izes the Federal Elections Commission, if it make a difference in the outcome. and the provisions intended to dilute the ef- believes ‘‘there is a substantial likelihood Political action committees stimulate fect of such expenditures, would have a that a violation of this Act is occurring or is small, individual donations. The average chilling impact on the effectiveness of such about to occur,’’ to obtain a temporary re- contribution of NEA members who contrib- communications. Coupled with the continu- straining order or temporary injunction to ute to NEA–PAC is under $6. These small ing effort to broadly redefine ‘‘express advo- prevent publication, distribution, or broad- contributions from middle-income citizens cacy,’’ Sections 241 and 242 represent one of cast of material that the FEC believes to be help counterbalance the ability of wealthy the broadest attacks on free speech rights outside the bounds of the types of political individuals to influence policymakers. seen in years, affecting not only electoral speech that would be permitted under the Eliminating political action committees but other legislative communications. Giv- law. This authorization for prior restraint of would not reduce the importance of money ing the Federal Election Commission a speech violates the First Amendment. in politics. It would reduce the importance of power to engage in prior restraint makes the The overall effect of the bill would be to working people in politics. attack even more serious. We appreciate the support for the right to greatly enhance the already formidable Political action committees also play an free speech which you’ve shown in your op- power of media elites and of very wealthy in- important role in communicating with mem- position to S. 1219, and we urge you to con- dividuals to ‘‘set the agenda’’ for public po- bers of organizations about issues that affect tinue your work on this very important litical discourse—at the expense of the abil- them. NEA would resist any effort to con- issue. If there is anything we can do to be of strain the ability of the Association—or any ity of ordinary citizens to make their voices assistance to you, please don’t hesitate to other organization—to communicate with heard in the political process. call. Therefore, the National Right to Life Com- members and candidates about issues affect- Sincerely, mittee urges you to vote No on cloture on S. ing children, public education, and education TANYA K. METAKSA, 1219. Because S. 1219’s restrictions on inde- employees. Executive Director. pendent expenditures and voter education NEA strongly supports campaign finance activities would ‘‘gag’’ the pro-life move- reform that encourages participation and re- Mr. MCCONNELL. Also, obviously ment from effectively raising right-to-life is- quires full disclosure of all sources of politi- the National Association of Business sues in the political realm, NRLC will cal financing. Moreover, we support partial PAC’s, NAB–PAC, which would essen- ‘‘score’’ this vote as a key pro-life vote for public financing of election campaigns as a tially be put out of business and lose the 104th Congress. means of leveling the playing field for chal- their ability to participate in the polit- Thank you for your consideration of lengers and incumbents. S. 1219 would weak- ical process, opposes the bill. NRLC’s concerns regarding this legislation. en efforts to increase voter participation, The American Conservative Union Sincerely, limit the involvement of low- and middle-in- and the Conservative Victory Fund op- DAVID N. O’STEEN, Ph.D., come citizens in the political process, and Executive Director. discourage efforts to educate and engage the pose it as well. I will not read from DOUGLAS JOHNSON, electorate. We urge you to oppose cloture on those letters, but I ask unanimous con- Legislative Director. S. 1219, and should the Senate vote on the sent the letters be printed in the CAROL LONG, measure, to oppose it and its substitute. RECORD. Director, NRL–PAC. Sincerely, There being no objection, the letters Mr. MCCONNELL. Interestingly MARY ELIZABETH TEASLEY, were ordered to be printed in the enough, a group with which I have not Director of Government Relations. RECORD, as follows: Mr. MCCONNELL. The National Rifle frequently been allied, and not many THE AMERICAN Members of this side of the aisle have Association, in a letter dated yester- CONSERVATIVE UNION, been allied, the National Education As- day, said: Alexandria, VA, June 25, 1996. sociation, sent a letter to me dated We have examined the draft text of that Hon. MITCH MCCONNELL, yesterday, June 24, in which the NEA possible substitute [the bill that is actually Russell Senate Office Building, stated it opposed this bill and called before us today] and our opposition . . . is Washington, DC. not only unabated—it is, if anything, strong- DEAR SENATOR MCCONNELL: On behalf of upon all Senators to vote against clo- er than before. the one million members and supporters of ture. The NEA pointed out, in referring So the National Rifle Association the American Conservative Union, I urge you to the ban on political action commit- to oppose S. 1219, the McCain-Feingold cam- also urges a vote against cloture be- tees, that ‘‘The average contribution of paign finance reform act. cause they believe it adversely affects NEA members who contribute to NEA– As a party to the seminal Buckley v. Valeo their ability to participate in the polit- PAC is under $6.’’ So, their question is, decision, ACU has had a long-standing inter- ical process. est in our nation’s campaign finance system. How in the world is that bad for the po- I will not read further from that let- Over the years, we have worked with many litical process. So they, too, oppose ter, but I ask unanimous consent the Members of Congress on both sides of the this legislation and urge a vote against entire letter be printed in the RECORD. aisle to try to reform the system in a man- cloture. There being no objection, the letter ner consistent with constitutional guaran- tees of free speech—even as we have opposed I will not read further from that let- was ordered to be printed in the ter, but I ask unanimous consent the efforts to change the system in a manner RECORD, as follows: entire letter be printed in the RECORD. which abridges those freedoms. There being no objection, the letter NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION McCain-Feingold does just that. Its fun- OF AMERICA, damental reliance on spending limits— was ordered to be printed in the Fairfax, VA, June 24, 1996. whether ‘‘voluntary’’ or otherwise—is mere- RECORD, as follows: Hon. MITCH MCCONNELL, ly the worst of its many wrong-headed provi- NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Russell Senate Office Building, sions. The problem with our current system Washington, DC, June 24, 1996. Washington, DC. is not that too much money is raised and U.S. Senate, DEAR SENATOR MCCONNELL: We understand spent; as countless studies have shown, we Washington, DC. that an amendment in the nature of a sub- spend as a nation far more to advertise prod- DEAR SENATOR: The National Education stitute may be offered during this week’s de- ucts such as soft drinks and potato chips in Association (NEA) opposes S. 1219, the Sen- bate on S. 1219, the Senate campaign finance a given year than we do on all campaign ate Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1996, bill. As you know, we have repeatedly ex- spending combined. Do you really want to sponsored by Senators John McCain (R–AZ) pressed our opposition to S. 1219, as we be- vote for spending limits and in effect tell and Russell Feingold (D–WI). This measure lieve it unjustifiably and unconstitutionally your constituents that as far as you’re con- would hamper the ability of citizens to par- restricts the First Amendment right of orga- cerned, their decision over which soft drink June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6769

to purchase is more important than which Mr. MCCONNELL. So there are a Republicans who, in response to public dis- leaders to choose? number of groups who, in the past, gust with incumbent Democrats, promised to Rather, the problem in our current system have largely not been heard from dur- change the money system. Good government of campaign financing is that too much time ing these debates who have decided to and citizens groups complain—legitimately— is spent collecting the amounts of money that the national legislature is awash in vast needed to compete effectively in a competi- take a position, to get interested, and sums of money given by favor seekers. tive marketplace. Because of the contribu- to express their views. This is, of The likely result? That’s expected to be a tion limits enacted in the Federal Election course, something we greatly welcome rerun, too. Barring unexpected strength Campaign Act, too many candidates spend since—the point I would like to make— among the reformers, a filibuster organized too much time chasing too few dollars— obviously this bill not only affects can- by Mitch McConnell will halt Senate action. which is what gives special interest groups a didates for office, it affects everybody’s In any event, the House probably won’t find disproportionate influence over legislators. ability to participate in the political time to act this year. If what you are really seeking is a way to re- This outcome would be more regrettable if duce the influence of the special interests, system. These groups do not like our the bill were better. Sadly, it has only one simply lift the contribution limits. effort to push them out of the process. good provision—an end to the ‘‘soft money’’ But McCain-Feingold’s reliance on spend- They do not feel that their involve- scam that allows corporations and labor ing limits is not its only fault. Other wrong- ment in politics is a harmful thing. unions to give political parties millions of headed provisions include taxpayer sub- They think it is protected by the first dollars, purportedly for vague ‘‘party-build- sidization of both print and broadcast com- amendment, and I think they are right. ing’’ activities. If this reform alone survives, munications, and the bill’s outright aboli- Also, just in closing, I see the Sen- Congress could claim some progress. tion of political action committees. Public ator from Utah is ready to take a few But much of the rest of the package would subsidies amount to partial taxpayer financ- be a step back from real reform, while mak- ing of politicians—something overwhelm- moments or more, if he would like. One ing the election finance regulatory effort ingly opposed by the American people. Nor of my biggest adversaries on this issue, more complex and of less service to the pub- should PACs be abolished; to do so would be over the last decade, has been my lic. an unconstitutional infringement on the hometown newspaper, the Louisville The abolition of those endlessly maligned rights of free association and free speech. Courier-Journal, which is the largest PACs would make special interest money McCain-Feingold is a bad bill. Kill it and newspaper in our State. I was amazed harder to trace while denying small givers a start over. to pick up the paper this morning and chance to participate. A limit on out-of-state Yours sincerely, contributions sounds good, but it could cut read an editorial in which they even DAVID A. KEENE, two ways. Indeed, it would probably be more Chairman. think this is a bad bill. They even damaging to a candidate who challenges the think this is a bad bill. This is the local powers-that-be than to one who thrives CONSERVATIVE VICTORY FUND, most liberal newspaper in Kentucky. I on special interest support. Anyway, both Washington, DC, April 2, 1996. was astonished. Obviously, it made my provisions are surely unconstitutional. House of Representatives, day. As for a scheme to lure candidates to limit Washington, DC. I would like to read a couple of com- spending by offering them free TV time con- DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I want to bring to ments. They are predicting the cloture tributed by the networks, it’s simply wrong your attention a bill that would bring irrep- to foist the cost of cleaner government on a arable damage to the political process. Con- will not be invoked. They say, ‘‘This handful of businesses—and viewers. If there’s gresswoman Linda Smith has introduced HR outcome would be more regrettable if a cost to election reform, it should be borne 2566 which bans contributions from political the bill were better.’’ They go on to by all taxpayers. action committees to individuals running for say: It may be, indeed, that Congress is incapa- Congress. I’m deeply concerned about this. [Most] . . . of the rest of the package ble of devising workable change. And that In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in Buckley would be a step back from real reform, while may matter less and less. v. Valeo that campaign finance restrictions making the election finance regulatory ef- The good news is that Kentucky and other burdened First Amendment rights. The only fort more complex and of less service to the states are experimenting with new ap- purpose recognized by the Supreme Court to public. proaches to paying for campaigns. To the ex- tent that states are also developing solutions justify restrictions on PAC contributions is Further, they say: the prevention of real or apparent corrup- to welfare and other national problems—a tion. The abolition of those endlessly maligned positive trend in our view—a national politi- Most of the arguments used for additional PAC’s would make special interest money cal establishment wallowing in dollars limits on political contributions from politi- harder to trace while denying small givers a showered on it by Philip Morris, RJR Na- cal action committees do not stand up under chance to participate. A limit on out-of-state bisco and others becomes increasingly irrele- scrutiny. Originally, the goal of campaign fi- contributions sounds good, but it could cut vant. nance reform was to reduce the influence of two ways. Indeed, it would probably be more money, to open up the political system, and damaging to candidates who challenge the NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION to lower the cost of campaigns. Since the local powers-that-be than one who thrives on OF AMERICA, 1974 amendments to the Federal Election special interest support. Anyway, both provi- Fairfax, VA, June 24, 1996. Campaign Act, which were done in the name sions are surely unconstitutional. DEAR SENATOR: We understand that an of ‘‘campaign finance reform’’, spending has They are right about that. amendment in the nature of a substitute risen sharply and incumbents have increased As for a scheme to lure candidates to limit may be offered during this week’s debate on both their reelection rate and the rate at spending by offering them free TV time con- S. 1219, the Senate campaign finance bill. As which they outspend their challengers. tributed by the networks, it’s simply wrong you know, we have repeatedly expressed our As you know when you first ran for Con- to foist the cost of cleaner government on a opposition to S. 1219, as we believe it gress, money is of much greater value to handful of businesses—and their advertisers, unjustifiably and unconstitutionally re- open-seat candidates or challengers than to stockholders and viewers. If there’s a cost to stricts the First Amendment right of organi- incumbents. Studies show that added incum- election reform, it should be borne by all zations to communicate with their members bent spending is likely to have less effect on taxpayers. and the general public in the political proc- vote totals than the challenger’s added ess. spending. Limits on political contributions It is a curious ally but I am proud to We have examined the draft text of that hamper challengers from getting their voice have them on board. possible substitute amendment and our oppo- heard while incumbents have significant ad- Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sition to S. 1219 is not only unabated—it is, vantages in name recognition. Campaign fi- sent that other letters of opposition in if anything, stronger than before. The ban on nance laws lock into place the advantages of addition to those I referred to a few activities of political action committees re- incumbency and disproportionately harm moments ago, as well as the editorial mains in the substitute, and would have a challengers. of today in the Louisville Courier-Jour- devastating effect on the ability of ordinary We oppose HR 2566 and any other such nal, be printed in the RECORD. citizens such as our members to act jointly bills. The First Amendment is based on the There being no objection, the mate- in support of candidates. belief that political speech is too important Additionally, the new proposed reporting to be regulated by the government. The Con- rial was ordered to be printed in the requirements for independent expenditures, servative Victory Fund has helped you and RECORD, as follows: and the provisions intended to dilute the ef- hundreds of other conservatives since its cre- REFORM’S TIRED REFRAIN fect of such expenditures, would have a ation in 1969. HR 2566 would eliminate the As the U.S. Senate convenes today for yet chilling impact on the effectiveness of such Conservative Victory Fund. another vote on election finance ‘‘reform,’’ communications. Coupled with the continu- Sincerely, the setting is all too familiar. ing effort to broadly redefine ‘‘express advo- RONALD W. PEARSON, The measure is backed by liberal and con- cacy,’’ Sections 241 and 242 represent one of Executive Director. servative members of Congress—including the broadest attacks on free speech rights S6770 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 seen in years, affecting not only electoral resents a direct challenge to the right of free Court in its 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision: but other legislative communications. Giv- speech which we all should cherish and strive ‘‘In the free society ordained by our Con- ing the Federal Election Commission a to protect. stitution, it is not the government, but the power to engage in prior restraint makes the Those who support S. 1219 have suggested people—individually as citizens and can- attack even more serious. that it will enlarge or enhance participation didates and collectively as associations and We urge you to oppose S. 1219’s attack on in the political process. We believe those political committees—who must retain con- the right of free political speech. If there is who promote this view are either mis- trol over the quantity and range of debate on anything we can do to be of assistance to informed or unaware of the consequences of public issues in a political campaign.’’ you, please don’t hesitate to call. this legislation. In fact, S. 1219 will not level Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Sincerely, the political playing field, but will rather in- Americans oppose the concept embodied in TANYA K. METAKSA, crease opporunities for political manipula- S. 1219. The Wirthlin Worldwide firm con- Executive Director. tion by those who have access to national ducted a nationwide poll on May 28–30, which media outlets, at the expense of those who included this question: CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE do not. ‘‘Do you believe that it should be legal for UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, The main focus of the NRA is in protecting individuals and groups to form political ac- Washington, DC, June 24, 1996. the right to keep and bear arms. However, tion committees to express their opinions MEMBERS OF THE U.S. SENATE: The Senate we believe that our system of government about elements and candidates?’’ will soon be asked to consider S. 1219, the depends on preserving all of our Constitu- Yes, should be legal: 83%. ‘‘Senate Campaign Finance Reform Act of tional protections. Associations like the No, should not be legal: 13%. 1995.’’ The United States Chamber of Com- NRA facilitate participation by concerned Thank you for your consideration of merce Federation of 215,000 businesses, 3,000 citizens who otherwise would not have the NRLC’s concerns regarding this legislation. state and local chambers of commerce, 1,200 resources to speak out on a national level. Sincerely, trade and professional associations, and 76 By removing their ability to offer their DOUGLAS JOHNSON, American Chambers of Commerce abroad views in independent forums by combining Legislative Director. urges your opposition to this legislation, their individual resources you would, for all CAROL LONG, which would restrict the participation by intents and purposes, eliminate their First Director, NRL–PAC. Political Action Committees (PACs) and in- Amendment rights. dividuals in the political process. As we have noted in previous correspond- NATIONAL RIGHT TO The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has long ence (letters dated 01/25/96 and 05/7/96), in the LIFE COMMITTEE, INC., promoted individual freedom and broad-scale Buckley v. Valeo decision of 1976, the Su- Washington, DC, June 7, 1996. participation by citizens in the election of preme Court stated that ‘‘* * * legislative DEAR MEMBER OF CONGRESS: The House our public officeholders. In this regard, we restriction on advocacy of the election or de- Oversight Committee will soon mark up oppose efforts to eliminate or restrict the in- feat of political candidates are wholly at some form of ‘‘campaign finance reform’’ volvement of PACs in our political process. odds with the guarantees of the First legislation. The committee will consider, We believe that PACs are a critical tool by Amendment.’’ S. 1219 contains the same kind among other things, proposals to either (1) which individuals voluntarily participate in of legislative restrictions, and we believe ban PACs and thereby also ban independent support of their collective belief. therefore that it is clearly unconstitutional. expenditures, or (2) not ban PACs, but place In addition, there are other proposals con- Again, I urge you to reject S. 1219, and all new restrictions on independent expendi- tained in the bill that would greatly inhibit other ill-conceived attempts at limiting free tures. long-standing protected freedoms. These at- speech and participation in the political National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) tempts to further limit the ability of indi- process. is strongly opposed to any legislation that viduals or collective political participation Sincerely, would further restrict independent expendi- should be defeated as an infringement on the TANYA K. METAKSA, tures, whether by banning PACs or in any basic principle of free speech. Further, a pub- Executive Director. other fashion. Such proposals would infringe lic mandate on the private sector to sub- on the First Amendment rights of individual sidize the election of public officials without NATIONAL RIGHT TO citizens, sharing a common viewpoint on an regard to support for a candidate also must LIFE COMMITTEE, INC., important public policy issue, to pool their be defeated. Washington, DC, June 18, 1996. modest financial resources in order to par- We believe that an indispensable element DEAR SENATOR: We understand that the ticipate effectively in the democratic proc- of our constitutional form of government is Senate is likely to vote on or about June 25 ess. the continued power of the people to control, on whether to invoke cloture on the McCain- As you review various ‘‘campaign reform’’ through the elective process, those who rep- Feingold bill (S. 1219), which would make proposals during the weeks ahead, please resent them in the legislative and executive sweeping changes in federal election laws. keep in mind the words of the Supreme branches of government. Any attempt to re- The National Right to Life Committee Court in its 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision: form the system through eliminating PACs (NRLC) is strongly opposed to S. 1219. In ban- ‘‘In the free society ordained by our Con- or further restricting contribution levels has ning PACs, the bill also bans independent ex- stitution, it is not the government, but the the consequence of unreasonably restricting penditures—except by wealthy individuals. people—individually as citizens and can- the rights of American citizens. Rather, we This provision would flagrantly violate the didates and collectively as associations and support a system that relies on accountabil- First Amendment right of individual citizens political committees—who must retain con- ity through public disclosure, voluntary par- who share a common viewpoint on an impor- trol over the quantity and range of debate on ticipation without government mandates, tant public policy issue, such as abortion, to public issues in a political campaign.’’ and confidence in the electorate to make pool their modest financial resources in The Wirthlin Group conducted a nation- sound decisions through the free exchange of order to participate effectively in the demo- wide poll on May 28–30, which included this ideas and information. cratic process. The average donation to question: Therefore, we urge your opposition to S. NRL–PAC is $31. ‘‘Do you believe that it should be legal for 1219, as well as your opposition to invoking The bill would also place severe new limi- individuals and groups to form political ac- cloture on such legislation, which seeks to tations even on issue-oriented voter edu- tion committees to express their opinions restrict the participation of individuals or cation materials that do not urge the elec- about elections and candidates?’’ PACS in the political process. tion or defeat of any candidate. This, too, Yes, should be legal, 83%. Sincerely, violates the First Amendment. The overall No, should not be legal, 13%. R. BRUCE JOSTEN. effect of S. 1219 would be to greatly enhance Thank you for your consideration of the already formidable power of media elites NRLC’s concerns regarding this legislation. NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION and of very wealthy individuals to ‘‘set the Sincerely, OF AMERICA, agenda’’ for public political discourse—at DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Fairfax, VA, June 19, 1996. the expense of the ability of ordinary citi- Legislative Director. DEAR SENATOR: It is our understanding zens to make their voices heard in the politi- CAROL LONG, that a cloture vote has been scheduled for cal process. Director, NRL–PAC. June 25, 1996 on S. 1219, the Senate Campaign Therefore, the National Right to Life Com- Finance Reform Act. We believe this will be mittee urges you to vote No on cloture on S. NATIONAL RIGHT TO the most critical vote that you will cast this 1219. Because S. 1219’s restrictions on inde- LIFE COMMITTEE, INC., year in protecting the constitutional rights pendent expenditures and voter education April 30, 1996. of your constituents. Speaking for the more activities would ‘‘gag’’ the pro-life move- DEAR SENATOR: You are being pressured by than three million members of the National ment from effectively raising right-to-life is- so-called ‘‘public interest’’ groups to pass Rifle Association (NRA), we strongly urge sues in the political realm, NRLC will campaign finance reform measures under the you to vote against bringing this measure, or ‘‘score’’ this vote as a key pro-life vote for guise of ‘‘cleaning up the system.’’ More spe- this issue, before the Senate in any form. S. the 104th Congress. cifically, you are being asked to support a 1219 is a misguided attempt to limit partici- A vote in opposition to S. 1219 is consistent floor vote on S. 1219, the McCain-Feingold- pation in the political process, and rep- with the position taken by the U.S. Supreme Wellstone bill. June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6771 We urge you to oppose S. 1219. Attorneys press their views on positions taken by can- individuals, but also for ordinary citizens. that span the ideological spectrum agree didates, and urge voters to support or oppose The only way ordinary citizens can have any that S. 1219 would destroy free speech and certain candidates. This dialogue is very im- meaningful opportunity to exercise their grievously injure both the right to associa- portant to the political process and very im- right of free political speech in modern tion and the right to petition government. portant to the American system. America is if they are allowed to pool their It is a myth that the American public is Under the Act, an individual can make funds in PACs. For the record, the average clamoring for campaign finance reform. In a independent expenditures, but a group of in- donation from National Right to Life mem- recent poll conducted by the Tarrance dividuals cannot organize and coordinate bers to its PAC is $31. Group, only one person, out of 1000, volun- their activities. This opens the political The status quo on speech by membership teered campaign finance reform as the big- process to wealthy individuals, but prohibits organizations and independent expenditures gest problem facing the country. When the the vast majority of citizens from pooling re- by political action committees works. Dis- poll respondents were given a list of 10 prob- sources to make their voices heard. closure laws governing PACs already provide lems and asked to rank them, campaign fi- If citizen groups and their political action detailed information on where the money nance reform came in last, with only 1% se- committees are eliminated, the only entities came from and how it was spent. The current lecting that topic. left that are freely able to discuss candidates process allows citizens to be involved in Under S. 1219, an individual would be able and the issues, except the candidates them- their government. That it how it should be. to make independent expenditures, but be- selves, are a few wealthy individuals and the We are enclosing a copy of the legal analy- cause of the ban on political action commit- news media. That is not the intention of the sis of S. 1219 by James Bopp, Jr., General tees, a group of individuals would be forbid- First Amendment. Counsel for NRLC. National Right to Life Another problem for you to consider is den to organize, pool their resources, and co- urges you to protect the constitutional that many in the media have a bias against ordinate their activities. This would leave rights of your constituents and oppose S. pro-life and pro-family candidates. If the the political process open to very wealthy in- 1219. media is allowed free speech and citizens dividuals and the media, but would prohibit Respectfully, groups are not, that will be a real disadvan- the vast majority of citizens from effectively WANDA FRANZ, Ph.D., tage for pro-life and pro-family candidates. making their voices heard. President. S. 1219 defines ‘‘express advocacy’’ so 2. THE NEW DEFINITION OF ‘‘EXPRESS ADVO- DAVID N. O’STEEN, Ph.D., broadly as to sweep in ‘‘issue advocacy.’’ CACY’’ IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND REPRESSES Executive Director. Thus, citizens’ groups would, in effect, be THE FREE SPEECH OF CITIZENS CAROL LONG, prohibited from publishing voter guides or Section 251 of S. 1219 attempts to ‘‘clarify’’ PAC Director. Independent Expenditures, However, it rede- giving candidates’ voting records. Several Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, how federal courts have already struck down at- fines ‘‘express advocacy’’ to now include pro- tected ‘‘issue advocacy.’’. This extremely much time do I have remaining? tempts by the Federal Election Commission The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- to do the same thing. broad new definition of express advocacy Free speech is essential to democracy. It is would sweep in protected issue advocacy, ator has 75 minutes. important not only for the press and wealthy such as voter guides which state the posi- Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I individuals, but also for ordinary citizens. tions candidates have taken on issues or give yield to the Senator from Utah, 10 min- We urge you to take any steps necessary, in- candidates’ voting records. utes. cluding opposing cloture, to prevent S. 1219 The new definition goes far beyond what The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- or any similar measure that infringes upon the United States Supreme Court said was permissible to regulate as electioneering in ator from Utah is recognized. the First Amendment rights of citizens from Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I being approved by the Senate. the case of Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). In Buckley, the Supreme Court held that, in spoke at some length yesterday in a We also oppose the appointment of any philosophical fashion, going back to unelected commission that has the authority order to protect issue advocacy (which is to issue a final report on campaign finance protected by the First Amendment), govern- the Founding Fathers and the Federal- reform that would not be subject to the regu- ment may only regulate election activity ist Papers, hoping to turn the debate where there are explicit words advocating lar amendment process on the Senate floor. into that kind of an analysis of our the election or defeat of a clearly identified CHRISTIAN COALITION. basic freedoms and our political ap- candidate. This new definition would expand the um- proach. Today I want to get very down NATIONAL RIGHT TO brella of ‘‘express advocacy’’ so broadly that and dirty, as they say; very practical. LIFE COMMITTEE, INC., citizen groups other than PACs would also be It has been my observation throughout Washington, DC, November 8, 1995. effectively prohibited from informing the this entire controversy, and it goes Senator MITCH MCCONNELL, public about candidates’ positions on issues back to the last Congress as well as Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. as well as voting records. This curtailment DEAR SENATOR MCCONNELL: Campaign fi- this one, that the efforts at campaign of citizens’ freedom of speech would not af- finance reform really constitute an in- nance ‘‘reform’’ that destroys the freedom of fect the major media whose political power speech is not reform. would be vastly enhanced, since one bal- cumbent protection activity. The Sen- Current measures under consideration in ancing force currently in the public forum ator from Arizona, my friend, Senator the Senate would largely prevent citizen in- would be eliminated. MCCAIN, said that if the challengers volvement in the political process. We real- The Supreme Court would, again likely were voting here they would all vote ize there is a lot of pressure from the press find this new definition of ‘‘express advo- to ‘‘reform’’ the election process. However, for this bill because he showed the cacy’’ unconstitutional, and voters would chart that showed most of the PAC limiting free speech for citizens, while it find it exceedingly repressive. may please some elements in the press be- money went to incumbents. 3. S. 1219 AUTHORIZES UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRIOR cause it greatly increases their own power, is I have been a challenger. The mem- RESTRAINT neither politically wise nor constitutional. ory is still fresh in my mind, even We have the three major objections to S. Section 306 of the Act authorizes an in- though I am now an incumbent. And I junction where there is a ‘‘substantial likeli- 1219, the ‘‘Senate Campaign Finance Reform can assure all who do not know any- Act of 1995’’ as sponsored by Senators hood that a violation . . . is about to occur.’’ The FEC would be authorized to seek injunc- thing about the political process, that McCain and Feingold, and therefore will vig- an incumbent comes into a race with orously oppose this measure. tions against expenditures which, in the FEC’s expansive view, could influence an incredible advantages. Let me give an 1. S. 1219 WOULD ALMOST ELIMINATE INVOLVE- election. Such a preemptive action against example. I did not run against an in- MENT IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS FOR ORDI- the freedom of speech is unconstitutional ex- cumbent Senator but I ran against an NARY CITIZENS WHO ARE NOT INDEPENDENTLY cept in the case of national security or simi- WEALTHY incumbent Congressman. These are the larly weighty situations. Prior restraint advantages he brought to the race. S. 1219 would permit only individuals, or should never be allowed in connection with political committees organized by can- core political speech. There simply is no gov- He had a staff, paid for by the tax- didates and political parties, to solicit con- ernmental interest of sufficient magnitude payers, that was available to research tributions or make expenditures ‘‘for the to justify the government stopping persons every issue, provide him with a paper purpose of influencing an election for Fed- from speaking. on every issue, and in the course of eral office.’’ This country’s open system of representa- press releases give him the press sup- Many political action committees (PAC), tive democracy is the envy of the world. If port that he required. such as the National Right to Life PAC, you try to ‘‘fix’’ it by limiting people’s He held a press conference late in the exist because their members want to work voices, then you head towards totalitarian- campaign in which he attacked me for together to elect candidates who share their ism. Whatever its flaws, democracy is the views and beliefs. Under the current system, best system the world has seen to date. a wide variety of things. The press per- citizens are free to coordinate activities Free speech is essential to democracy. It is son who scheduled that press con- through PACs in order to discuss issues, ex- important not only for the press and wealthy ference, who wrote the press release, S6772 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 and who handled all press inquiries re- So, Mr. President, I am not going to paign financing mechanisms in order to lating to it was paid by the taxpayer vote for cloture. I am not going to vote restore public confidence. because he was on the Congressman’s to support a bill that is an incumbent The experience of my State of Flor- staff. I had to have people there to pro- protection act. I am going to say we ida, I believe, is instructive in this re- tect my interests. They were all paid will all stand exposed to the challenge gard. In 1991, the State legislature for out of campaign funds because I had of challengers who have the energy and overhauled Florida’s campaign finance no congressional staff. I am not saying the message necessary to raise the system. It instituted a $500 cap on indi- that he broke the law. I am not saying money to challenge us and not hide be- vidual contributions. Prior to that it that he did anything improper. I am hind limits that say that we can use had been as much as $3,000. It provided just outlining this is the way it is. the advantages of our offices and our for public financing of campaigns. It He had name recognition going back challengers cannot. I believe it is as instituted overall caps on statewide to 8 years of service in the House of simple as that. I believe that honest races. It provided incentives to abide Representatives. I thought I had some fairness says we will oppose this bill, by the cap. name recognition because my father and, therefore, we oppose cloture on What has happened in the relatively had served in the Senate. I figured ev- the bill. I yield the floor. brief period that Florida has had these erybody would remember the name The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who campaign finance reforms? In 1990, ‘‘BENNETT’’ favorably in connection seeks recognition? there was an incumbent Governor run- with the Senate. Boy, did I find out dif- Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time do ning for reelection. That incumbent ferently. In the first poll that was the proponents have remaining? Governor spent $10,670,000. Four years taken, I was at 3 percent, with a 4-per- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pro- later, there was a different incumbent cent margin of error. I could have been ponents have 67 minutes 15 seconds. Governor running for reelection. In minus 1. How do I counteract that 8 Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 10 minutes to that campaign he spent $7,480,000. I years of name recognition that he has the distinguished Senator from Flor- note that the incumbent in 1990, who built up? I had to raise the money. How ida, who has been one of the original spent almost a third more, lost. The in- did I pay for the people who were there supporters of this legislation and has cumbent in 1994, under the new stand- to counteract the people that he had on helped us all through the difficult proc- ards, was reelected. Common Cause of his congressionally supported staff? I ess of trying to get it up for a vote. I Florida attributes the decrease in cam- had to raise the money. thank him very much. Is it a fair fight when you say the in- paign spending directly to Florida’s en- Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator cumbent is at level x and the chal- actment of campaign finance reforms. yield me 5 seconds? Mr. President, the States can control lenger must also be at level x, when the Mr. GRAHAM. I yield the Senator 5 the terms and conditions of elections incumbent has all of these advantages seconds. for State officials. It is our responsibil- that are worth money that the chal- Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Sen- ity to do likewise for the Congress. I lenger has to raise money in order to ator. produce? When you say, let us get a applaud the effort that is before us fair fight and let us do it by saying PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR today. It is a genuine, thoughtful re- that the challenger is unable to raise Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I sponse to a serious national problem. I money to take care of the things that ask unanimous consent that David do not pretend that it is perfect. We the incumbent does not have to raise Hlavac, who is interning with me, be have already heard on the floor several money for, you are automatically cre- allowed to be on the floor throughout persons who, like myself, will vote to ating a circumstance in favor of the in- the duration of this bill. invoke cloture and support this bill, cumbent. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there but who also are prepared to support Some political observers have said to objection? Without objection, it is so modifications that we think would per- me, ‘‘Why are you opposed to this now ordered. fect it. that you are an incumbent? We can un- Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I first For instance, I do not believe that derstand that you were opposed to will extend my commendation to Sen- political action committees are a poi- campaign reform while you were a ators FEINGOLD and MCCAIN and the sonous political evil that should be challenger because as a challenger you others who have worked so hard to banned. But, Mr. President, if accept- were at a disadvantage in the face of craft what is truly a bipartisan pro- ing some restraints on political action campaign reform. But now that you are posal to deal with one of the serious committees is necessary to achieve the an incumbent, and particularly now cancers in our American democratic bipartisan consensus for the passage of that your party has a majority of the system, and that is the way in which this sorely needed legislation, I am incumbents, why isn’t your party in we manage and finance campaigns for prepared to vote to do so. favor of an incumbent protection act the Congress. This bill is another ex- Mr. President, there are many infir- that will put all of these disadvantages ample that, if we are going to do the mities in our current system which on the backs of the challenger?’’ public’s will, it must be done in a bi- have already been identified. Remedies Well, I go back to my statement yes- partisan spirit. have been prescribed. I wish to focus on terday. I have philosophical challenges Mr. President, we have spent a lot of one of those infirmities. That is, that with these attempts to do that which I this year and last year talking about the enormous amount of money in po- consider would produce damage to our the creative energy of the States, the litical campaigns has fundamentally basic philosophical underpinnings in desire to return greater responsibility changed the nature and purpose of con- this country. I did not quote the Fed- to the States for many of our most gressional campaigns. eralist Papers just to prove that I had basic domestic programs. We have ac- What should be the purpose of a po- read them. I went through that process knowledged that the States, given that litical campaign? In my opinion, it to demonstrate that I have a philo- responsibility, given their flexibility to should include at least two dual rela- sophical objection to what it is we are respond to the specific circumstances tionships. First, there should be a dual- trying to do here, even though, should that they face, would unleash a new ity of relationship in terms of edu- this bill pass, I would be benefited as wave of innovation to bring us creative cation. Yes, the candidate is trying to an incumbent. I am convinced, if this solutions to some of our most vexa- educate the public as to who he or she bill were to pass, that I would be bene- tious problems. is, what he or she stands for, what fited as an incumbent, that I would be Mr. President, I say that we can take would be the objective of service in in a circumstance where it would be some encouragement as to the legit- public office, what they would try to impossible for anybody to challenge imacy of that position by looking at accomplish. But there is an equally im- me. But I am willing to run the risk of what States have done in the area of portant side of the education duality, having them challenge me because that campaign finance reform. States were and that is that the citizens are influ- is the American pattern and that is faced with basically the same problem encing the candidate. A campaign what is in the Constitution that all of that we are dealing with this morn- should be a learning experience. The us have sworn to uphold and defend ing—the problem of campaign money campaign should better prepare the here in this body. run amok and the need to change cam- candidate to serve in public office by June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6773 the experiences, the exposure, that the log between the voter and the can- mination for the North Dakota voters campaign will provide. didate. By doing so, we can all share in in that campaign. I think it would have There is a second duality, and that is giving this country a great victory, been a better campaign had we had 8 the development of a democratic con- and restoring the public’s faith in the hours prime time, statewide television, tract. The citizens should have some political process. I urge this bill’s pas- without handlers, to talk about what reasonable expectation that if they sage. we thought was important for the fu- vote for a particular candidate, the The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who ture of this country. We did not have policies that candidate has advocated seeks recognition? that kind of campaign. will, in fact, form the basis of the can- Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I So, the question for the Senate now didate’s efforts once in office, and the yield up to 5 minutes to the Senator is, what kind of campaign finance re- public official should have the right to from North Dakota. form would be useful in this country? expect that in office he would have the Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I intend There are wide disagreements about support of the public, the mandate of to vote for cloture today. I do not do so how this ought to be addressed. For in- the public to achieve those policies believing this is a perfect bill. There stance, I saved this article, the head- upon which his or her campaign was are some provisions in this measure I line of which quotes my friend Speaker predicated. These dualities, a duality do not support. I do not support the GINGRICH as saying, ‘‘Gingrich calls for of education and a duality of the form- complete abolition of PAC’s, for exam- more, not less, campaign cash.’’ Speak- ing of a democratic contract, these are ple. But I believe we ought to be debat- er GINGRICH gave a speech downtown, essential elements of our system of ing campaign finance reform. There- and he fundamentally disagrees with representative democracy. fore, I will vote for cloture to get a me that there is too much money in However, Mr. President, the excess of campaign finance reform bill on the politics. He says there is not enough money in campaigns has changed the floor of the Senate so we can offer money in politics; there ought to be nature and the purpose of the cam- amendments and see if we can perfect more money in politics. paign. It has, in fact, allowed can- the bill in a way that will represent the I think that if we can find a way— didates to hide from the voters rather public interest. and this bill provides one mechanism— than to use the campaign to learn from In my judgment, the financing of po- to limit campaign spending and require and more effectively communicate litical campaigns is spinning out of full disclosure on all contributions, at with the public. Candidates now move control—more and more dollars in each that point you will start ratcheting from the television studio to record 30- campaign, more and more wealthy can- down the cost of political campaigns in second sound bites, often of a highly didates financing their own campaigns. this country, and I think you will do negative character, to the telephone to Campaigns in America have not so this country a public service. solicit campaign contributions to pay much become a competition of ideas— Last weekend when I was at Monti- for those 30-second sound bites. There this is what campaigns ought to be— cello, the home of Thomas Jefferson, I is little time left to interact on a per- but a 30-second ad war. Not so much by was reminded again of the work and sonal level with the voter. candidates, but by the creators of the words of this great American in the By providing for spending limits, this 30-second little ‘‘bomb bursts’’ that are early days of this country. It seems to bill would direct voters from the tele- put on television to try and destroy me Tom Jefferson would view what vision studio back to the street to look other reputations. These hired guns goes on in political campaigns in for ways other than money to appeal to hardly serve the public interest, yet America today as a perversion of de- voters, by interacting with them, dis- campaigns really have become a com- mocracy. Today’s campaigns are not, cussing issues, debating of the can- petition of 30-second ads. as I said earlier, a competition of ideas didates, so that voters can make an ac- When I last ran for the U.S. Senate, about how to make this a better coun- curate assessment of who they wish to I was much better known than my op- try. They are much more a 30-second represent. ponent, so I made a novel proposal, ad war that does not serve the public I personally, Mr. President, would which he did not accept, unfortunately. interest. like to see a requirement that one who I wish he would have. I said: I am bet- I intend to vote for cloture. I hope we participates in the public assistance to ter known than you, but if we can will obtain cloture and have this im- a campaign, whether Presidential can- agree to certain things, I think in portant piece of legislation on the didates participating for direct-cash in- many respects it will even things up. floor, open for amendments. I yield the fusion or congressional candidates who, Let neither of us do any advertising at floor. under this legislation, would benefit by all. Neither of us will do any radio or Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I preference in perks like postal and television ads, no 30-second ads, no ads yield up to 15 minutes to Senator broadcast rates, that they would com- of any kind. You and I will put our THOMPSON of Tennessee, who has been mit themselves to participate in a stip- money together, and we will buy an one of the main authors of this bill and ulated number of public appearances hour of prime time television each has been key to making this a biparti- with their opponents. I believe that is week for the 8 weeks prior to the elec- san reform effort. I thank him for his the truest way in which the public can tion, and each week we will show up good work on this bill. form an opinion as to the qualities and without handlers, without research The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- capabilities of the persons who seek to notes, at a television studio with no ator from Tennessee is recognized. represent others. monitor, and for an hour in prime Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Sen- Mr. President, providing for a vol- time, statewide on North Dakota tele- ator. I thank the majority leader for untary system of spending limits, vision, you and I will discuss the fu- bringing this matter to the floor at while simultaneously requiring can- ture. We will discuss whatever you this time. I thank my distinguished didates to raise at least 60 percent of want to discuss, whatever I want to colleagues, Senator MCCAIN and Sen- campaign funds from their home State, discuss, such as why we are seeking a ator FEINGOLD, for their leadership on are positive steps toward bringing can- seat in the U.S. Senate, what kind of this bill. I am proud to be one of the didates and voters together. Passage of future we see for this country, what original cosponsors of this particular this bill would be a positive step to- kind of policies we think will make legislation. ward realizing the goal of our political this a better country. Mr. President, after having listened process, allowing the voter to truly un- I thought, frankly, 8 hours of prime to over a day of debate on this issue, I derstand, truly assess the candidate’s time television, statewide, with both of think the question now could be simply view, and thus to make an informed us addressing each other and address- put. Are we satisfied with our current judgment, while simultaneously help- ing why we were running for the U.S. system of financing Federal campaigns ing to prevent politicians from becom- Senate, might have been the most in this country? Do we think it is a ing insulated and mitigate voters’ dis- novel campaign in the country. My op- good system? If we are not satisfied, affection. ponent chose not to accept that. In- are we willing to at least take the first Mr. President, by passing this bill stead, we saw a barrage of 30-second step—perhaps not a perfect step—to- today, we can restore a meaningful dia- ads. I do not think it provided any illu- ward doing something about it? S6774 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 I approach this from the standpoint that any system that costs so much lihoods—whether it is term limits, of one who was recently a challenger money and any system that requires us campaign finance reform, or some and who is now an incumbent running to go to such great lengths to get that other issue that affects us directly as for reelection in 2 years, having gotten money cannot be on the level. We see, politicians. Then we come up with all the unexpired term of the Vice Presi- day in and day out, editorials across kinds of excuses why it will not work. dent for a 2-year term. I am now run- the country. Common Cause has com- We have a system where soft money, ning as an incumbent for a full term. piled 261 editorials from 161 newspapers of course, has completely made a sham So I have seen it from both sides. and publications. What they say is not of the reforms that were put in place in I also approach it from the stand- a pretty picture. It is not that I nec- earlier years. We all know that. It is a point of one who made a commitment essarily agree with the analysis made bipartisan problem. Soft money now is to the people of Tennessee that I will of these articles, but this is the percep- up 100 percent—a 100-percent increase— try to change the system that we have tion among editorial writers across the with hundreds of thousands in con- now working in Washington and that I country—liberal papers and conserv- tributions, in many cases that we see. was dissatisfied with the process by ative papers. The most conservative So there has been a 100-percent in- which our legislation is enacted. But I paper in my home State, in Tennessee, crease since the last election cycle. think it is fundamentally the business the Chattanooga Free Press, a Repub- Now, that is the system, Mr. Presi- of the U.S. Congress to address how we lican paper, has one of the editorials dent. I do not think it is a very good elect our public officials, how long contained in this compilation. What one. I submit that it is not a good sys- they stay, and what their motivations they say, I think, is what is perceived tem. Some opponents of reform say are when they get here. So I am de- by the American people. They say that there is not enough money in politics. lighted to be a part of this effort. neither party wants to end the abuses. It is not a question of too much; it is The system now—let us take a look One of the editorials says, ‘‘In Con- not enough; that $700 million spent in at the system that we have now. I be- gress, Money Still Talks.’’ Another 1994 is not enough. They say that more lieve I can be objective in describing it. says, ‘‘New Year’s Sale on Votes.’’ An- money is spent on soap detergent ad- Elections certainly cost more and more other says, ‘‘Money Brings Votes.’’ An- vertisement, or whatever kinds of ad- and more. We see Senate campaigns other says, ‘‘Congressmen Admit Being vertisement, than on political cam- now that cost $10, $20, and $30 million. Bought by Contributions.’’ Another paigning. I hope that that analogy will The combined expenditures in one Sen- says, ‘‘Republican Reform; GOP Al- fall on its face without serious analy- ate campaign were over $40 million. We ready Bought Off.’’ have a system where more and more Mr. President, that hurts. The Chat- sis, but a lot of people use that. No. 1, time is taken by Members of Congress, tanooga Free Press in Tennessee says we are not in the soap-selling business. at a time when technology and all the in its article—it entitles it, ‘‘The Cam- No. 2, if Procter & Gamble were adver- demands of modern campaigning re- paign Money Evil.’’ Another article tising in a way that undermined the quire campaigns to cost more and says, ‘‘Getting What it Paid For,’’ talk- credibility of the company, they would more. More and more, we, the Members ing about American industry. Another not be doing it. No. 3, these businesses of, supposedly, the world’s greatest de- says, ‘‘Feeding Frenzy on the Hill,’’ have only one goal, and that is profit. liberative body, wind up having no talking about us and our fundraising I would like to think that we have an time to deliberate anymore because of activities. Another says, ‘‘Buying the additional goal in the U.S. Congress. the fractured nature of our lives. For Presidency.’’ While we are not dealing Other opponents say that it restricts someone to run in a State such as with a Presidential campaign, if I freedom and the ability to participate. mine, I have calculated that now it heard it correctly on the Brinkley This is, of course, a voluntary system, would be about $15,000 a week that I show, now, apparently, for $50,000 you No. 1. And No. 2, we are not talking would have to raise, year in and year can sleep in the Lincoln bed at the about mom and pop sitting around the out, to run the kind of campaigns that White House. Another says, ‘‘NRA kitchen table deciding how to distrib- would be traditionally raised in a State Buys Recent House Votes.’’ You can ute their $100 or $250 to a Presidential such as mine. say that—— campaign or a senatorial campaign. Mr. President, that is not why I came Mr. MCCAIN. Will the Senator yield? They can still do that any way they to the U.S. Senate. We have a system Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. want to do it. now where more and more of the per- Mr. MCCAIN. That is $130,000. It is With regard to the PAC issue, which ception is that contributions are tied not as cheap as $50,000. I will discuss in a moment, it simply to legislation. Perhaps that was not a Mr. THOMPSON. Well, that certainly means that if this legislation were problem when the amounts were small- seems more reasonable. Another says, passed, instead of sending it to a politi- er. But now we see larger and larger ‘‘Big Money Talks.’’ Another says, cal action committee, they would have contributions, usually soft money con- ‘‘Taste of Money Corrupts Politics.’’ to make a decision themselves as to tributions, with regard to larger and This is from Texas. Another says, ‘‘The which candidate they wanted to send it larger issues, millions of dollars being Great ‘Unsecret’ of Politics.’’ That is to. There is no restriction of freedom spent, billions of dollars being decided the relationship between contributions here on anyone except those in Wash- by massive pieces of legislation in the and votes. Another says, ‘‘Legal Brib- ington who receive all those U.S. Congress. ery Still Controls Congress.’’ I do not minicontributions from various people We have a system where it is no believe that, but a lot of people believe and make the political decision as to longer ideological. The money does not that, and we have to ask ourselves how to use that money. Their freedom flow to ideas. The money flows to why. Another says, ‘‘Campaigns up for will be restricted somewhat. There is power. Whoever is the incumbent party Sale.’’ no limit whatsoever in this legislation Mr. President, how much more of likes the system. Whoever is not the on anybody’s ability to participate in this can we stand as an institution? incumbent party plans on being the in- the process. People need to understand How can we go before the American cumbent party. Democrats have killed that. this legislation for years, and now that people with the tough choices that we the Republicans are in power, we are are going to have to be leading on, con- The current limitation we have is trying to return the favor. We have a vincing the people, with no credibility? $1,000 on individual contributions. That system whereby, in individual cases, Ten percent of the people in this coun- is a limitation. That is the same limi- people are drawing closer and closer re- try have a great deal of confidence in tation that we have here; no new limi- lationships with individual pieces of Congress. Twelve percent have a great tation. legislation and massive amounts of deal of confidence in the executive Many people say that certainly we money that are being spent by the peo- branch. Eighty percent of the people, want reform. Everybody knows we need ple affected by the legislation. at least, favor major change here. We reform. ‘‘It is a lousy system but not We constantly see news stories, day always want to be responsive to the this reform. I would support it, if this in and day out. There is a strong per- American people, until it comes to particular feature was in, or out,’’ or ception among the American people something that affects us and our live- whatnot. I think that it is tempting to June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6775 want to have it both ways; to be for re- leagues to spend the time on the things The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- form but never be for a reform meas- that they were elected to do. ator from Kentucky. ure. Some people say it is an incum- I believe it would level the playing Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, a bent protection business, like my field; 90 percent of all incumbents—in couple of observations, and then I am friend Senator BENNETT. I take a dif- this revolution that was supposedly going to yield 10 minutes to the distin- ferent view from that. I think that having all this turnover of all of those guished Senator from Washington. under the system now he is certainly who want to be reelected—90 percent I have listened with interest over the correct. Incumbents have substantial are reelected. For those of my friends years to the debate in this debate advantage. What this legislation would who always look and see who supports about the suggestions of the money do is, let us say, at least place some a piece of legislation before they decide chase and dividing up the amount of limitation on the major incumbent ad- whether they are for it or against it, money one might raise in a campaign vantage; and that is the ability to raise and all of them who decry the trial by every week of service. My good unlimited amounts of money. The in- lawyers and the AFL–CIO and the, well friend from Tennessee, for example, cumbents are still going to have the you finally found something that you suggested that he would have to raise advantages that they always had. But all agree on because they are all in $15,000 a week throughout his entire at least you are saying to that incum- agreement with the opponents of this term to be competitive in Tennessee. bent if he voluntarily chooses to par- legislation that this is a bad piece of I think it is important to remind ev- ticipate that there will be some cap on legislation. So maybe they will lay off eryone of the statistics which are irref- the amount of money that you spend. those groups for a little while in the fu- utable. Eighty percent of the money You are an incumbent now. The money ture. raised in a Senate reelection cycle was Mr. President, this is not a division is going to come to you not because raised in the last 2 years. Senators are any longer of business versus labor or people believe in you in many, many not out raising money every week of Democrats versus Republicans. It is cases any more but simply because you through a 6-year term. In fact, in the a division of people who want to are an incumbent, and you have the last cycle 80 percent of the money change the system and those who genu- power and authority at that point. raised by Senators was raised in the inely do not believe that we ought to They say, ‘‘Well, it restricts people last 2 years. have it. I would like to think that this from coming in and spending enough So I am unaware of anybody here in is reform time. I would think that this money to overcome the incumbent.’’ the Senate that is working on fundrais- would do more to assist in our attempt How often does that happen in the real ing week in and week out through the to balance the budget than anything world? When it happens, it is somebody course of the 6-year term. else because much of the pressure that who is an extremely wealthy individ- Second, let me just say again that I this process has within, in it is pres- ual. And it happens then sometimes. always find it somewhat amusing the So you wind up with professional sure to spend money. It would be a gen- extent to which the revelation that lit- politicians on the one hand who are uine reform measure. tle is spent on campaigns relative to The lobbying and gift reform meas- able to raise large sums of money be- consumer items like yogurt tends to ures were something long overdue. We cause they are incumbents, and exercise the proponents of this bill al- needed to do it. But we are in a situa- wealthy individuals on the other. That most to distraction. But, of course, it tion now where you cannot buy me a is what our system is becoming—those is absolutely appropriate when it is $50 meal or a $51 meal but you can go two classes of people and nobody else. said too much is spent on campaigns. out and get together a few hundred This legislation would level the play- You would have to ask the question: thousand dollars for me for my cam- ing field and let more people of average Compared to what? Compared to what? paign. So that does not make a whole means participate. This bill is vol- For that observation to mean anything lot of sense. it has to be compared to something. untary. Under it campaigns will cost I do not think that we ought to get in In 1994, in House and Senate races, less. I think that is the crucial feature. a situation where we are for reform about $3.74 per eligible voter was spent. A lot of us who support this legislation until it affects us individually and our We spent about on politics in the last have different ideas about that. To me livelihood when we are affecting every- cycle what consumers spent on bubble the PAC situation is not a crucial fea- body else’s livelihood on a daily basis. gum. Roughly $600 million was spent ture. I think it should not be viewed with on bubble gum. In 1996, Americans will Opponents are certainly correct when suspicion among my Republican col- they point out that the PAC’s were a leagues. I think too often that we are spend $174 billion on commercial adver- reform measure in and of themselves in trying to figure out how this is going tising. So it is appropriate when dealing 1974 in the aftermath of Watergate. We to benefit them, or us. The fact of the with the basic premise underlying this thought that would substantially re- matter is we do not know. There is no form the process, and now PAC’s are an way to figure it. There is no way to measure that too much is being spent anathema to a lot of people. tell. It depends on swings. Sometimes to ask the question about the premise: The fact of the matter is—and both we are going to be in. Sometimes we How much is too much? My view is sides should understand and know are going to be out. Sometimes a new that $3.74 per voter is pretty hard to this—that people, whether they be scheme might hurt us. Sometimes it argue is too much to spend commu- businesses or labor unions or whoever, might help us. But the bottom line is nicating with the electorate. individuals can still send money in. that we should not be afraid of fun- Mr. President, my good friend from They can still contribute. They can damental reform that the American Washington has been quite patient, in still get together and decide that they people want, that we all know that we the Chamber for some time now, and I want to individually send contribu- need, and we should get back to win- will be glad to yield to him 10 minutes. tions in. ning not on the basis of who can raise The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- In my campaign I ran against an in- the most money but on the basis of the ator from Washington is recognized. dividual that did not accept PAC competition of ideas. Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I be- money. He got all of the same kind of That is what we pride ourselves in. lieve it important in discussing an money that he wanted. It is a little That is why we think we were success- issue of this significance to begin once more cumbersome. But we are not ful last time. That is why we think we more with fundamental principles. The eliminating special interest money if will be successful again. Let us get most fundamental principle affected by we eliminate PAC’s. back to that concept. this debate is found in the first amend- So to me that is more of a symbolic It is for those reasons that I support ment to the Constitution of the United measure than it is anything else. The this legislation and urge my colleagues States which in relevant part reads, real crucial measure is limiting the to do so. ‘‘Congress,’’ that is to say us, ‘‘shall overall amounts of money—that $500 Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the make no law abridging the freedom of million that was spent in congressional floor. speech.’’ races in the last election time. It will Several Senators addressed the Mr. President, I turn to page 31 in take less time. It will allow my col- Chair. this bill in section 201 and I read, ‘‘No S6776 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 person other than an individual or a the editorial support that they provide start over with a very simple propo- political committee may make a con- for candidates—no limitations there sition that just says everyone disclose tribution to a candidate.’’ but severe limitations on the ability to where his or her money comes from ‘‘No person other than an individual respond to those newspapers. and trust the intelligence of the people or a political committee may make a And one other important element. to sift through the arguments that contribution to a candidate.’’ In other All organizations, all groups that are they get? No. We are told if 1,000 re- words, any voluntary association is en- willing to engage in the subterfuge strictions were not enough, let us try tirely denied the right to participate in that they are not endorsing candidates 2,000 restrictions and see if it does not the most effective possible way in a po- or promoting elections by simply re- work better. That is the theory of this litical campaign by making any con- porting through 30-second commercials bill. tribution to a candidate at all. on their interpretation of the way in We hear a great deal about how ter- Here we live in the third century of a which candidates who hold office have ribly prejudicial in favor of incumbents Nation, the particular genius of which voted, and so all of the commercials, the present system is. But, then, why has been the accomplishment of myr- the tens of millions of dollars of com- do we wipe out the one organization iad purposes by voluntary associations, mercials we have seen in the last 6 that will always support a challenger and we are seriously considering a bill months paid for by labor unions at- in a race, the challenger’s political that says no voluntary association can tacking Members of the House of Rep- party? make a contribution to a candidate for resentatives for their votes on Medi- The Republican Party will support the Senate. care reform and the balanced budget, the challenger to a Democrat, the Our opponents can read us 1,000 opin- none of those are restricted in any way Democratic Party will support the ions of law professors to the effect that by the proposals in this bill. All that is challenger to a Republican, if they that does not violate the first amend- restricted is the ability of a candidate think that challenge is remotely via- ment, but a third grader would under- attacked by these millions of dollars ble. So this bill is not about incum- stand that it does. It is a clear abridg- effectively to respond to those attacks. bents and nonincumbents. If it were, it ment of the right of free speech. More- Now, I do not know how much value would encourage contributions to po- over, that brief comment reflects the there is in plumbing the motivations of litical parties. It would lift the restric- entire nature of this bill. Everything in the authors of the bill. Perhaps they tions on the amount of support that po- it is designed to restrict political par- feel that form of political participation litical parties can provide for its can- ticipation, to abridge the effective ought not to be restricted in any fash- didates. But, instead, it treats parties, right of free speech in the political ion. Perhaps they feel that even though if anything, as a greater evil than can- arena. But it does not restrict every- they cannot stand a political action didates themselves. one’s right of free speech in every fash- committee giving money to a can- No, this is not campaign reform. This ion. No, it discriminates among meth- didate’s campaign, that same group is a huge bureaucracy, the design of ods of political speech. It imposes se- ought to be permitted without limita- which is to abridge the freedom of vere restrictions upon candidates who, tion and without restriction to buy ad- speech of candidates for the U.S. Sen- while they may elect to stay out of the vertisements attacking candidates or ate, exactly what the first amendment system, nonetheless are severely penal- incumbents on their lifestyle or their tells Congress it may not do. ized by advantages given to their oppo- record, that that somehow or another The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- nents if they repudiate this outrageous is good policy. I think, however, the ator from Kentucky is recognized. system. It not only prevents these vol- reason there is no limitation on this Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I untary associations from making any form of free speech is that they know thank my distinguished colleague from contribution but even an individual is perfectly well, the sponsors know per- Washington for an absolutely brilliant likely to be prohibited from making a fectly well that such restrictions would discourse on the impact of this bill on contribution to a candidate when that be found to be unconstitutional. And so the political process. As usual, he is candidate has reached the rather mod- they only restrict free speech where right on the mark, and I thank him for est maximum permitted under this law they think they can get away with it, his important contribution to this de- to gain certain other advantages. even though they make a situation bate. It, of all things, severely restricts as that at the present time is unfair far My friend and colleague from New a great evil political parties. For some more unfair than is the status quo. Hampshire has been on the floor for reason or another, it is based on the Mr. President, acknowledge, those some time. Mr. President, how much proposition that both the Republican who oppose this bill, that the people of time do I have remaining? and Democratic Parties are highly un- the United States by special interest The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- desirable organizations that must be groups that would be benefited by hav- ator has 51 minutes remaining. severely restricted in their fundraising ing their opponents removed from the Mr. MCCONNELL. I yield 5 minutes and prevented in many cases from pro- equation and newspaper and television to the distinguished Senator from New viding support to their own candidates. editorialists who would be benefited by Hampshire. Now, while candidates have their having their views less effectively The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- rights abridged, organized groups have counteracted, have created a situation ator from New Hampshire is recog- their rights abridged, individuals have where a majority of the people of the nized. their rights abridged, and political par- United States do not like the present Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator ties have their rights abridged, whose system and want reform. This bill is from Kentucky. I also congratulate the free speech rights are not abridged by entitled ‘‘Reform,’’ and we are, there- Senator from Washington for his very this bill? Well, first, television net- fore, supposed to pass it. But we went thoughtful and concise discussion rel- works and stations and their reporters through this experience more than 20 ative to this bill. I wanted to focus on and their editorial writers can con- years ago when the present law was a narrower issue which really plays out tinue to say as much as they want to passed. Every argument that has been some of the points raised by the Sen- say and to be as biased as they wish to made here for 2 days was made then. ator from Washington. be with respect to any election cam- That present system was terrible. We I heard a prior Senator’s statement, paign, and not only are no restrictions had to have limitations. We had to cre- ‘‘This is a bill that levels the playing placed on their ability to engage in ate things called political action com- field.’’ I only perceive this as leveling those activities but the candidates who mittees in which people could engage if you perceive the north slope of some are their victims, whom they oppose, in political action. We would restore mountain in the Himalayas, Mount Ev- are not granted any ability to raise confidence in the system. erest, for example, to be level. The fact money to counteract what they may Well, Mr. President, not a single one is, this is not a leveling bill. The fact consider to be biased editorials or bi- of the desires or the goals or the prom- is, this bill, because it fails to address ased news stories. Newspapers fall into ises of those proponents has been ac- the independent expenditure issue, is a exactly the same category, whether in complished at this point, and so what bill which, were this a teeter-totter, the reports of their political writers or are we asked to do now? Back off and would have one side directly up in the June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6777 air and the other side directly on the Well, folks, I think it is called poli- nancing; your intention is to tilt the ground. tics. I think it is called political influ- playing field once again in favor of one We have to realize that under this ence. I think it is because the majority political group which happens to have bill one of the core elements of what I of the sponsors of this bill happen to be a significant amount of influence consider to be inappropriate activity in mostly related in their political philos- amongst the sponsors. Mr. President, I the political area, but which others ophy to the bosses of the unions here in yield back the remainder of my time. would consider to be good politics, as Washington. As a result, there is no de- Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. they are supported by it, is not ad- sire to address something which might The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- dressed at all. It was in March, for ex- affront that group of political forces in ator from Wisconsin is recognized. ample, that the AFL–CIO held a rather this country, who are significant. They Mr. FEINGOLD. Very briefly, before unique convention here in Washington, have always been significant in this I turn it over to the Senator from Mas- where they voted, as an institution, to country. They have a major role to sachusetts. I, too, listened to the con- levy a special assessment on their play, and always should have a major stitutional analysis by the Senator membership, which assessment was role to play. But there is unquestion- from Washington and the strong agree- meant to raise approximately $25 mil- ably a significant issue of credibility ment by the Senator from Kentucky. lion of a $35 million goal dedicated to raised by the failure to address this The one suggested that any third grad- defeating Republicans. There was no issue. In fact, it is such a significant er would know that the PAC ban, with other purpose. It was openly stated. issue of credibility that I think it a backup provision, is unconstitu- They were going to spend $35 million brings down the whole bill, because it tional. I am sorry, but I will say one for the purpose of defeating Repub- draws the whole bill into question, as thing about that. The Senator from licans. So they had this special assess- to its integrity, as to its purpose—not Kentucky and the Senator from Wash- ment of $25 million which went out integrity, wrong word—as to its pur- ington voted for precisely that pro- against all their union membership. pose, as to its legitimacy. posal 3 years ago under the Pressler Someone took a poll of the union It could be corrected rather easily, amendment. So, apparently, at that membership, and it turns out the union actually. You could simply put lan- time they did not understand, appar- membership, at least 58 percent of the guage in which would say union mem- ently, what any third grader would un- union membership, did not realize they bers shall have the affirmative right, derstand, which is that this in fact is were going to have to pay this manda- which shall have to be confirmed or constitutional, because it provides tory fee; 62 percent of the union mem- which shall have to be—let me restate that, if the PAC ban is found unconsti- bership opposed this mandatory fee; 78 that. Union members will have to ap- tutional, there is a backup provision. percent of the union membership did prove how their dues will be spent So that entire analysis disregards their not know they had the right to get the when it comes to political actions and own voting record and their own past fee back; 84 percent would support political activity. position, which is that that is constitu- making union leaders here in Washing- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5 tional. ton, the big bosses, disclose exactly minutes of the Senator has expired. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 min- what their money is spent for; and only Several Senators addressed the utes to the Senator from Massachu- 4 percent thought that engaging in po- Chair. setts. litical elections was the most impor- Mr. MCCONNELL. I yield the Senator The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- tant responsibility of major unions. 2 additional minutes. ator from Massachusetts is recognized. So, what we have here is an instance The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, thank where the AFL-CIO is going to go out, ator has 2 additional minutes. you. I thank the Senator from Wiscon- and they have the right to do this, and Mr. GREGG. I have an amendment sin. raise $25 to $35 million and spend it which proposes that: the Union Mem- Mr. President, I was really fascinated against people who they, the union bers Protection Act. It essentially says to listen to our colleague from New bosses here in Washington, do not that before union members’ dues can be Hampshire. I really never knew, but agree with. It happens that the rank spent in the manner in which these $25 now I guess the Senate has learned and file membership, to a large degree, million to $35 million are going to be something new, that the Senator from do agree with the agenda of the Repub- spent, the union member will have the Tennessee, Senator THOMPSON, and the licans here in Washington. In fact, 87 right to affirmatively approve that or Senator from Arizona, Senator percent of the union membership sup- disapprove it. In the case of disapprov- MCCAIN, are the tools of the union ports welfare reform and 82 percent of ing it, the money will not be spent. bosses. That is a rather remarkable union membership supports the bal- That will bring into the process at concept. I am sure the Senator from anced budget amendment and 78 per- least the ability of the union members Arizona will struggle, as will the Sen- cent happens to support tax reductions to avoid this tax if they decide to avoid ator from Tennessee, for years to get and the $500-per-child tax credit, all of this tax; in the process, to direct the out from under that moniker. which happen to be Republican initia- funds in a manner which they feel is I think that both that and the argu- tives, all of which are opposed by Presi- appropriate to their own political posi- ment of the Senator from Washington dent Clinton, all of which have been op- tion, not to those of a few bosses here just underscore what is really going on posed by Democratic Members. But, in Washington. here today in the U.S. Senate. Every once again, the big bosses here in the That type of correction is not in this argument that can conceivably be laid unions in Washington have decided to bill. Not only is it not in this bill, but out on the table in pretense on the assess, essentially, a tax against the were that amendment to be brought merits is really just an effort to avoid union membership, and that tax, rais- forward, this bill would be filibustered what this vote today is really about. ing $25 to $35 million, is going to be by the supporters of the bill, I suspect. This vote today is about whether or used to attack Republicans who happen Certainly, if there was a chance it was not the U.S. Senate is willing to stay to support philosophies which are sup- going to be passed, it would be filibus- here and work to produce campaign fi- ported by a majority of the union tered by the proponents of this bill. nance reform or whether it is happier membership. Why? Political interests. with the status quo. That is the vote. Yet, this bill remains silent on this So the credibility of this proposal, I It is very simple. rather significant gap in the campaign think, is highly suspect, not only sub- Eighteen months ago we could have election laws. If you were in the proc- stantively on the grounds of constitu- started doing campaign finance reform. ess of addressing campaign election tionality that was raised by Senator I think it was 12 months ago there was laws, I think by the very fact it re- GORTON, but on the grounds of the poli- a famous handshake between NEWT mains silent, you must ask: Why? Why tics of the bill, because when you leave GINGRICH and the President suggesting would such a colossal amount of money this large a gap in the issue of how you there would be a commission to deal that is going to be poured into the po- are going to reform campaign financ- with campaign finance reform. But not litical system be ignored by a bill like ing, you basically are saying your in- only did Congress not follow through this? tention is not to reform campaign fi- on the commission, as neither the S6778 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 President nor the Speaker did, but at they go protect it when it also suits the week and see if we could engage in the last moment here we are on day their purposes. Selective constitu- a serious effort to try to deal with one one of consideration of this bill and we tionalism. of the most pressing problems facing have to have a cloture vote. That tells Any third-grader does understand America’s fledgling democracy. the whole story. that if there is a voluntary system, Mr. President, I yield back whatever This is not a serious effort to legis- purely voluntary, by which people par- time I may have to the manager of the late. This is not a serious effort to take ticipate in limits, there is no restraint bill. an amendment from the Senator from on free speech. Anybody who wants to Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President how New Hampshire and deal with this go out and spend their millions of dol- much time do I have remaining? problem of constitutionality or of lars and avoid accountability within The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. union bosses. After all, they only have the rest of the system can do so under GREGG). The Senator has 43 minutes re- 53 votes last time I counted. It seems this bill. There is no limit. maining. to me that if it is truly an issue of the If perchance there were to be some Mr. MCCONNELL. I yield to the dis- unions, that 53 Republicans are very problem with the PAC’s and constitu- tinguished chairman of the Rules Com- quickly going to be summoned to the tionality, because of the freedom of as- mittee—and we have listened to a great floor to vote against whatever union sociation, the House of Representa- many hearings this spring on this mat- advantage is being built into this bill. tives, in their bill, has an alternative. ter—I yield 10 minutes. So let us cut the charade here. This It is perfectly legitimate for us to send Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank is not a serious effort to legislate. This this bill to a conference committee, the floor managers, both floor man- is, once again, the Senate’s moment of work in the conference committee, agers, and indeed my colleague from tokenism to pretend or at least ex- come up with a reasonable alternative Kentucky. As a senior member of the pose—because Senator FEINGOLD and and come back here. It is really incon- Rules Committee he sat side by side Senator MCCAIN insisted on it—that ceivable that the Republican Party, with me throughout what I am sure there are a majority of Senators here which is the majority of the U.S. Sen- will be reviewed as a very prodigious, who are unwilling to deal with the ate with 53 votes, is going to be fair, and balanced series of hearings, issue of campaign finance reform. disadvantaging itself in any amend- which I will cover, given that the Rules There is not even a serious discussion ment on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Committee has jurisdiction over this going on of an alternative. There is no because they can summon all 53 votes particular bill and like bills. alternative that has been proposed. to beat back any amendment that does This morning, however, Mr. Presi- There is no serious set of alternatives not draw away some measure of those dent, I make it very clear that while I that have been put forward to try to who are reasonable on their side. support many areas of campaign fi- say, ‘‘Well, if we don’t want to do it So this is not an effort to legislate. nance reform, and I shall address those your way, here’s a better way of doing This is an effort to procrastinate once areas, this particular bill that is before it.’’ There is no better way on the again. It is a vote on whether you de- the Senate is not one, in my judgment, table. sire to have campaign finance reform which will solve any of the problems. The Senate has been forced to bring or whether you are content to suggest Therefore, I shall be voting against it one vehicle to the floor today, one ef- that there are problems with this bill in accordance with the procedural fort, one pathetic gasp to try to sug- sufficient that we cannot even deal votes. gest that we are prepared to deal with with it on the floor or work through I will start my comments by quoting what the majority of Americans want the legislative process. from Thomas Jefferson. Virginians are us to deal with, which is the putrid I have some problems with this bill. I very proud of our heritage of freedom stench of the influence of money in do not like every component of it. I which is reflected by Mr. Jefferson, Washington that is taking away de- personally would like to see more free who said: ‘‘To preserve the freedom of mocracy from the people of the coun- time available. I think there are a the human mind * * * and freedom of try. Everybody knows it. Every poll in number of other options that we could the press, every spirit should be ready the Nation just screams it at us. work on. But I am content to live with to devote itself to martyrdom; for as Ninety-two percent of registered vot- what the majority of the U.S. Senate long as we may think as we will, and ers believe that special interest con- thinks is appropriate. I am content to speak as we think the condition of man tributions affect the votes of the Mem- have whatever advantage to our side or will proceed in improvement.’’ bers of Congress. Eighty-eight percent their side be put to the test of the leg- Jefferson’s thoughts on the first believe that people who make large islative process. That is what we are amendment reflect my own personal contributions get special favors from supposed to do. Instead, once again, the concern that our constitutional right politicians. The evidence of public dis- special interests are going to win here to speak out as individuals and as content just could not be more compel- today. Probably most likely this issue groups receive the utmost protection ling. It is now spoken in the way in will not be able to be seriously consid- as we labor as a legislative body to which Americans are just walking ered this year yet again. make badly needed reforms to our cam- away from the system. Only 37 percent I have worked on this since the day I paign finance system. turned out to vote in the last election. came here with Senator BRADLEY, Sen- The pending bill would amend our They are walking with their feet away ator BIDEN, Senator Mitchell, and Sen- campaign finance laws applicable to from what they perceive as an unwill- ator Boren. We have passed it in cer- elections to Congress. This bill, S. 1219, ingness of the Congress to deal with tain years here. But the game has been was referred to the Committee on this. played with the House so it comes back Rules and Administration some time The vote today, Mr. President, is at the last minute. Each side can ago. In addition to S. 1219, 14 other very simple. Do you want to deal with blame the other for not really being se- bills that would amend our campaign campaign finance reform or do you rious about it or for filibustering it to finance laws have also been referred to want to play the game again and be death. the committee. These bills address content and pretend that there is some In the end, Mr. President, the Amer- myriad issues and offer a variety of po- great constitutional issue? ican people lose again, because every- tential solutions to the concerns many I listened to the Senator from Wash- one knows that the budget deficit is of us have. ington raise the first amendment. My partly driven by the interests that suc- I am well aware that the calls for God, three-quarters of the people today ceed in preventing any tough choices campaign finance reform have been talking about the first amendment and from being made. Everyone knows heard for many years. I am well aware, no curbs on free speech are the first what the money chase and the money also, of the many proposals this body people to come down here and vote game in Washington is all about. We has considered over the past sessions. I against the Supreme Court’s decision would all be better off if we were to re- am also well aware these efforts were with respect to the protection of free duce that. I hope that colleagues today ultimately unsuccessful because they speech and the flag. So they choose it will come together in an effort to try did not reflect the consensus of the when it suits their purposes, and then to say, let us at least legislate through American people. It is easy to label June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6779 something campaign finance reform American Civil Liberties Union, Robert cannot condone. Again, to quote Mr. and immediately find support from O’Neil of the Thomas Jefferson Center Jefferson: those across this Nation, like myself, for the Protection of Free Expression, There are rights which it is useless to sur- who have a level of frustration with Archibald Cox of Harvard Law School, render to the government, and which govern- the current framework of laws. Ulti- and Frederick Schauer with the Ken- ments have yet always been found to invade. mately, however, each of those bills nedy School at Harvard. [Among] these are the rights of thinking, must stand on its own merits. I will To date, the committee has held six and publishing our thoughts by speaking or not merely vote for something called extensive hearings on campaign fi- writing. reform without being convinced that nance reform—the most extensive, I re- He made this observation in 1789, but the proposals are constitutional and peat, the most extensive hearings on despite the transformation of our coun- beneficial to our political process. this subject of campaign finance re- try and the changes in our Govern- Our committee gave careful consider- form, held here in the Senate since ment, it is as true today as it was in ation to a wide variety of issues. First, 1991. A number of conclusions were 1789. our committee heard from Senators reached, although not formally, by the A third observation is that, while re- MCCAIN of Arizona, FEINGOLD of Wis- individual Members. I shall speak for duced fee or free TV coverage and post- consin, THOMPSON of Tennessee, myself. age might serve to reduce the cost of WELLSTONE of Minnesota, FEINSTEIN of First and foremost is the overwhelm- campaigns, requirements such as these California, and BRADLEY of New Jersey. ing consensus that the PAC ban con- are not really free—they simply shift Members of the House of Representa- tained in S. 1219 is unconstitutional. the costs from candidates to postal tives also appeared before our commit- There is little doubt on this, with near users, broadcast stations, and other tee. unanimous agreement from the legal television advertisers. To the extent We then heard testimony from some experts. Mr. President, we should not candidates for political office are of the foremost experts across our Na- pass legislation in the name of reform, granted even more reduced fee postage tion on campaign finance reform, in- knowing that the Federal courts will rates than they already have, the post- cluding Prof. Larry Sabato and Prof. strike down the bill. There is always al user—virtually every American citi- Lillian BeVier from the University of the urge to try and create something zen and business—will bear the cost, Virginia; Norman Ornstein from the to throw out there and go back and tell for the Postal Service must make up American Enterprise Institute; Thomas our constituents, ‘‘Well, we handled the lost revenue from these users. Mann from the Brookings Institution; it—we handled campaign finance re- Bradley Smith from the Cato Institute; form,’’ but I personally cannot do that And, in addition to the lost revenues David Mason of the Heritage Founda- with clarity of conscience, knowing the TV broadcasters will face, there are tion; Prof. Herbert Alexander from the that there is a high likelihood that the extremely severe management prob- University of Southern California; Dr. Federal court system will strike it lems associated with S. 1219’s mandate Candice Nelson of American Univer- down. for TV stations to provide coverage of sity; Prof. Michael Malbin from the A second point: in addition to the political candidates. Not the least of Rockefeller Institute of Government; PAC ban, there are other serious con- these would be trying to offer tele- Ann McBride of Common Cause; and stitutional concerns in S. 1219. One vision time to candidates in large pop- Joan Claybrook with Public Citizen. main problem lies in the extremely ulation centers such as New York City We also heard from a number of citi- broad definitions of ‘‘independent ex- where dozens of contested elections zens who participated in campaigns by penditures’’ and educational advertis- will take place in New York, New Jer- contributing to political action com- ing which would serve to greatly re- sey, and Connecticut—you might have mittees—PAC’s—or by making dona- strict information about the can- more than 50 candidates each entitled tions to be bundled. We heard these didates. According to the Free Speech to prime time TV coverage. And this voters’ worries that their voices would Coalition which represents groups from doesn’t even consider party primaries be greatly diminished if their ability to far left to far right, ‘‘This extremely which might feature many candidates participate in PAC’s and bundling were broad definition of ‘expressed advo- per election. completely denied. In addition to these cacy’ would sweep in protected issue And, as I have noted in our hearings, witnesses, we also asked the Chairmen advocacy such as voter guides.’’ how will local politicians react if they of the Republican and Democratic Na- Perhaps even more startling, S. 1219 see candidates for Federal elections tional Committees, Mr. Haley Barbour allows the Federal Election Commis- being offered extremely cheap ads and and Mr. Donald Fowler to testify be- sion to obtain prior restraining orders mailings. If we start down this road, fore our committee. Each party official against groups it suspects might vio- how will we say no to the local sheriff testified to the need to strengthen—I late the new, broader restrictions on or other State and local politicians repeat, strengthen—not weaken the po- presently-independent political activi- who run for office? In sum, these re- litical parties and enhance their links ties. Let me emphasize this point. Fed- duced fee proposals—which are better to their State counterparts. eral bureaucrats would have the power described as cost shifting provisions— Because several of the bills before to stop—I repeat, stop—somebody from are not well thought out. More thor- the committee mandated some form of exercising their first amendment rights ough analysis and understanding of the free or reduced-fee television time and before they say or publish anything. impact they will have on the postal reduced postage rates, as S. 1219 does, One commentator called this result ‘‘a and broadcast industries and the Amer- we also heard from representatives of grotesque legislative assault on bed- ican people is necessary. the broadcast industry and parties af- rock American freedoms * * * ’’ In addition, several of the provisions fected by the health of the postal serv- The PAC and bundling bans, com- of S. 1219 could result in less informa- ice. They advised us of the impact on bined with the breadth of S. 1219’s cov- tion being available to voters. Spend- these proposals, pro and con, on their erage and restrictions on independent ing caps obviously might cause cut- operations. expenditures violate a maxim clearly backs in campaign activity, whether Further, because of my personal be- articulated by our Supreme Court in advertising, traveling, or get-out-the lief that we should not pass legislation Buckley versus Valeo when the Court vote activities. Bringing more inde- that has a high degree of likelihood of stated ‘‘The concept that government pendent expenditures under spending being struck down by the Federal court may restrict the speech of some ele- caps also could reduce the amount of system as unconstitutional, we asked a ments of our society in order to en- information that is available. This con- number of legal experts and scholars to hance the relative voice of others is cern has been voiced by others. David address the constitutionality of some wholly foreign to the first amend- Frum of the Weekly Standard stated: of the various proposals before the ment.’’ [P]olitical reformers imagine that by cap- committee, particularly the proposal Make no mistake about it, S. 1219 ping campaign spending America could to ban PAC’s. Among those comment- would severely restrict the speech of somehow purify its politics, replacing vulgar ing on the issues were Joel Gora of many of our citizens, resulting in a ter- and deceptive radio spots with lofty Lincoln- Brooklyn Law School on behalf of the rific enhancement of others. This we Douglas-style debates and serious-minded S6780 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 presentations of positions in 30-minute un- time to raise money. This change come to support greater federal subsidization paid public service announcements on tele- would also reduce the growing tend- of our election system at the cost of their in- vision. The far likely effect of campaign ex- ency for rich candidates to use their dividual and group political involvements. penditure caps, though, would be to invite Spending limits are also enticing. Are politi- cheating and to deprive less attentive voters money to buy credibility. As discussed cians raising and spending too much money? even of what little information they now get by the eminent commentator, David Let’s pass a law against it! Yet such a stat- to guide their vote. Broder: ute may be difficult to enforce in an era This discussion of present reform All the contribution limits are accomplish- when politicians and the public seek less reg- proposals would of course be incom- ing today is to create an ever-greater advan- ulation, not more—not to mention the seri- plete without mentioning the fact that tage for self-financed millionaire can- ous, maybe fatal, problem of plugging all the didates. . . If we really want to be ruled by money loopholes (the C(4)s; Supreme Court- the Federal Election Commission a wealthy elite, fine; but it is a foolish popu- sanctioned, unlimited ‘‘independent expendi- would need a veritable army of inves- lism that insists it despises the influence of tures’’ by groups and individuals tigators and auditors to keep up with wealth, and then resists liberalizing cam- unconnected to a campaign, and so on). Once their new mandates. We know that the paign contribution limits. again, the biggest, the original, and the FEC has had difficulty winding up au- While I disagree with their proposals, unpluggable loophole is the First Amend- dits of Presidential campaigns in a ment. I commend my colleagues for making a Public financing and spending limits are timely process, and I hesitate to think commitment to this difficult issue. I both also objectionable on the basic merits: about the prospect of the FEC trying can understand their frustration in at- the right to organize and attempt to influ- to keep up with hundreds of congres- tempting to craft legislation which ence politics is a fundamental constitutional sional candidates every 2 years. might meet constitutional muster and guarantee, derived from the same First While these hearings result in the find legislative support. Their bill has Amendment protections that need to be conclusion that S. 1219 will not produce served the useful purpose of generating forcefully protected. To place draconian lim- its on political speech is simply a bad idea. the type of reform that is needed, they an extensive set of hearings on cam- also have revealed many potential re- (The call for a ban on political action com- paign finance reform and the many mittees suffers from the same defect.) forms which might be quite beneficial ideas I have mentioned. Once again, even if candidates could be to our political process without tram- Yet, the hearings which the Rules persuaded to comply voluntarily with a pub- pling on the first amendment. The Committee held will be for nought if lic financing and spending limits scheme, many experts who testified at these we proceed on S. 1219 today, in its such a solution would fail to take into con- hearings provided us with a multitude present form. We must learn from sideration the many ways that interest of proposals that should be examined these hearings. The committee should groups such as the Christian Coalition and labor unions can influence elections without more thoroughly. be permitted to proceed with its hear- I was particularly impressed by some making direct contributions to candidates. ings. The Rules Committee will hold Even if we passed laws that appeared to be of the suggestions made by Prof. Larry authorization and oversight hearings taking private money out, we would not Sabato of the University of Virginia, this coming Wednesday, June 26 on the really be doing so. This is a recipe for decep- who has been at the forefront of cam- Federal Election Commission [FEC]. tion, and consequently—once the truth be- paign finance reform and is a well-re- These hearings will include a discus- comes apparent—for still greater cynicism. nowned speaker and author on the sub- sion of some 18 recommendations that In our opinion, there is another way, one that takes advantage of both current reali- ject. I ask unanimous consent that a would update the campaign finance statement submitted by Professor ties and the remarkable self-regulating ten- laws and streamline the administration dencies of a free-market democracy, not to Sabato be printed in the RECORD at the of the campaign finance laws. In addi- mention the spirit of the age. Consider the conclusion of my remarks. tion, we are studying the possibility of American stock markets. Most government The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without holding one more hearing on the Presi- oversight of them simply makes sure that objection, it is so ordered. dential election process and reform publicly traded companies accurately dis- (See exhibit 1.) close vital information about their finances. Mr. WARNER. Professor Sabato’s suggestions that might be beneficial. After that the full extent of the com- The philosophy here is that buyers, given the main focus lies in broadening and information they need, are intelligent strengthening our disclosure laws, so mittee hearings will be made available enough to look out for themselves. There that all types of significant political to the entire Senate and to others for will be winners and losers, of course, both involvement are available for public in- study and review, with the goal that among companies and the consumers of their spection. The American people are the this educating process will produce an securities, but it is not the government’s role to guarantee anyone’s success (indeed, best judge of improper or excessive in- effective and positive reform bill. While I understand the frustration of the idea is abhorrent). The notion that peo- fluence, and it may be time to require some of my colleagues with this issue, ple are smart enough, and indeed have the greater access to information about I cannot shirk my duty with regard to duty, to think and choose for themselves, those who give to candidates for Fed- also underlies our basic democratic arrange- this legislation—it contains unconsti- eral office and those who spend more to ment. There is no reason why the same prin- tutional and unwise provisions, and we influence campaigns. Of course, we ciple cannot be successfully applied to a free should not pass this legislation into 2 would need to weigh the need for and market for campaign finance. In this sce- law. degree of privacy that should be af- nario, disclosure laws would be broadened EXHIBIT 1 and strengthened, and penalties for failure to forded to individual donors, but this is disclose would be ratcheted up, while rules clearly a subject that should be ad- TESTIMONY OF PROFESSOR LARRY J. SABATO 1 —HEARING OF THE SENATE COMMIT- on other aspects—such as sources of funds dressed in any campaign finance re- TEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, MAY 8, and sizes of contributions—could be greatly form. 1996 1 loosened or even abandoned altogether. I have been impressed with other sug- Call it Deregulation Plus. Let a well-in- PHONY CURES VERSUS A WORKABLE SOLUTION: gestions which have been raised in our formed marketplace, rather than a commit- DEREGULATION PLUS tee of federal bureaucrats, be the judge of hearings, such as: limiting the amount The campaign finance system’s problems of money a PAC can give to a can- whether someone has accepted too much are vexing. Is it possible to fashion a solu- money from a particular interest group or didate from funds raised out of State; tion to all of them simultaneously? Over the spent too much to win an election. Reform- raising the contribution limits for ini- years, the reformers’ panacea has been tax- ers who object to money in politics would tial donations to challengers to facili- payer financing of elections and limits on lose little under such a scheme, since the tate their entry into the political cam- how much candidates can spend. Public fi- current system—itself a product of reform— paign process; and permitting chal- nancing is a seductively simple proposition: has already utterly failed to inhibit special- lengers to draw a salary from their if there is no private money, presumably interest influence. (Plus, the reformers’ new there will be none of the difficulties associ- contributions. plans will fail spectacularly, as we have al- ated with private money. But in a country ready argued.) On the other hand, reform ad- Then there is the sensible suggestion such as ours, which places great emphasis on to index contribution limits for infla- vocates might gain substantially by bringing the freedoms of speech and association, it is all financial activity out into the open where tion—perhaps had this been done in the unrealistic to expect that the general citi- the public can see for itself the truth about last reforms in the 1970’s, candidates zenry or even many of the elite activists will how our campaigns are conducted. If the would have more time to debate the is- facts are really as awful as reformers con- sues and meet the voters and need less Footnotes at the end of article. tend (and as close observers of the system, June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6781 much of what we see is appalling), then the ‘‘nonpartisan’’ membership organizations more freedom to pick and choose their con- public will be moved to demand change. cannot be compelled to comply with cam- tributors. Given the option, we hope more Moreover, a new disclosure regime might paign finance laws, nor can groups that do candidates would turn primarily to those just prove to be the solution in itself. It is not explicitly advocate the election or defeat contributors whose support is based on val- worth noting that the stock-buying public, of a clearly identified candidate. However, ues and ideological beliefs, spurning the by and large, is happy with the relatively expert observers of the current system, such favor-seekers. By lifting disclosure and con- liberal manner by which the Securities and as former Federal Election Commission tribution levels at the same time, politi- Exchange Commission regulates stock mar- chairman Trevor Potter, believe the Court cians’ access to ‘‘clean’’ funds would rise kets. Companies and brokers (the candidates has signaled that constitutional protection while scrutiny of ‘‘dirty’’ funds would be in- and consultants of the financial world) actu- for such groups extends only to limits on creased. The idea is to concede that we can- ally appreciate the SEC’s efforts to enforce how much they can raise or spend, not to not outlaw the acceptance of special-interest vigorously what regulations it does have, whether they are required to disclose their money, but the penalties for accepting it can since such enforcement maintains public activities.4 The primary advantage of this be raised via the court of public opinion. So confidence in the system and encourages step is that it would formally bring into the at the very least, the individual contribution honest, ethical behavior, without unneces- political sphere groups that clearly belong limit should be restored to its original value, sarily impinging on the freedom of market there. By requiring organizations such as the which would make it about $2,800 in today’s players. Again, the key is to ensure the Christian Coalition and labor unions to dis- dollars, with built-in indexing for future in- availability of the requisite information for close, their role in elections can be more flation. We would actually prefer a more people to make intelligent decisions. fully and fairly debated. generous limit of $5,000, which would put the Some political actors who would rather Another possible objection to broadening individual contribution limit on a par with not be forced to operate in the open will un- the disclosure requirements would be the the current PAC limit of $5,000 per election. doubtedly assert that extensive new disclo- fear that the rules would drag a huge number For political parties, there seems little al- sure requirements violate the First Amend- of politically active but relatively incon- ternative to simply legitimizing what has al- ment. We see little foundation for this argu- sequential players into the federal regu- ready happened de facto: the abolition of all ment. As political regulatory schemes go, latory framework. Clearly, no one wants the limits. When the chairman of a national po- disclosure is by far the least burdensome and local church or the Rotary Club taken to litical party bluntly admits that millions of most constitutionally acceptable of any po- court for publishing a newsletter advertise- dollars in ‘‘soft money’’ receipts mean that litical regulatory proposal. The Supreme ment that indirectly or directly supports the committee will be able to spend millions Court was explicit on this subject in its land- candidates of their choice. To our mind, this of dollars in ‘‘hard money,’’ it is time for ev- mark 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling. The is easily addressed by establishing a high re- eryone to acknowledge reality. Moreover, Court found the overweening aspects of the porting threshold—something between such an outcome is not to be lamented. Po- Federal Election Campaign Act (such as lim- $25,000 and $50,000 in total election-related litical parties deserve more fundraising free- its on spending) violated the Bill of Rights, expenditures per election cycle. After all, dom, which would give these critical institu- but disclosure was judicially blessed. While the concern is not with the small organiza- tions a more substantial role in elections. disclosure ‘‘has the potential for substan- tions, but the big ones. The Christian Coali- How would the new disclosure regime tially infringing the exercise of First tion, the term limits groups, and organized work? While the FEC has already moved to Amendment rights,’’ the Court said, ‘‘there labor have all raised and spent millions of impose some tighter disclosure require- are governmental interests sufficiently im- dollars annually and operated on a national ments, it lacks the resources as currently portant to outweigh the possibility of in- scale. It is not hard to make a distinction be- constituted to enforce the new rules across fringement, particularly when the free func- tween groups such as these and benign small- the board. However, the solution does not tioning of our national institutions is in- scale advocacy. necessarily require a massive increase in volved.’’ Another necessary broadening of disclosure funding. Under a disclosure regime, the agen- The Court’s rationale for disclosure re- would involve contributions made by indi- cy could reduce efforts to police excessive mains exceptionally persuasive two decades viduals. While most political action commit- contributions and other infractions, devoting after it was written: tees already disclose ample data on their itself primarily to providing information to First, disclosure provides the electorate backers and financial activities, contribu- the public. The commission’s authority to with information ‘‘as to where political cam- tions to candidates from individuals are re- audit campaigns randomly would have to be paign money comes from and how it is spent ported quite haphazardly. New rules could restored to ensure compliance, and sanctions by the candidate’’ in order to aid the voters mandate that each individual contributor for failure to disclose would have to be in- in evaluating those who seek federal office. disclose his place of employment and profes- creased substantially. In addition, the com- It allows voters to place each candidate in sion, without exception. The FEC has al- mission should be given the power to seek the political spectrum more precisely than is ready debated a number of effective but not emergency injunctions against spending by often possible solely on the basis of party la- overly oppressive means of accomplishing political actors who refuse to comply with bels and campaign speeches. The sources of a this goal (although to date it has adopted disclosure requirements. And to move the candidate’s financial support also alert the only modest changes). The simplest solution FEC away from its frequent three-to-three voter to the interests to which a candidate is is to prohibit campaigns from accepting con- partisan deadlock, the six political party most likely to be responsive and thus facili- tributions that are not fully disclosed. Dis- commissioners (three Democrats and three tate predictions of future performance in of- closure of campaign expenditures is also cur- Republicans) ought to be able to appoint a fice. rently quite lax, with many campaign orga- seventh ‘‘tie-breaker’’ commissioner. Pre- Second, disclosure requirements deter ac- nizations failing to make a detailed state- sumably anyone agreeable to the other six tual corruption and avoid the appearance of ment describing the purpose of each expendi- would have a sterling reputation for inde- corruption by exposing large contributions ture. It would be no great task to require pendence and impartiality. Another remedy and expenditures to the light of publicity. better reporting of these activities as well. for predictable partisanship on the FEC This exposure may discourage those who The big trade-off for tougher disclosure would be a one-term limit of six years for would use money for improper purposes ei- rules should be the loosening of restrictions each commissioner. Freed of the need to ther before or after the election. A public on fundraising. Foremost would be liberal- worry about pleasing party leaders in order armed with information about a candidate’s ization of limits on fundraising by individual to secure reappointment, FEC commis- most generous supporters is better able to candidates. This is only fair and sensible in sioners could vote their consciences more detect any post-election special favors that its own right: there is a glaring disconnec- often and get tough with election scofflaws may be given in return. And . . . full disclo- tion between the permanent and artificial in both parties. sure during an election campaign tends ‘‘to limitations on sources of funds and ever- Finally, in exchange for the FEC relin- prevent the corrupt use of money to affect mounting campaign costs. One of the pri- quishing much of its police powers, Congress elections.’’ In enacting these requirements mary pressures on the system has been the could suspend much of its power over the [the Congress] may have been mindful of Mr. declining value in real dollars of the maxi- FEC by establishing an appropriate budg- Justice Brandeis’ advice: ‘‘Publicity is justly mum legal contribution by an individual to a etary level for the agency that by law would commended as a remedy for social and indus- federal candidate ($1,000 per election), which be indexed to inflation and could not be re- trial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best is now worth only about a third as much as duced. Another way of guaranteeing ade- of disinfectants; electric light the most effi- when it went into effect in 1975. This increas- quate funding for a disclosure-enhanced FEC cient policeman.’’ 3 ing scarcity of funds, in addition to fueling is to establish a new tax check-off on Form A new disclosure-based regime, to be suc- the quest for loopholes, has led candidates 1040 that would permit each citizen to chan- cessful, would obviously require more strin- (particularly incumbents) to do things they nel a few dollars of her tax money directly to gent reporting rules. Most important, new otherwise might not do in exchange for fund- the FEC, bypassing a possible vengeful reporting rules would require groups such as ing. Perversely, limits appear to have in- Congress’s appropriations process entirely. organized labor and the Christian Coalition creased the indebtedness of lawmakers to The 1040 solicitation should carefully note to disclose the complete extent of their in- special interests that can provide huge that the citizen’s tax burden would not be in- volvement in campaigns. Currently, such amounts of cash by mobilizing a large num- creased by by his designation of a ‘‘tax gift’’ groups rely on a body of law that holds that ber of $500 to $1,000 donors. By increasing to the FEC, and that the purpose of all mon- under the First Amendment, broadly based contribution limits, candidates would enjoy ies collected is to inform the public about S6782 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 the sources of contributions received by po- tiply available ‘‘analog’’ TV frequencies by a Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I appre- litical candidates. It is impossible to fore- factor of about six once it is available in ciate the sentiment. I commend the cast the precise reaction of taxpayers to 1997—are creating new opportunities to im- Senator for his corporate knowledge. such an opportunity, of course, but our bet is plement an old idea. Federal Communica- Indeed, he is the Oracle of Delphi in that many more individuals would check the tions Commission chairman Reed E. Hundt box funding the Federal Election Commis- has recently endorsed the provision of free this matter. sion than the box channeling cash to the time for candidates and parties once digital Mr. MCCONNELL. I yield 5 minutes presidential candidates and political parties. TV comes into being, noting that free time to the distinguished Senator from In today’s money-glutted political system, was ‘‘not practically achievable in an analog Utah. the people’s choice is likely to be reliable in- age [but is] entirely feasible with the capac- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- formation about the interest groups and in- ity and band width explosion of the digital ator from Utah. dividuals investing in officeholders. era.’’ 10 Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it seems In this area and others in the field of cam- to me we really cannot debate cam- CONCLUDING COMMENTS paign finance, it is time for new thinking The purpose of these reforms is to make and creative ideas to break the old partisan paign finance reform without debating regulation of campaign financing more ra- deadlocks that prevent reform of an unsatis- the way in which political funds are tional. Attempts to outlaw private campaign factory system. not only given to candidates but also contributions or to tell political actors how FOOTNOTES acquired from people. much they can raise and spend are simply 1 This is an excerpt from the just published book, Campaign contributions are usually unworkable. Within broad limits, the politi- ‘‘Dirty Little Secrets: The Persistence of Corruption donated voluntarily. You can get an in- cal marketplace is best left to its own de- in American Politics’’ (New York: Times Books), by vitation to a fundraiser or a direct vices, and when those limits are exceeded, Larry J. Sabato and Glenn R. Simpson. All rights mail solicitation, and you can decide violators would be punished swiftly and ef- reserved. fectively. 2 We are indebted to attorney Jan Baran of the law whether to contribute to that can- Regarding the pro-incumbent bias of con- firm Wiley, Rein & Fielding for this analogy. didate, cause, or party. 3 tributors, there is unfortunately no obvious Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S.1, at 66–7 (1976). We all consider this one of the basics 4 Interview with Trevor Potter, July 12, 1995. of American democracy. Individuals practical solution. It is impossible to predict 5 Frank Sorauf, one of the most astute students of how a deregulated system would affect the campaign finance, has raised the possibility that must support it by supporting the can- existing heavy bias toward incumbents by ‘‘voluntary funding of campaigns for public office is didates they believe in. But there are contributors, both PAC and individual. In intrinsically committed to the support of incum- people in our country for whom this truth, there may be no way to eliminate pro- bents and likely winners.’’ Frank J. Sorauf, ‘‘Com- very fundamental freedom of choice is 5 petition, Contributions, and Money in 1992,’’ in incumbent financial bias. However, it is pos- not given—members of labor unions. I sible that expanding private resources James A. Thurber and Candice J. Nelson (eds.), ‘‘Campaigns and Elections American Style’’ (Boul- through deregulation will actually end up may be one of the few ever in the his- der, Colo.: Westview Press, 1995), p. 81. tory of Congress to actually have helping challengers more than incumbents. 6 For a cogent review of the literature, see Frank A substantial body of research shows that Sorauf, ‘‘Inside Campaign Finance: Myths and Reali- earned his union card and worked in the amount an incumbent spends is less de- ties’’ (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, the construction industry for 10 years. terminative of election outcomes than the 1992), pp. 215–16. There is an increasing number of It is certainly no secret that unions amount a challenger spends.6 Simply put, dissenters to this view. For instance, Christopher collect dues from their members and challengers do not need to match incumbent Kenny and Michael McBurnett argue that those who say that the level of incumbent spending has no ef- that, in many cases, an individual has spending, but need merely to reach a ‘‘floor’’ fect neglect the interrelationship of challenger and to join a union in order to be employed of financial viability. Deregulations’s great- incumbent spending in producing the outcome of the in a particular industry or with a par- est impact could actually be in helping chal- election. Incumbent spending is at least partially a ticular company. So there is no effec- lengers reach this floor. If fears about the ef- function of challenger spending, that is, when chal- fects a free market will have on competition lengers spend more, incumbents respond to the in- tive choice about paying union dues for prove warranted, however, a modest federal creased competition with greater outlays. When this these people. subsidy in the form of discounts on mail or interrelationship is taken into account, both chal- But to add insult to injury, these lenger and incumbent spending levels affect the out- broadcast time—so that every nonincumbent comes of the races; Kenny and McBurnett provide Americans, who are forced to pay candidate could at least reach the floor— empirical evidence to show the effect is statistically union dues, must also suffer the fact would seem reasonable and might be accept- significant. (See Kenny and McBurnett, ‘‘An Individ- that unions donate millions of dollars able even to some conservatives as long as it ual Level Multiequation Model of Expenditure Ef- to candidates that any individual may fects in Contested House Elections.’’ American Po- could be tied to deregulation. not support. If Deregulation Plus proves too radical, litical Science Review 88 (September 1994): 699–707). 7 The recent announcement by the perhaps it is time to revive the sensible See ‘‘Campaign Finance Reform: A report to the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, United scheme proposed in 1990 by the U.S. Senate’s AFL–CIO that this big labor—you States Senate, by the Campaign Reform Panel,’’ would have to say now mega-labor—or- Campaign Finance Reform Panel, which at- March 6, 1990, p. 41. Coauthor Sabato was one of the tempted to bridge the gap between partisans panel’s six members, appointed by then Senate Ma- ganization would donate $35 million to on the basic issues by suggesting many jority Leader George Mitchell (Democrat of Maine) candidates this year may be welcomed ideas, including so-called flexible spending and then Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole (Re- by some—certainly all Democrats—but limits.7 These are limits on overall campaign publican of Kansas). 8 disappointing to any who may not spending by each candidate, with exemptions See Larry J. Sabato, Paying for Elections: The Campaign Finance Thicket (New York: Twentieth agree with the choices. for certain types of expenditures by political Century Fund-Priority Press, 1989), esp. pp. 25–42, 61– Take President Clinton, for example. parties (such as organizational efforts), as 64. For example, disclosure laws do not currently I daresay that there may be any num- well as small contributions from individuals cover contributions to foundations that presidential who live in a candidate’s own state. Since candidates sometimes form. These foundations often ber of union members out there who do the Supreme Court has ruled that spending pay for pre-campaign travel, and openly promote not support President Clinton’s reelec- limits must be voluntary, incentives such as their candidate-creator. tion. 9 reduced postal rates and tax credits for the The Campaign Finance Reform Panel mentioned In my view, this violation of fun- above endorsed the free broadcast time proposal in small individual donations mentioned above ibid, pp. 25–42. damental choice and freedom of speech should be offered. The flexible limits scheme 10 Remarks delivered at the Nieman Foundation, is compounded by the fact that labor represents a reasonable compromise between Harvard University, May 5, 1995, p. 7. Hundt has pro- unions do not even disclose their soft the absolute spending limits with no exemp- posed making these new frequencies available under money contributions, which amount to two government-imposed restrictions (1) some tions favored by Democrats and the opposi- millions. tion to any kind of limits expressed by Re- broadcast time must be devoted to educational pro- publicans. gramming for children, and (2) free broadcast time At this particular time, I would like Flexible limits or Deregulation Plus ought must be given to political candidates and parties. to place in the RECORD a Congressional See also Max Frankel, ‘‘Airfill,’’ New York Times Research Service report for Congress to be supplemented by free broadcast time Magazine, June 4, 1995, p. 26; and Mary McGrory, for political parties and candidates, as well ‘‘The Vaster Wasteland,’’ Washington Post, June 4, entitled ‘‘Political Spending by Orga- as strengthened disclosure laws that cover 1995, p. C1. nized Labor: Background and Current every dollar raised and spent for political Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I Issues.’’ This report is astounding. purposes.8 Detailed free-time proposals have thank my good friend, the chairman of They indicate that in Presidential elec- been made elsewhere but ignored by a Con- the Rules Committee for his excellent tions, it is estimated that from $400 to gress fearful of alienating a powerful lobby, the National Association of Broadcasters.9 statement and say again how much I $500 million in moneys go basically to Yet no innovation would do more to reduce enjoyed sitting to his right listening to the Democratic Party. campaign costs or help challengers than this the testimony this spring. Thanks for a I ask unanimous consent that that one. Fortunately, technological advances very important contribution to this report be printed in the RECORD at this such as ‘‘digital’’ television—which will mul- matter. point. June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6783 There being no objection, the mate- might have at least an indirect impact on 334 labor PACs, only 8.3% of the total 4,016 rial was ordered to be printed in the those elections. PACs.11 The 1971 FECA incorporated the concept of RECORD, as follows: Another common gauge of federal PAC ac- union and corporate SSFs in federal law for tivity is the money contributed to congres- POLITICAL SPENDING BY ORGANIZED LABOR: the first time. This landmark legislation sional candidates (relatively little is given BACKGROUND AND CURRENT ISSUES also distinguished between political activi- to presidential candidates). In 1974, Labor (By Joseph E. Cantor) ties that were and were not to be federally PACs contributed $6.3 million to congres- SUMMARY regulated and thus, without using the term, sional candidates, half of the $12.5 million Labor unions have traditionally played a provided the legal basis for union (and cor- from all PACs;12 in 1994, labor PACs gave strong role in American elections, assisting porate) soft money. The Act amended 18 $40.7 million, 23% of the $179.6 million from favored candidates through their direct and U.S.C. 610 (which banned union, corporate, all PACs.13 indirect financial support, as well as through and national bank spending in federal elec- While union PACs do not play as large a manpower and organizational services. While tions) to give specific authority for these or- role among all PACs as they did 20 years ago, direct financing of federal candidates by ganizations to use their general treasury they have been able to remain competitive unions is prohibited under federal law, money for political activities. It thus ex- by giving larger donations than most PACs. unions can and do establish political action empted certain union and corporate activi- While there are far fewer labor than cor- committees (PACs) to raise voluntary con- ties from FECA definitions of ‘‘contribution’’ porate PACs, the average labor PAC con- tributions for donation to federal candidates. and ‘‘expenditure,’’ if the activities are tribution of federal candidates in 1994 was This PAC money is also known as ‘‘hard aimed at restricted classes (for unions, mem- twice the average for a corporate PAC. Given money,’’ because certain federal limits on bers and their families, and, for corpora- labor’s traditional ties with the Democratic contributions make it harder to raise. It is tions, stockholders and their families). The Party, it is not surprising that labor PAC do- also fully disclosed under federal law. Other specified activities were communications nations are largely directed the Democrats. aspects of labor’s political support take the (including partisan ones), nonpartisan reg- In 1994, for example, 96% of labor PAC con- form of ‘‘soft money,’’ which is not limited istration and get-out-the-vote drives, and tributions went to Democrats, compared by federal law and is not as hard to raise. costs of establishing, administering, and so- with 49% for corporate PACs, 60% for non- Soft money is generally considered to be a liciting contributions to an SSF. The 1976 connected (unsponsored) PACs, and 54% for formidable factor in organized labor’s politi- FECA Amendments (P.L. 94–283) recodified the trade/membership/health category.14 The cal strength. This spending is largely un- this provision as 2 U.S.C. 441b, added execu- relative political uniformity among labor regulated, either because it is restricted to tive and administrative personnel and their PACs is viewed by some as another way in seeking to influence only its members and families to corporations’ restricted class, which labor maximizes its political power. their families or because it does not advo- and allowed membership organizations, co- SOFT MONEY ACTIVITY: UNION TREASURIES cate specific candidates’ election or defeat. operatives, and corporations without capital Although there are no complete, publicly The soft money aspect of labor’s political ac- stock to set up SSFs. available data on amounts of union treasury tivity has aroused controversy because of The FECA thus created a legal framework money spent. One press account expressed a fundraising methods and the relative dearth for unions to set up PACs to raise and spend widely held view: of disclosure. money directly in federal elections, subject ‘‘Labor’s real importance to candidates, to federal regulation (hard money), and to ORIGIN OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN HARD AND though, is not so much the PAC dollars use its treasury money for specified activi- SOFT MONEY unions contribute directly to campaigns as ties aimed only at its restricted class and During World War II, the War Labor Dis- the expenditures they make from their treas- not subject to federal regulation (soft putes Act of 1943, known as the Smith- uries to lobby among their members. In each money).5 Connally Act, prohibited unions from mak- election, labor spends millions of dollars in ing contributions in federal elections.1 In CURRENT REGULATIONS advocating its preferred candidates before 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act made this wartime Under recently amended regulations, the union rank and file, but how many mil- measure permanent and expanded it to in- unions (and corporations) were acknowl- lions is unknown, and estimates vary wide- clude primary elections and any expendi- edged to have great latitude in communica- ly.’’ 15 tures in connection with federal campaigns.2 tions with their restricted classes. Under Forms of support Organized labor responded to the 1943 pro- these regulations, unions are exempt from hibition on donating union treasury money FECA definitions of ‘‘contribution’’ and ‘‘ex- Two major types of activities are financed be creating the first separate segregated penditure’’ for communications on any sub- by union treasuries which promote labor’s fund (SSF), commonly known as a PAC. ject, registration and get-out-the-vote drives political philosophy: (1) the exempt activi- Through CIO–PAC, the Congress of Indus- (not just ‘‘nonpartisan’’ efforts), and costs of ties aimed at their restricted class (as de- trial Organization established the precedent setting up, administering, and fundraising scribed); and (2) non-express advocacy com- of collecting voluntary contributions from for an SSF. Such efforts, however, may only munications aimed at the public (also re- its members, which could be dispensed to fa- be aimed at union members, executive or ad- ferred to as issued advocacy or public edu- vored candidates. Other national and local ministrative personnel, and their families.6 cation). unions followed suit: 17 national labor PACs New regulations, promulgated to imple- In the exempt activities category, unions gave $2.1 million to federal campaigns in ment the intent of various Supreme Court have a ready infrastructure (phone banks, of- 1956, and 37 such PACs spent $7.1 million in decisions,7 also introduced the standard of fice space, etc.) and a ready pool of volun- 1968.3 This money, raised and spent according express advocacy in deciding what types of teers to make their internal communica- to federal regulation, came to be known as communications are permitted by and to tions and voter drives a significant force. hard money. whom. While these efforts may only involve a re- The concept of soft money arose during the ‘‘Expressly advocating means any commu- stricted class and while corporations have several decades before the Federal Election nication that . . . uses phrases . . . which in the same rights as unions in all soft money Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 was enacted context can have no other meaning than to activities, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [P.L. 92–225]. During that period, unions used urge the election or defeat of one or more (BLS) reports that labor’s restricted class to- money from their treasuries—as opposed to clearly identified candidate(s) . . . .’’ 8 taled 16.4 million people in 1995, plus fami- PAC money—for political activities other Communications containing express advo- lies.16 than donations in federal elections. These in- cacy are permitted by unions if limited to In terms of public education and issue ad- cluded: (1) contributions to state and local the restricted class; correspondingly, com- vocacy, unions engage in the same type of ef- candidates, where union donations were al- munications without express advocacy may forts as many other groups in the public lowed; (2) such ‘‘educational,’’ ‘‘non-par- be made to the public, if done independently arena. These often involve media ads to in- tisan,’’ activities as get-out-the-vote and of any candidate.9 fluence public opinion on policy issues. By avoiding overt appeals to elect or defeat spe- registration drives and distribution of voting HARD MONEY ACTIVITY: UNION PACS cific candidates, these groups may promote records; and (3) public service activities to Given the rising costs of elections and the their political and philosophical goals with- promote their philosophy through union higher contribution limits for PACs than in- 4 out triggering federal campaign finance reg- newspapers and radio shows. It was gen- dividuals in federal elections ($5,000 versus ulation. erally understood at that time that spending $1,000), PACs became a growing source of 17 on such activities might influence federal campaign funds in the past 20 years.10 As the Source of funding and compulsory dues issue elections less directly or overtly than can- pioneers in the PAC field, labor PACs grew Union treasuries are financed in large part didate contributions; hence, it was not sub- in both overall numbers and money contrib- through dues paid by members. In addition, ject to federal limits or disclosure rules. uted, although by both measures, they have under some union security agreements, Thus, the term soft money has come to mean been increasingly overshadowed by corporate workers who do not join a union must pay a money that is raised and spent outside the and other types of PACs. form of dues called agency fees. There are no purview of federal election law and that is When the Federal Election Commission available data on how many workers pay not permitted in federal elections, but which (FEC) first recorded PAC activity in January agency fees, but the BLS data indicate that 1975, 201 of the 608 PACs (one-third) were some 2 million workers were represented by Footnotes at end of article. labor PACs. As of January 1996, there were unions but who were not union members. S6784 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 Some portion of these workers pay agency ‘‘multicandidate committees’’ (i.e., they must be events violated the union’s duty of fair fees as a condition of employment. registered for at least 6 months, receive contribu- tions from more than 50 persons, and donate to 5 or representation and section 8(a)(3) of Due to the compulsory nature of agency the National Labor Relations Act. fees, some workers have objected to the more federal candidates). 11 U.S. Federal Election Commission. FEC Release unions’ political uses of their payments. The Supreme Court agreed that Mr. Semi-Annual Federal PAC Count (press release): Beck and other objecting employees Among several relevant rulings, the Supreme Jan. 23, 1996. Court, in Communication Workers of America 12 Common Cause. Campaign Finance Monitoring had a right to a refund from the union v. Beck [487 U.S. 735 (1988)], said that a union Project. 1974 Congressional Campaign Finances. Vol. for the portion of their fees being used may not, over the objections of dues paying 5—Interest Groups and Political Parties. Washing- for political and other noncollective nonmember employees, spend funds collected ton, 1976. p. xii. bargaining or representational pur- 13 U.S. Federal Election Commission. 1994 PAC Ac- from them on activities unrelated to collec- poses. This decision was, of course, sig- tive bargaining. Hence, objecting employees tivity Shows Little Growth Over 1992 Level, Final FEC Report Finds (press release): Nov. 1995. nificant for its holding that unions in could get a pro rata refund of their agency 14 Ibid. the private sector are not permitted, fees representing costs of non-collective bar- 15 Brownstein, Ronald, and Maxwell Glen. Money gaining activities. in the Shadows. National Journal, v. 18, Mar. 15, over the objections of employees such While the court rulings have left no doubt 1986. p. 633. as Mr. Beck, to expand funds collected that dissenting workers are entitled to such 16 U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Sta- from them for political and other ac- refunds if requested, issues have arisen as to tistics. Employment and Earnings, v. 43. Jan. 1996. p. tivities unrelated to collective bargain- the extent to which unions should notify 210. 17 ing. In that regard, the Beck decision such workers of these rights. On April 13, For fuller discussions of these issues, see: U.S. 1992, President Bush issued Executive Order Library of Congress. Congressional Research Serv- was a logical and reasoned follow-on to ice. ‘‘Use of Compulsory Union Dues for Political prior Supreme Court cases regarding 12800, requiring federal contractors to post and Other Ideological Purposes.’’ CRS Report 94– notices to employees informing them of 565A, by Thomas M. Durbin and Margaret Mikyung the rights of employees covered by the ‘‘Beck’’ rights; this was rescinded by Presi- Lee. Washington, 1994.; —. ‘‘Labor Controversies: Railway Labor Act to object to that dent Clinton on February 1, 1993 (Executive Suspension of Davis Bacon’’; ‘‘Open Shop Bidding portion of their dues or fees expended Order 12836). Bills have been introduced in Requirements’’; and ‘‘ ‘Beck’ Rights.’’ CRS Report for noncollective bargaining purposes. 93–458E, by Gail McCallion, Vince Treacy, and Wil- recent Congresses to either prohibit the use See Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740 of ‘‘compulsory union dues’’ for political pur- liam Whittaker. Washington, 1993. 18 11 C.F.R. § 100.8(b)(4) and 104.6. (1961) and Ellis v. Railway Clerks, 466 poses or to require greater notification of all 19 U.S. Federal Election Commission. ‘‘Commu- workers’ (not just non-members’) rights re- U.S. 435 (1984). nication Cost Index.’’ July 7, 1993. The Beck decision was significant in garding the use of their dues or agency fees. 20 U.S. Department of Labor. Labor Organization Dollar value of union soft money Annual Financial Reports. Federal Register, v. 58, its affirmation (1) that the Federal no. 243, Dec. 21, 1996. p. 67595. The only soft money unions must disclose courts properly exercised jurisdiction 21 Alston, Chuck. Republicans Seek to Reduce La- over such cases as a violation of the under the FECA are express advocacy com- bor’s Clout at the Polls. Congressional Quarterly munications with members, but only when Weekly Reports, v. 48, Mar. 31, 1990. p. 963. unions’ duty of fair representation and, they exceed $2,000 per candidate, per elec- 22 Testimony of Reed Larsen (National Right To (2) that such union conduct was also tion, and excluding communications pri- Work Committee) and Professor Leo Troy (Rutgers prohibited under the National Labor marily devoted to other subjects.18 In 1992, University). U.S. Congress. House of Representa- Relations Act, enforcement of which is tives. House Oversight Committee. March 19, 1996. unions reported $4.7 million on such activi- charged to the National Labor Rela- ties.19 Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me re- While unions are required to file financial iterate: in my view, this violation of tions Board. reports under the Labor Management Re- fundamental choice and freedom of The rest of the system really is this. porting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (P.L. 86– speech is compounded by the fact that Regardless of what the court ruled— 257), these reports are arranged by type of labor unions do not even disclose their and it took some 8 years before the expenditure (e.g., salaries, administrative soft money contributions, which NLRB even got around to issuing its costs) rather than by functional category first ruling on a Beck-related case in (e.g., contract negotiation and administra- amounts to hundreds of millions of dol- lars. That $35 million which we have all 1995—all of the burden is being placed tion, political activities). Under President on the employee instead of on the Bush, the Department on Labor proposed been reading about in the newspapers regulations to change reporting to require is really nothing. It is almost a wash union. For an employee to be able to functional categories (October 30, 1992); in a compared to what they really spend. withdraw his or her dues and to require proposed rulemaking notice on September The unions pull in somewhere, it is es- disclosure, the employee has to go to 23, 1993, the Department, under President timated, around $4 to $6 billion a year, court, file a claim before the NLRB, Clinton, rescinded the change to functional and up to 85 percent of that money, ac- and/or has to go through all kinds of 20 categories. cording to some estimates, is used for procedural maneuvers, and basically Due to the limitations of public disclosure, has to resign from the union and lose one must look to estimates of the total value political purposes on local, State and of labor soft money. Such estimates, which Federal levels. all of that employee’s democratic amount to educated guesses and may be in- The Supreme Court, in 1988, in Beck rights to vote for or against strikes, for fluenced by the political orientation of the versus Communications Workers of or against contract ratification, et observer, range from the $20 million labor America, declared that workers were cetera. In the end, the employee is ba- supporters claim is its value in presidential entitled to know how much of their sically out of a lot of money, out of his campaigns,21 to the $400–$500 million critics dues were being directed to political power of representation, and out of his estimate for total labor soft money in a pres- uses and to receive a refund for that right to vote. Why? Simply because one idential election year.22 1 57 Stat. 167. Earlier in the century, the Tilman portion of dues paid. employee, pitted against a powerful Act of 1907 [34 Stat. 864] had banned contributions I think a brief description of the union, has sought a voice in how his or from corporations and national banks. Beck case is useful. Harry Beck was a her union dues is being spent for politi- 2 The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947; 61 telephone company technician working cal purposes. Stat. 159. 3 Alexander, Herbert E. ‘‘Financing the 1976 Elec- for the Bell Telephone System. He was I do not see how we can consider tion.’’ Washington, Congressional Quarterly Press, not a member of the Communications campaign finance reform without cor- 1979. p. 559. Workers of America, but was required recting this injustice. 4 Alexander, Herbert E. ‘‘Money in Politics.’’ Wash- to pay agency fees to the union under Nothing should be a more fundamen- ington, Public Affairs Press, 1972, 1972. p. 170; Heard, Alexander, ‘‘The Costs of Democracy.’’ Chapel Hill, the labor contract it negotiated with tal American right than political ex- University of North Carolina Press, 1960. p. 177–8. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. pression. Those Americans whose union 5 The 1976 FECA Amendments required disclosure In June 1976, 20 employees, including dues are diverted for political pur- of internal communications once they exceed $2,000, Mr. Beck, initiated a suit challenging poses—without disclosure and without the only exempt activity subject to federal disclo- sure requirements. the CWA’s use of their agency fees for an adequate rebate system—have been 6 11 C.F.R. § 114.1(a)(2)(i)–(iii) purposes other than collective bargain- treated as second-class citizens. 7 Most notably, FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for ing, contract administration, or griev- The NLRB has not only failed to im- Life, Inc. [479 U.S. 238 (1986)]. 8 11 C.F.R. § 100.22 ance adjustment. Specifically, Mr. plement the Beck decision, but the ex- 9 11 C.F.R. § 114.3(a), (b), (c)(1) and 114.4(c)(1). (If Beck and his coworkers alleged that ecutive order issued by President Bush public communications are coordinated with a can- the expenditure of their fees on activi- was rescinded during President Clin- didate, they would constitute prohibited in-kind ties such as organizing the employees ton’s first days in office. That is amaz- contributions, regardless of content.) 10 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1) and (2); to be eligible for the of other employers, lobbying for legis- ing to me. If we want true campaign fi- $5,000 limit, most PACs easily meet the criteria for lation, and participating in political nance reform, why would we not clarify June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6785 this injustice to individual workers all story about ‘‘I am for campaign finance will be referendums in California, Colo- over America? reform but not this one,’’ and then not rado, Alaska, Arkansas, and Maine, What is even more amazing to me is vote to cut off debate because it is a and all of those referendums will be that my colleagues on the other side of filibuster, and then we cannot move sending one message: reduce the role of the aisle have fought any attempt to forward with the bill. money in politics; cut back on the role deal with this issue. Several years ago, Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the of money in politics. I oferred a simple and straightforward Senator yield on that point? Those referendums will be followed amendment to campaign finance re- Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. in the years to come by other referen- form that would merely have required The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- dums, and maybe after another 2 or 3 that unions disclose to dues paying ator from Wisconsin. years the people in this body who like members how their dues money is Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let the status quo will change. I hope they being spent. It was defeated. me reiterate what the Senator said. It will, because I believe money and poli- It is about time that we realize that was not our idea to have a cloture vote tics today distort democracy. mega-labor unions are among the big- up front so there could not be amend- That leads to the second point. We gest—they are the biggest—special in- ments. That was the idea of the other need to confront the central issue. The terests in the electoral system, and side. That is the only way we could get central issue is Buckley versus Valeo. that their political capital was not al- the bill up for a vote. The only way to confront Buckley ver- ways given away freely. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished sus Valeo directly is with a constitu- Unless this issue can be addressed, I Senator from New Jersey. tional amendment. do not see how we can call this cam- Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield The distinguished Senator from paign finance reform. It is more a con- for 10 seconds? South Carolina and I have offered such tinuation of campaign finance coer- Mr. BRADLEY. Not out of my time. an amendment for a number of years cion. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- that would say simply that the Con- Employees have a right to know how ator from New Jersey. gress and the States may limit what is much of their moneys are used for par- Mr. HATCH. If it is on our time? spent in a campaign in total and what tisan political activities with which Mr. BRADLEY. I would be prepared an individual may spend on his or her they disagree. That is what the Su- to yield on the manager’s time. own campaign. Until we take that step, preme Court said, and that ought to be Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I we are going to be constructing Rube enforced. This bill will do nothing yield the time out of my time. Goldberg types of contraptions to try about that. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- to get around the central issue, which Mr. President, I yield back whatever ator from Utah. is, money is not speech. Anybody who time I have. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me believes that money is speech, in my Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I say this up front. If cloture is invoked, opinion—the Supreme Court said it yield the Senator from Colorado 2 min- that type of amendment would not be was, and, therefore, it is the law of the utes. germane and would not be permitted. If land. That is why we need to amend Mr. BROWN. I will take 1 minute. I cloture is not invoked, I intend to the Constitution. But I do not believe ask unanimous consent that the Brown bring up the amendment. that a rich man’s wallet in free-speech amendments 4108, 4109, as offered to S. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- terms is the equivalent of a poor man’s 1219, be withdrawn because they were ator from New Jersey is recognized. soapbox. We have to confront that improperly drafted. Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I issue directly. Otherwise, we are going The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without think it says a lot if the Senate is not to be in these debates about antacid objection, it is so ordered. able to move forward on this good piece and bubble gum. Even that debate is a Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I want to of legislation. I think this inability to diversion from the central issue, which indicate my highest praise and respect move forward says two things. is changing the way we now do politics for the authors of the underlying bill. I The first thing it says is that fun- in Washington, but even that issue is think they come with good intentions damental campaign finance reform will based on a confusion. and an honest bipartisan effort. I am not begin in Washington. It will begin Capitalism is different than democ- concerned about the bill. I am con- in the States. The opponents of this racy. The distinguished Senator from cerned about the prospect of us divid- bill like the status quo. They do not Kentucky said, ‘‘Well, we have to com- ing up broadcast time. It does seem to want to change the status quo. They pare antacids and bubble gum be- me that that is a taking of property have not offered an alternative. They cause’’—compared to what? I would without compensation, and I believe it have only picked at the bill. They want suggest you compare the amount of is a major flaw in the plan before us. to keep money and politics just as it is money in politics in 1980 versus the I yield the floor. today because they know how to work amount of money in politics today and Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I the system. the size of the contribution and the yield 30 seconds to the Senator from The fact is the American people have sources of the money. Arizona. a different view. I am astounded how Without question, money is distort- Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, not for much opposition to this bill is rooted ing democracy. And, indeed, we have the first time I have heard complaint in a kind of Washington understanding had other times in American history about the power of unions and how this of this country. The people in this where there have been distortions in bill does not address that appro- country look at elected Representa- our democracy. We have changed it by priately. It just came from the Senator tives and Senators and they think we recourse of the constitutional amend- in the chair. If do you not like it, come are controlled. They think we are con- ment. to the floor and propose an amendment trolled by special interest money. Many people will remember earlier in and do something about it. There are 53 Some think we are controlled by par- this century when women did not have votes on this side. Do not refuse to ties that blunt our independence. Some the right to vote. The absence of that move forward with the bill. If you do think we are controlled by our opposi- voice in the polling booths distorted not like the bill—everybody comes tion that prevents us from saying what democracy. We passed a constitutional down here and says, ‘‘I am for cam- we really believe and only saying amendment giving women the right to paign finance reform, but just not this things that will advance us to the next vote in order to restore a broader par- one.’’ If you are not for this one, come level of office. Some even think we are ticipation. to the floor after we invoke cloture, controlled by pollsters who give us I believe today money is playing the and propose your amendments. We focus views and phrases and para- same role. The fact of the matter is have 53 votes on this side, 47 on that graphs, that we do not think for our- that until we confront this issue, skep- side. If they share the view of the Sen- selves, saying things because we have ticism is going to be high. People say, ator from Utah, then you can amend it convictions in our heart. ‘‘Well, it is not the No. 1 issue on peo- and take care of it. But do not expect The fact is that the opponents of this ple’s minds.’’ That is true. The No. 1 the American people to accept this provision do not get it. This year there issue on people’s minds is, how do I put S6786 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 bread on the table? How do I pay the Rhode Island—and I do not know much That’s why, more than any other utility bill? How do I send my kids to about it, what the issues are or what time in our history, the American peo- college? They are dealing with the eco- she stands for—said: ‘‘I took my race ple’s confidence in their Government nomic transformation which we are in. out of Congress because Mr. and Mrs. and its elected leaders is abysmally That is the No. 1 issue. But when they Smith can no longer be candidates of low. say, ‘‘Do any of the politicians have the Congress of the United States on Poll after poll provides ample evi- any relation to my dealing with these an average basis in their finances.’’ dence that the American people believe issues,’’ people say no, because politi- So we all know her situation. Every special interests and lobbyists have a cians are controlled by money. That is single one of us knows that the debates greater influence on our endeavors why this is a linchpin issue. around here are directly affected by it. than the will of the voters. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I Positions people take are directly af- I believe wholeheartedly that the thank the Senator from New Jersey. fected by this issue. vast majority of those who serve in the Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to This is not a sweeping piece of cam- U.S. Congress are well-intended and re- the distinguished Senator from Con- paign finance reform legislation, but it sponsive to the varied needs of their necticut. is the first effort we are going to have constituents. Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank to make a difference in this area. After However, I think I speak for many of the Senator. years of talking about it we now have my colleagues when I say it is becom- Mr. President, let us be very clear. I a chance to do something about it. ing more and more difficult to make think we all get a sense of what is Mr. President, I am general chairman that argument to the American people. going to happen here in about 3 hours of the Democratic National Commit- Because, when the American people and 45 minutes, and that is cloture, in- tee. I just want to say, while not every- look to Washington they do not always stead of being invoked, is not going to one in my party agrees with this, that see citizen-legislators who focus their be invoked. I happen to believe this is important. full energies on tackling the problems Everyone ought to understand this. This is the one opportunity we are impacting America’s working families. This is the vote. This will be your vote going to have to make a true difference Instead, they see corporate lobbyists in this Congress on campaign finance on how we wage campaigns in this working hand-in-hand with lawmakers reform. It is going to come down to country. to turn back the clock on 25 years of this. It will get obscured so much be- I plead with our colleagues on both environmental protection. cause it is a procedural vote. But how sides of the aisle. We have never had a They see special interest lobbyists you vote on this will be determined on bipartisan proposal here before. It has with unfettered access to committee how you are judged on the issue of always been partisan. This is a chance rooms drafting legislation that fails to campaign finance reform. to go on record. This is a vote on cam- keep our workplaces safe and protect The idea that we ought to reject the paign finance reform. the food we eat. Mr. President, I rise on the floor effort to invoke cloture here because When they look to Washington, they today for what I believe is a truly his- we want to make perfect the enemy of hear politicians in positions of great toric debate. power and influence bemoaning the the good, I think is a great tragedy. I As America’s elected leaders we play think it is so transparent that anyone lack of money in our political process. a critical role as guarantors and pro- They see leaders who insist that the watching this will see right through tectors of our Nation’s democratic in- political process is starving even it—to come up and say, ‘‘I don’t like stitutions. though $724 million was consumed on this aspect or that aspect,’’ therefore And with this legislation today, we House and Senate campaigns in 1994 denying the opportunity for cloture to have a unique opportunity to fulfill alone. be invoked. As I listened to our distin- that mandate as leaders—by beginning When they look to Washington they guished colleague from Utah suggest the long and arduous process of restor- see unlimited access and influence an amendment that might have some- ing the American people’s faith in their given to the fewer than 1 percent of thing to do with whether or not orga- Government and their democracy. Americans who can, and do, give more nized labor would be able to participate The McCain-Feingold bill will not than $200 a year to political campaigns. with soft money, or that independent change the American people’s seem- And, when they look out on the cam- campaigns will not be allowable in a ingly inherent cynicism toward their paign trail they see a political process postcloture environment, it is ridicu- Government overnight. dominated by candidates with deep lous on its face. That is an ongoing process—and one pockets, instead of those with new So I want to commend our colleague that should be of paramount concern to ideas. from Arizona and our colleague from every Member of this body. Whatever one may think of Steve Wisconsin for bringing this up. I am However, by reducing the role of Forbes’ ideas on the flat tax or eco- proud to be a cosponsor of it. I have be- money in our campaign system, this nomic growth, it is doubtful that most lieved for years that we had to move legislation takes a critically important Americans would know about them if directly and aggressively in this area first step toward cleaning up our politi- he were not a multimillionaire. of campaign finance reform. cal process. Consider that in his run for the Re- Mr. President, in Connecticut, it is In my view, there are few issues we publican Presidential nomination, $16,000 a week. That is what you have in Congress consider that have as over- Forbes spent $400,000 per delegate that to raise over a 6-year period every whelming and direct an impact on the he won in the Republican primaries. week, week in and week out, if you are functioning of our democracy than the Our colleague Senator PHIL GRAMM, going to be successful in taking on or laws governing how we run campaigns spent $20 million to win 10 delegates. waging an effective campaign. in this country. For many of us, cam- For Bob Dole, his victory in the Iowa We know today—quite candidly, all paigns are often the most direct means caucuses cost him about $35 a vote. of us in this Chamber know—that the by which we, as elected representa- In fact, Presidential candidates spent respective leaders of our campaign tives, communicate with our constitu- more than $138 million by the end of committees are out recruiting affluent ents. January 1996—all before a single Amer- candidates. Go out and buy a candidate But, today those lines of communica- ican voter had stepped into the voting who is well-heeled financially, and you tions are frayed by a political process booth to cast their ballot. have a pretty good candidate, someone that rewards those with money and in- Is it any wonder the American people who can write their own checks. Why fluence, rather than working families are cynical and disenchanted with seek those kind of candidates? Why? and Americans struggling to make their elected leaders? Because you understand that it is ends meet. But, the vast sums of money needed, money. It is money that allows you to Created as a Government of the peo- for even unsuccessful runs for public ante up and to get an entry fee into the ple and for the people, our Government office, are simply out of reach of the contest. today seems to operate more for the average American. There is a woman by the name of well-connected few than the country as Eighty-five years ago, former Presi- Linda Sullivan who a few weeks ago in a whole. dent Theodore Roosevelt said ‘‘the June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6787 Representative body shall represent all bill would allow candidates to focus Let us remember that: our democ- the people rather than any one class of less time on raising money and more racy exists for the benefit of the peo- the people * * * .’’ time on tackling the issues that truly ple—and not their elected leaders. But today, not only are we becoming affect the American people. As leaders, we must not shirk our re- more responsive to one class of citi- Now, I know some of my colleagues sponsibility to do all we can to restore zens, but the reins of leadership are in- argue that this provision of the bill that sense of trust to the American creasingly available to only a select violates the 1976 ruling that political people. The McCain-Feingold bill be- few Americans. campaign spending is a form of politi- gins that process and I believe that as Throughout my more than 21 years of cal speech, and thus protected by the a body we have a solemn responsibility public service, it has been my great first amendment. to embrace this legislation. privilege to serve the people of Con- But, this legislation imposes only Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I necticut in the U.S. Congress. voluntary limits on campaign spend- yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Every time I come to the floor of this ing. No candidate would be mandated Arizona. body I am humbled by the great men to accept them. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask and women who came before me: Dan- In fact, no provision in this legisla- unanimous consent that in the event iel Webster, Henry Clay, Everett Dirk- tion would prevent a candidate from that cloture is invoked, that two sen, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Russell, spending as much money as they want- amendments be made in order and ger- and the list goes on. ed to. mane, one on the Beck decision and the But today in America, I genuinely However, if they chose to abide by other on allowing unlimited spending fear that the next generation of Clays, these voluntary limits, candidates on campaigns. Websters, Doles, and Byrds will be ex- could receive free television time, The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there cluded from a process that favors the could purchase advertisements at lower objection? privileged few. rates, and could send out mail at Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I This is not just partisan rhetoric. cheaper rates. have no objection. There are real Americans who are Additionally, the bill would tackle Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I with- being thwarted from seeking public of- the issue of millionaire candidates by draw the unanimous consent request, fice. exempting candidates from the bill’s but I want to make it clear that in the Just a few weeks ago, I read about benefits if they spend more than event that cloture is invoked, that the Linda Sullivan, president of the War- $250,000 of their own money. unanimous consent proposal made wick City Council in Rhode Island. The McCain-Feingold bill is by no would make those amendments ger- Ms. Sullivan considered seeking the means perfect. In particular, we need mane to this bill. But I withdraw the Democratic Party’s nomination for the to be sure that working people are not unanimous consent request. seat of Congressman JACK REED, who is restricted from participating in the po- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re- running for the Senate. litical process and that grass-roots and quest is withdrawn. But, she decided against it because volunteer activities are not con- Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how she simply couldn’t raise the $450,000 strained. much time remains on our side? needed to seek the nomination. However, it is an excellent place to The PRESIDING OFFICER. There And I want everyone to hear what start in reforming the means by which are 24 minutes and 23 seconds. Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the dis- she said, because it says a lot about we fund political campaigns in this tinguished Senator from Oklahoma 5 our current campaign system. country. minutes. Unfortunately, my campaign has come face Let me clear on one point: I am not The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- to face with the financial reality that gov- a Johnny-come-lately to this debate. In erns today’s politics in America. Sadly, Mr. ator from Oklahoma. 1985, I sponsored one of the first legis- Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator for and Mrs. Smith cannot go to Washington lative proposals to reform campaign fi- anymore. yielding. I do not think I will even take nance laws. that much time. I know time is very Now, I do not know Ms. Sullivan per- And as a Congressman, Senator, and precious right now. I have been listen- sonally. I do not know anything about now general chairman of the Demo- ing to the debate, and I am the first her ideas, her policy prescriptions or cratic party I have flourished within one to say I am not on any of the com- her capability as an effective legisla- the framework of the current system. tor. But, after 20 years of public service I mittees that deal with this, so it is not But, what I do know is that the ex- am more convinced than ever that the that I have been entrenched in this clusion of an entire segment of the pop- current approach to funding political issue. I agree with one thing the Sen- ulation from the political process campaigns in this country is broken ator from Connecticut said, and that is threatens to undermine the whole no- and desperately in need of reform. it is very transparent, the things that tion of participatory democracy in this Time after time, we have talked are going on around here. The Senator from Utah was very spe- country. about reform—particularly when it is cific and I think very articulate in the What is more, it fundamentally lim- an election year—but in the end we way that he addressed how this would its the choices of the American people have done nothing. We have appointed affect labor unions. It is my under- to politicians who, more and more, are commissions, we have proposed legisla- standing that even in the reporting as- incapable of understanding the prob- tion, we have ordered reports, analyses pects of soft money each local could lems of working class Americans. and studies, and yet in the end, it give up to $10,000 without even report- Aristotle once said that; ‘‘Democracy seems that it is just business as usual. arises out of the notion that those who Well today, I call on all my col- ing it. So let us assume that they re- are equal in any respect are equal in all leagues to chart a new course, to put port accurately and that someone who respects.’’ aside their partisan differences, to ig- says that a local says it is contributing But, when it comes to political cam- nore how this bill affects our reelection less than $10,000 is in fact correct. I am paigns in this country and the access chances and put first and foremost in not ready to accept that. But let us as- that working Americans have to their our deliberations the good of the Na- sume that is right. If you have a hun- lawmakers, those words ring hollow. tion. dred locals, you are talking about a Mind you there are no silver bullets Let us not forget that a Government million dollars. No one will ever know for ending the American people’s inher- that is viewed with suspicion and mis- where it came from. This is money that ent cynicism or feeling of trust by its own people cannot sustain is used very effectively in campaigns. disempowerment toward their govern- our Democratic institutions. So as far as I am concerned, one of ment. As Henry Clay, a former Member of the big areas that should be regulated But the legislation we are debating this body once said: is left out of this thing, and that is today is the foundation by which we Government is a trust, and the officers of labor unions. And then there is trial must begin this process of change. the government are trustees; and both the lawyers. I have to tell you that every First of all, by limiting overall cam- trust and the trustees are created for the time I run for office there are thou- paign spending, the McCain-Feingold benefit of the people. sand-dollar checks coming from all S6788 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 over, from trial lawyers from all over reduced rate, 50 percent of the lowest ring, and there are rules that define America because I am the one who has rate. That is for us because we are in how that combat will be conducted. on his agenda a desire that I am going Congress. We are important people. We But in the case of American politics, to fulfill to see to it we have real are supercitizens—not everybody else, vast resources affect the outcome of meaningful tort reform in this country, just us. the election. Take my State. The larg- to make us competitive again. So we The arrogance in the way we are ap- est newspaper in the State is the At- have the trial lawyers out there with proaching that, saying we are entitled lanta Constitution. It has a circulation the ability to send in, on their own to things other people are not entitled of a half a million, on Sunday 750,000, contributions of $1,000 apiece, to maybe to I find to be very offensive. and they can say anything they choose six different campaigns. Maybe there Mr. President, I conclude by saying I and meddle in every political race, and are 100 of them who are out there. All agree with the Senator from Connecti- with everybody’s acknowledgment, and you have to do is look at an FEC report cut. This is transparent. The two big- even theirs, with a very biased and and you can see that they are doing it. gest offenders, the ones who contribute fixed agenda. Let me make one comment about the most to campaigns—and I would So in seeking office a candidate who PAC’s. Everyone assumes that political categorize them as organized labor and might not agree with that agenda is action committees are something evil. trial lawyers—are not going to be in- not simply dealing with his or her op- Political action committees allow hibited in any way by this bill. ponent; they are dealing with the ex- small people to get involved, people The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- traneous factors—the media itself, the who are of low incomes to get involved ator’s time has expired. State’s largest daily newspaper. Why is in the process, and there is not any Mr. MCCONNELL. I thank my good it that this corporation, the Atlanta other way they can get involved. I have friend from Oklahoma for his impor- Constitution—it is a corporation, I been a commercial pilot for I guess 38 tant contribution to this debate. might add—is not restricted under years. I have been active in aviation. I Mr. President, how much time do I campaign finance? Why are their first believe that aviation makes a great have remaining? amendment rights protected but Ace contribution to the technology of aero- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- Hardware’s are not? They can say any- space and many other things, and con- ator has 19 minutes. thing they choose. They can put an edi- sequently I am supported by the Air- Mr. MCCONNELL. I yield 5 minutes torial in their editorial page every day craft Owners and Pilots Association, to the distinguished Senator from for a month. They can comment, as AOPA, 340,000 members. Each one puts Georgia. they do, on the fortunes of a political in about $5 and they do contribute to The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- campaign every day. To buy an ad in people who are supportive of the indus- ator from Georgia is recognized. that paper might cost, one page, try that they believe in. Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I $14,000, or a half a page $7,000. So think The NRA, they have taken a lot of thank the Senator from Kentucky for of the enormous resources that are hits recently. Who are the NRA? When his diligent and dedicated efforts to being invested in meddling or com- you sit up here, you are looking at mil- this debate for a long, long period of menting, however you want to put it, lions of dollars in Washington, but if time—probably longer than he wishes. on the outcome and fortunes of a polit- you were with me last weekend in I know it has been said many times ical race. Hugo, Cordell, Lone Grove, Sulphur, but I think everybody should see a cau- We take the candidate and draw nar- those are people who belong and they tion flag go up when the Republican row parameters around that candidate might give $5 a year because they hon- National Committee, the National Tax- in terms of how he or she can commu- estly in their hearts believe in the sec- payers Union, the National Right to nicate. ond amendment rights to the Constitu- Life Committee, the National Rifle As- Frankly, I think it is the candidate tion. I do, too. They contribute. These sociation, the American Civil liberties that should be the freest to express are not big fat cats, wealthy people. So Union, the Christian Coalition, Direct him or herself, to talk about and inter- I think to categorize PAC’s as being Marketing Assocation, National Asso- pret his or her beliefs. The idea of re- something that is evil in our society is ciation of Broadcasters, National straining that candidate’s capacity wrong. Assocation of Business PAC’s, National only enlarges the forces of those who The third thing I do not like about Education Association, the complete do not ultimately represent the peo- this legislation that is coming up, and political spectrum, all are opposed to ple—the journalists, the media. Would I will be opposing it, is the arrogance this legislation. Why? Because it is an it not be far better to let the person that is there. We have reduced postage infringement on the first amendment who is going to represent the American for us—not for you, not for anybody of the Constitution of the United people, the person who is going to rep- else but for us. Now, what happens States. It is that simple. resent the people from the good State when you reduce our postage? It is all Just moments ago I was at a hearing of Georgia, to be on equal footing with out of one fund. So other postage is where a former Presidential candidate, all these other resources? The answer going to end up going up. It is just Gov. Lamar Alexander, said it best. He to that question is yes. sheer arrogance that we should be said these efforts to regulate and re- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time treated differently than everybody strict have left labor with full con- of the Senator has expired. else. stitutional rights of the first amend- Mr. COVERDELL. I ask for 1 addi- We passed legislation, a very good ment, political parties with full con- tional minute. bill through this Chamber at the very stitutional rights of the first amend- Mr. MCCONNELL. I yield my col- first of this Congress and that was the ment, the entire media of the United league 1 minute. bill which made us live under the same States with the full rights of the first Mr. COVERDELL. I think the Gov- laws as everybody else. All of a sudden amendment, and only one category is ernor of Tennessee said it best. The people around here are looking, point- being denied their rights under the first amendment is protective for the ing fingers, saying, should we have first amendment, and who is that? It is labor movement, for the media, for spe- done that? Here we are again, coming the candidates, the candidate for Presi- cial interest groups, and one class in right on the heels of that, saying we dent, the candidate for Senate, the can- American politics has been carved out are going to give us a benefit nobody didate for Congress. The only class for for denial of first amendment rights: else has. which we restrict first amendment the candidates. That is not appro- The Senator from Massachusetts a rights, the people who will ultimately priate. minute ago stood up and said we ought represent America are the single class I yield the floor. to have more free time on TV. Who are we carve out to deny first amendment Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I those broadcasters out there? Are they rights. say to my friend from Georgia, special all fat cats? I go around Oklahoma. We Mr. President, this kind of legisla- thanks for a superb presentation. have small stations. They are going to tion envisions a very narrow sanitized I just want to make one additional give time, and if they do not give free environment, almost like a prize fight comment to follow on. The proponents time, they are going to have to give a with two contestants inside a defined of this kind of legislation have said June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6789 over the years they wanted to level the this cynicism in 1994 when just 38 per- The inordinate effort required to playing field. I would say to my friend cent of all registered voters headed to raise massive amounts of money within from Georgia, he and I compete in the the polls. the strictures of contribution limits political arena in the South. In order Voters, and not money, should deter- make fundraising a continuous and to level the playing field in my State, mine election results. The money chase time consuming condition of elections. not only would you have to get a num- has gotten out of control, and voters It is also worth keeping in mind that ber of the newspapers sold to different know that big money stifles the kind of campaign finance reform cannot work kinds of owners, you would also have competitive elections that are essen- for every American unless it also to change the voter registration and tial to our democracy. The effort to works for every candidate, including history of the State in order to create raise the money needed to run for elec- minority candidates and women. Mi- a remotely level playing field upon tion ends up making it more difficult nority and women candidates currently which a person with the disability that to make needed reforms in a whole have less access to the large sums the Senator from Georgia and I share, range of areas. This system must be re- needed to run for office today than that disability of being registered Re- formed. other candidates. That financial in- publicans, so we could compete on a The effort needed to raise the aver- equity is one of the primary reasons truly level playing field. age of $4.3 million per Senate race in both women and minorities have long In fact, even the attempt to create a the last election decreases the time been under-represented in both the level playing field is constitutionally Senators need to meet their obliga- Senate and House. The spending limits impermissible. Buckley verus Valeo ad- tions to all of their constituents. Fur- in S. 1219 are very important in ad- dressed that particular issue. So I thermore, when voters see that the av- dressing their concerns, but reform will thank my friend from Georgia for a re- erage amount contributed by PAC’s to only be truly successful if it increases markable contribution to this debate. House and Senate candidates is up opportunities for candidates from all Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Sen- from $12.5 million in 1974 to $178.8 mil- walks of life and our society. Campaign ator from Kentucky. lion in 1994—a 400-percent rise even finance reform will be counted as a The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- after factoring in inflation over that failure if the numbers of women and ator from Wisconsin has 15 minutes. period—there is a perception that law- minorities in Congress goes down, rath- Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 1 minute to makers are too reliant on special inter- er than up, under a new system. the Senator from Minnesota. ests to make public policy that serves S. 1219 attempts to level the playing The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- the national interest. More and more field for all competing candidates. It ator from Minnesota. voters believe that Members of Con- establishes a voluntary system by Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it gress only listen to these special inter- which candidates who agree to limit has been my honor to work with Sen- est contributors, while failing to listen their overall spending receive certain ator FEINGOLD and Senator MCCAIN to the very constituents who put them benefits, including 30 minutes of free from the very beginning, and Senator into office. broadcast time, television and radio THOMPSON. I spoke yesterday, so I will That is part of the reason why there time at 50 percent off of the lowest unit be very brief, less than a minute. is overwhelming public support for re- rate, and reduced postage rates. The way in which big money has form. And make no mistake, there is a If a complying candidate’s non- come to dominate politics, I believe, is real public consensus that reform is complying opponent has raised or spent the ethical issue of our time. Too few needed—now. Ordinary Americans 10 percent more than the State spend- people have way too much power and want—and deserve—Government that ing limits, then the complying can- say, and the vast majority of the peo- is responsive to their needs and prob- didate can spend 20 percent more than ple in our country are not well rep- lems. The way to do that is through the spending limit and still be in com- resented. spending limits. Spending limits will pliance with the bill. If a noncomply- The standard of a representative de- make our system more open and more ing candidate raises or spends 50 per- mocracy is that each person should competitive. Spending limits can help cent more than the spending limits, count as one and no more than one. focus elections more on the issues, in- the complying candidate’s limits in- That standard is violated every day by stead of on advertising. crease 50 percent without penalty. the way in which big money dominates Unfortunately, however, for all of its Furthermore, complying candidates politics in our country today. I say to strengths, S. 1219 does not cure all the cannot spend more than the lesser of 10 my colleagues, I have worked on gift flaws of our current campaign finance percent of their spending limit, or ban. I have worked on lobby disclosure. system. The legislation has gaps, and $250,000, from their personal funds. This is the reform vote of the 104th in some areas, it has made mistakes, When a candidate declares their inten- Congress. We are just asking for an op- mistakes that deserve the Senate’s at- tion to spend more than $250,000 of per- portunity to have the debate, move the tention before this bill becomes law. sonal funds, the $1,000 contribution bill forward, and make it better. When the Senate considered cam- limit for individuals is raised to $2,000 Mr. President, to go to a commis- paign finance reform in the 103d Con- for complying candidates, and the non- sion—I say to my colleagues, do not gress, I quoted a column by David complying candidate does not qualify look for cover, because a commission Broder. He made the point that many for any of the bill’s benefits. to study the problem is not a step for- of the reforms that resonate strongly These steps represent real progress, ward, it is a great leap backward. with the public ‘‘have a common char- but the problems here are very serious, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. Presi- acteristic: they would all increase the and need much more attention. Those dent, I rise today in support of the power of the economic and social elite who are independently wealthy have McCain-Feingold–Thompson bill, S. that most vociferously advocates them. unequal access to the political system, 1219. Although this bill is not the ideal And they might well reduce the influ- and if reform is to work, we have to do resolution of this complicated issue, it ence of the mass of voters in whose something about that. is clear that the time has come to re- name they are being urged.’’ Self-financing candidates are a rap- form the campaign finance architec- I think that we need to take Mr. idly growing phenomenon in our cur- ture. Broder’s warning to heart. We must be rent political system. In 1994, one can- Campaign finance reform is needed to sure that we don’t have a process that didate for the Senate spent a record restore the American people’s faith in only further empowers political elites setting $27 million, almost all of which the electoral process. Americans are that are already empowered. We want was his own money. And over the last frustrated; many believe that the cur- campaign finance reform that allows year, a Presidential candidate spent $30 rent system cuts them off from their candidates more time to talk to voters. million of his own money for the pri- Government. A recent League of Voters want to know that the system mary elections alone. Without work- Women Voters study found that one of works for ordinary Americans and not able spending limits that apply to the top three reasons people don’t vote just those few who can devote substan- every candidate, those who can break is the belief that their vote will not tial time and money to politics. They the limits by dipping into their own make a difference. We saw the result of deserve better than the present system. deep pockets will end up dominating S6790 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 our politics, even more than is the case ever, it is actually possible to hire peo- ter in the never ending effort to reform now. Talented, but less wealthy can- ple to collect petition signatures, so the way we finance political cam- didates will have it tougher than ever. petitioning does not necessarily dem- paigns. The trend toward a Congress comprised onstrate broad support the way it used I feel like I am driving a race car disproportionately of millionaires does to. In fact, a wealthy candidate, under around a track and no matter how long a disservice to representative democ- the current state of the law, doesn’t and how far I drive, the checkered flag racy. Such trends are a very troubling have to have any broad support at all just never seems to come down. We aspect of the loss of confidence in our to gain access to the ballot, only never seem to reach the finish line. We system. This bill does not resolve that enough money to hire enough petition are never able to finish what we start. fundamental flaw. collectors. If the important govern- And, now, today, the question before Imposing spending limits on million- ment interest the Buckley Court ac- us is whether we will even be allowed aire candidates is very difficult, given knowledged is to be protected, there- to start—whether we will even be al- the Supreme Court’s decision in the fore, some limits on the use of money lowed to debate the issue of campaign case of Buckley versus Valeo, which by wealthy candidates is required. The finance reform. used a first amendment justification to use of money by wealthy candidates I have been on this track for almost invalidate a congressional attempt to has to be brought into the bill’s re- 24 years now. One of the first things I impose limits on the amount a can- forms. did as a new Senator back in 1973 was didate can contribute to his or her own Bringing self-funded candidates com- to testify before the Senate Rules Com- campaign. However, there are things pletely under the bill’s reform um- mittee on the need for campaign fi- that Congress should consider that brella is a necessary step, but another nance reform—on the need for spending might be able to bring self-funding can- area of the bill also needs another limits and public funding of congres- didates into a campaign spending lim- look—the treatment of groups such as sional campaigns; on the need for equal its regime, or at least provide enough EMILY’s List and WISH List. EMILY’s competition based on ideas, not money, disincentives so that these candidates List and WISH List have helped bring between challengers and incumbents. will no longer profit politically by women into politics. EMILY’s List and Let me tell you, I did not make many using their own resources to finance the efforts of the women’s fundraising friends. their campaign cash flow. organizations is one of the main rea- But, I believed then—and I believe as The relevant provision of the 1971 sons there are now 33 Democratic and strongly today—that campaign finance Campaign Act that was invalidated in 16 Republican women in the House, 8 reform is the single most significant Buckley provided that a Presidential women Senators instead of just 1, and thing Congress could do. candidate could spend no more than 2 Democratic women governors. The American people have come to $50,000 out of personal resources. It is EMILY’s List has energized women; believe the system has failed. The at least possible that with a much it has given more women a way to par- American people have lost faith in more generous, though not unlimited, ticipate in our political system— their leaders and in their Government. opportunity for candidates to spend women who have never participated be- The American people feel alienated and their own money, the infringement of fore. As the New York Times noted, distant from the very people who rep- individual freedom is less severe, and ‘‘alone among fund-raising organiza- resent them. perhaps not substantial as stated by tions, EMILY’s List doles out millions There are several reasons for this. the Court in Buckley. After all, it is of dollars and then seeks nothing back But, the biggest—and probably what one thing to tell a candidate that he or from its beneficiaries. Its only mission all others boil down to—is the way we she can’t spend more than $50,000 of is to get women elected to Congress fund our elections: the influence of personal money; it is quite another to and the State houses.’’ I think that money; the influence of special inter- say he or she can’t spend more than $1 kind of activity should be encouraged, ests; the influence of everyone, it million—and that the rest must be and not limited. seems, except the average middle-class raised from small contributors in order EMILY’s List has helped open up our American. to demonstrate broad political support. system; it has showed more women A middle-class American does not If candidates were required to seek that the system can work for them. I make a $1,000 contribution. A middle- and demonstrate support from a broad think that EMILY’s List is American class American does not hire a lobbyist range of individuals—an important democracy in its purest form. EMILY’s to wander the Halls of the Capitol and component of the democratic process— List should be applauded and encour- make $5,000 campaign contributions. A the Supreme Court might see the first aged, and not terminated. middle-class American does not ask a amendment issue somewhat dif- I want to conclude, Mr. President, by Congressman to hand out campaign ferently. An appropriate analogy would returning to where I began. I think contributions on the floor of the House be the laws that require candidates to that it is long past time for Congress of Representatives. obtain a certain number of signatures to reform the campaign financing sys- No. A middle-class American walks as a requirement for access to the bal- tem. This bill goes a long way toward into the voting booth on election day, lot. In other words, the reason for this making some real changes to our cur- if he or she has not been turned off by limit would not be to equalize re- rent system. It is far from perfect, but that time, and engages in the most im- sources, but to ensure that the it is a work in progress. The bill’s flaws portant exercise in a democracy. He or amounts candidates spend have some can be corrected as we move forward she casts a ballot for a person to rep- relation to breadth of support. This through the remainder of the legisla- resent them. proposal may be at least arguably con- tive process. I am therefore voting But, when it is all said and done, sistent with Buckley, since the Court today to take the next step, to invoke many middle-class Americans feel that in that case recognized that the Gov- cloture, because the bill cannot be cor- they are not being represented. They ernment has ‘‘important interests in rected if it is not considered by the have become apathetic, cynical, and limiting places on the ballot to those Senate. And if we fail to invoke clo- distrustful. And, I’m afraid this is not candidates who demonstrate substan- ture, this bill will fail. I do not want to a whim or a passing feeling. It may be tial popular support.’’ see that happen, and neither do the wrong in reality—it may be right—but In fact, it is that statement by the American people. They expect us to act it should not be taken lightly by those Court which demonstrates the flaw in on real campaign finance reform this of us in Congress. There is a major cri- the Buckley versus Valeo decision. In year. I will cast my vote to meet that sis of confidence in the American elec- the not too distant past, a candidate expectation; I hope all of my col- torate, and it puts at risk everything had to have the endorsement of a polit- leagues will do likewise and that this else we attempt to do. That is why I ical party, or have his or her own Senate will meet its duty to the Amer- believe campaign finance reform is the strong, grass roots organization in ican people to change campaign fi- crucial issue of our time. order to have the large number of peo- nance. So, Mr. President, our mission is ple it takes to gather sufficient peti- Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, here we clear. We must restore integrity and tions to be put on the ballot. Now, how- go again, Mr. President. Another chap- confidence in the political process. June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6791 And, to do that, we must have com- of Illinois who, like me, were elected to campaigns they say we need to run to prehensive campaign finance reform. make changes in the political system. win are bleeding the life out of our po- Unfortunately, today, we are not We have a very narrow window of op- litical system. Every time we go even voting on a campaign finance re- portunity today. It is narrow because through an election with expensive, form bill. This is a vote on whether we we have only a few months left in this negative campaigns, we pay a severe will be allowed to vote on the bill. And, Congress, and we have a lot of work to price in voter participation and citizen you wonder why the American people do. It is an opportunity because it is a apathy. are so sick of this system. bipartisan bill, free of taint, and Add up election, after election, after The special interests have circled the maybe—just maybe—capable of restor- election in the modern political era, wagons. They are on the warpath to ing some faith to the people. In light of and elected officials are facing a huge kill campaign finance reform. this, it is critical that we move quick- bill for accountability they may not be So, I implore my colleagues: stand ly. able to pay. I fear that once lost, citi- today with the American people. Let us I urge my colleagues to stop, look, zens may never re-engage in their take up this bill—the first bipartisan and listen. Listen to people at the cof- democratic system. campaign finance reform bill in nearly fee shops. Talk to friends, to family During this debate, I have heard Sen- a generation. Let us debate the issue. members. Walk through a neighbor- ators take issue with certain provi- And, let us decide the issue on the mer- hood. A basic, fundamental lack of sions in S. 1219. I have heard colleagues its, not on inside-the-beltway maneu- faith in Government lays at the root of question the constitutionality of vering. peoples’ concerns about the future. spending limits. I have heard them The American people demand no less. Until something dramatic happens to make the case that this bill takes the Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this address public confidence in the politi- wrong approach. I have heard them past February, over 4 months ago, I cal system, we can expect the gap be- argue for reform, but not this way. took the Senate floor to announce my tween the people and their Government Mr. President, these arguments miss cosponsorship of S. 1219. As I spoke to widen. the point entirely. The upcoming vote about how unique this bill is—one of There is nothing I can think of that is not about whether you agree with the only truly bipartisan attempts to would be worse for this country; for every provision of S. 1219. It is about reform campaign laws in two decades— alienation breeds apathy, and apathy whether this Senate is willing to step I could not help thinking to myself, erodes accountability. America is the up and pass campaign reform legisla- ‘‘here we go again.’’ greatest democracy the world has ever tion this year. I have only been a Senator for a little known, and it was built on the prin- I myself am not completely satisfied over 3 years. In Senate terms, that is ciple of accountability: government of with S. 1219. The McCain-Feingold bill not very long. But I have been here the people, by the people, for the peo- is very broad, and does something long enough to see campaign finance ple. We simply must restore peoples’ about nearly every aspect of the sys- reform come up, and be killed. In the faith in their Government. tem: It restricts political action com- 103d Congress, shortly after the 1992 At the core of the problem is money mittee contributions; it imposes vol- elections, I proudly cosponsored cam- in politics. Right now the system is de- untary spending limits; it provides dis- paign reform legislation. I was eager to signed to favor the rich, at the expense counted access to broadcast media for answer the voters’ hopes for cleaner, of the middle class. It benefits the in- advertising; it provides reduced rates more thoughtful politics. cumbents, at the expense of chal- for postage; it prohibits taxpayer-fi- I watched colleagues come to the lengers. And most of all, it fuels the nanced mass mailings on behalf of in- floor, proclaim the need for reforms, special interest, inside-the-beltway cumbents during an election year; it and declare their support for good leg- machine at the expense of the average discourages negative advertising; it islation. The Senate passed that bill, S. person back home. 3, and sent it to the House. A short The average person feels like they tightens restrictions on independent time later, I saw it killed amidst par- can no longer make a difference in this expenditures; and it reforms the proc- tisan bickering, despite the mad system. Earlier this year, my campaign ess of soft money contributions made scramble of Senators wanting to be received a $15 donation from a woman through political parties. seen as leading the charge for reforms. in Washington State. She included a Mr. President, these are very strong, In the end, nothing was accom- note to me that said, ‘‘Senator MUR- positive steps, especially the ones ad- plished, and here we are today living RAY, please make sure my $15 has as dressing independent expenditures. under the same campaign system that much impact as people who give thou- Over the past few years, through the has created so much cynicism and mis- sands.’’ so-called Gingrich Revolution, we have trust among the voters. She knows what she is up against, seen an explosion of campaign spending So when I endorsed S. 1219, I thought but she is still willing to make the ef- by special interest groups, many from ‘‘here we go again’’ because I was em- fort. Unfortunately, people like her are Washington, DC, attempting to swing barking on my second attempt to re- fewer and farther between, and less elections in their own favor. These ex- form campaign laws. But this time, in- willing than ever to try to make a dif- penditures are ideologically driven, stead of thinking we could simply pass ference. often highly partisan, and serve only to a bill and send it to the White House, We see her problem when people like manipulate voters in the most sinister I knew we had our work cut out for us. Ross Perot or Steve Forbes are able to way. They corrupt our elections. They Now it is June, and the 104th Con- use personal wealth to buy their way are not disclosed, so we do not know gress will adjourn in a few months. into the national spotlight. Ninety- who makes them, and they violate the While we are only now taking up cam- nine percent of the people in America spirit of every disclosure requirement paign reform, I am still encouraged. could never even imagine making that in law today. For the first time in a long time, the kind of splash in politics. Should we If enacted as a package, all the steps Senate is considering a truly biparti- rely only on the benevolence of a few I just mentioned would make our sys- san bill. It has not been drafted by one wealthy individuals to ensure strong tem of electing Federal officials more party or another to give themselves a democracy in this country? I don’t open, competitive, and fair. I feel leg up. think that is what the Founding Fa- strongly that we must take such steps It has been drafted by a Republican thers had in mind. to re-invigorate peoples’ interest in the and a Democrat, JOHN MCCAIN and The political consultants will say electoral process, and in turn to re- RUSS FEINGOLD, because they know negative ads work, because they, store their confidence in the system. that until the two parties come to- quote, ‘‘move the numbers.’’ They will There are some provisions in S. 1219 gether and focus on common sense re- say we need to raise millions of dollars that could be problematic, however. forms we can all agree on, nothing will because that is what it takes to get a For example, the bill would require 60 get done. It is supported by thoughtful message out. percent of a candidates’ donors to re- new Senators like FRED THOMPSON of But that ignores the reality in Main side within his or her State. This Tennessee and CAROL MOSELEY-BRAUN Street America every day. The very might work fine for someone from New S6792 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 York or California. However, it could an opportunity right now, today, to they believe that only the wealthy can put small-state candidates at a real show the voters something. We can put serve in Congress and that we are en- disadvantage, particularly if their op- pressure on the other body to act on gaged in an endless pursuit of special ponent is independently wealthy. similar legislation. We can actually interest money. While this is not true I also question the ban on PAC’s. move reform efforts forward in a credi- in all cases, I am very concerned that Under the right regulations, I believe ble way, and get something done this if we do not reform the current system PAC’s have a legitimate role in the year. soon, the fears of average Americans process, for two reasons. First, PAC’s A citizen from New Hampshire, will become real. are fully disclosed, and subject to Frank McConnell, made a good case Mr. President, we need to change the strict contribution limits. That means just the other day. He came to Wash- system and I believe that the bill of- we have a very detailed paper trail ington to push this bill, and he said if fered by Senators MCCAIN and from donor to candidate for everyone Congress wanted to, if it really wanted FEINGOLD offers us a chance to regain to see. Second, they give a voice to in- to, it could do the work and have a bill the confidence of those who sent us dividual citizens like women and work- to the President’s desk in a couple here. ers and teachers who, if not organized weeks. If cloture is invoked tomorrow, I in- as a group, might not be able to make We know the President would sign it, tend to offer two amendments to this a difference in the process. because he said so in his State of the legislation. These amendments are A serious question about PAC’s re- Union Address earlier this year. Frank contained in legislation I offered ear- mains, however: do they unfairly bene- McConnell was right: if we want to, we lier this year with my friends and col- fit incumbents at the expense of chal- can just do it. Here we are again. We leagues Senator PELL and Senator lengers? This is a legitimate question, are considering campaign reform legis- CAMPBELL, S. 1723. and one I think we should focus on lation. There is not much time left. I The first amendment requires that if closely in this debate. thank the two sponsors of this bill, a qualified candidate for Federal office Finally, I am deeply concerned about Senator MCCAIN and Senator FEINGOLD, references his or her opponent in a TV how this bill would effect organized and I urge my colleagues to step up and advertisement they must do so them- fundraising by third party groups that support the motion to invoke cloture. selves if they want to take advantage do not even lobby Congress. Groups Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise of the lowest unit-rate charge provided like EMILY’s List and WISH List sup- today to speak briefly on S. 1219, the to candidates for Federal office under port pro-choice women candidates of Campaign Finance Reform Act and to the Communications Act of 1934. If the both parties, though they do not actu- discuss two amendments I intend to candidate voluntarily chooses not to ally lobby Congress on legislation. offer to the bill if the Senate invokes make the reference herself, or himself, They give people of modest means cloture on the bill tomorrow. the candidate would not be eligible for like me an opportunity to compete on As a cosponsor of S. 1219, I am the lowest unit rate for the remainder the electoral playing field. For too pleased to join with my friend and col- of the 45-day period preceding the date long, this field has been dominated league from Arizona, Senator MCCAIN, of a primary or primary runoff election only by wealthy, well financed can- and my friend and colleague from Wis- or during the 60 days preceding the didates, establishment candidates, or consin, Senator FEINGOLD, in support- date of a general or special election. incumbents. In my 1992 campaign I was ing this legislation. I want to commend The candidate would, of course, con- out-spent nearly three-to-one. Without Senators MCCAIN and FEINGOLD for tinue to have access to the broadcast the support of groups like this, I would their efforts in bringing this measure station and would be able to air what- not have even been able to make the to the Senate for its consideration. ever advertisement they wish, but they race. They have been tireless champions of would not be eligible for the special By banning these groups, S. 1219 the need to reform our campaign fi- benefit that Congress has provided would send a signal to people every- nance system and I am encouraged by under the Communications Act. where: do not even think about playing the way they have worked together to The second amendment requires that this game unless you can afford the develop a bipartisan approach to a broadcasters who allow an individual price of admission. problem that has escaped solution for or group to air advertisements in sup- However, as I said a moment ago, so many years. port of, or in opposition to, a particu- this vote is not about every little de- As my colleagues know, 2 years ago I lar candidate for Federal office, allow tail. Let us remember something: this completed an expensive and negative the candidate in the case where a can- whole debate—arguments for and campaign. The only positive thing that didate is attacked, the same amount of against—comes against the backdrop of I brought from that experience was the time on the broadcast station during a campaign finance system that has time I was able to spend listening to the same period of the day. not been reformed since Watergate, the concerns of New Mexicans and Mr. President, these are not new con- over 20 years ago. Public faith in gov- traveling around the State. cepts. In the 99th Congress, Senator ernment today has sunk below what it Unquestionably, one of the most sig- Danforth offered a bill to require a was in 1974. So in spite of my personal nificant recollections I have of the broadcast station that allowed a can- concerns, I will vote to invoke cloture campaign is the enormous amount of didate to present an advertisement on the McCain-Feingold bill. And after money that I was forced to raise and that referred to her opponent without cloture is invoked, I will support spend to defend against a wealthy op- presenting the ad herself, to provide amendments that address the issues I ponent who attacked early and contin- free rebuttal time to the other can- have raised. ued with a negative campaign until the didate. Since then, other variations of Right now, we need to move forward. votes were counted. what has become known as talking People in this country want to feel That is one of the reasons why I sup- heads legislation have been incor- ownership over their elections; they port S. 1219 and why I have supported porated in overall campaign finance re- want to feel like they, as individuals, every serious attempt to fix our cam- form bills and introduced as free stand- have a role to play and can make a paign finance system. Clearly, Mr. ing bills. positive difference. Right now, for bet- President, the system is broke and In a little over a month, both na- ter or worse, not many people feel that anyone who thinks otherwise simply tional parties will be holding their con- way, and the trend is going the wrong has not looked at the facts. More and ventions. After that the race will be direction. Real campaign reform will more of our time is spent raising on, not only for the White House but be the strongest, easiest step this Sen- money, special interest groups have also for 435 House seats and 33 Senate ate could take to begin restoring peo- too much influence at the expense of seats and untold number of State and ples’ faith in the process. the individual American, and, most im- local elections. I can say in all honesty Set aside the legalistic, technical ar- portant, the American people have lost that I do not envy my colleagues here guments for a moment. Get out from confidence in their elected officials be- in the Senate, whether they are Repub- behind all the procedural maneuvering. cause they no longer believe that we lican or Democrat, because I now that Put aside partisan leanings. We have have time to listen to them. Instead they will soon be subjected to the same June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6793 type of negative attacks ads that I had First, we should insist on full disclo- Second, limits on campaign spending to face in my last election. Many of sure of all campaign spending, by can- would overwhelmingly benefit incum- these ads will contain misrepresenta- didates, parties and nonparties alike. bents. Congressional spending limits tions, distortions, and outright Currently, many special interest are subject to manipulation that sets untruths. A voice will appear on the groups have a huge impact on elections the spending threshold just below the television but it will not be the can- yet are not required to and don’t dis- amount that the challenger must spend didate’s. Perhaps an image will appear close anything about their political to have a legitimate shot at defeating but it will not be the candidate’s ei- spending. Full and fair disclosure will the incumbent. In testimony before the ther. Instead, the candidate will be hid- let the voters weigh the relative influ- Senate Committee on Rules and Ad- ing behind the message and that mes- ence of all who participate in the proc- ministration, Capital University law sage will undoubtedly be negative. ess. professor, Bradley A. Smith, said that Mr. President, I am told that public Second, we should place PAC’s and in the 1994 Senate elections, the suc- opinion polls show that politicians are individuals on an even footing by in- cessful challengers spent more than held in only slightly higher esteem creasing the individual contribution would be allowed under the legislation than lawyers and journalists. While limit to $5,000 and indexing it for infla- currently being debated by this body, that may be true, I know that my col- tion. This will reduce both the influ- S. 1219. Thus, the spending limits pro- leagues, regardless of their political af- ence of PAC’s and the amount of time posed in S. 1219 would have worked to filiation, are honorable men and elected officials must spend fundrais- the incumbent’s advantage in each women who care about their respective ing; case. Overall, every 1994 Senate chal- Third, we should ban the use of States and our Nation. They are also lenger who spent less than the ceiling franked mass mailings by incumbents courageous. It is not easy putting your set in S. 1219 lost; every incumbent in the calendar year of an election—al- reputation and privacy on the line to who spent less than that ceiling won. run for public office at any level. Un- though I would ban them completely; Finally, spending limits reduce the and fortunately, the negative perception ability of campaigns to speak directly Fourth, we should require candidates persists. I believe that one of the rea- to the voters, without the filter of the sons for that is the trend in today’s to raise a stated percentage, for exam- ple 60 percent, of their individual con- media. The news media does play a campaigns to attack, attack, and at- critical role in the election process, tack, to go negative early and stay tributions from people residing within their home States. but further increasing their control negative until the votes are counted. over the flow of political information As Senator Danforth noted, legislation The first amendment is the starting point for any discussion of campaign fi- is not positive reform. requiring the candidate himself to Similarly, a limitation on contribu- present ads that reference his opponent nance reform. It ensures that, among other things, citizens can participate tions, like spending limits, is inher- would serve the purpose, ‘‘to open up ently biased in favor of incumbents. In- speech, open up the ability to respond, in politics through publicly disclosed contributions to the campaigns of their cumbents with high name recognition the ability to defend oneself. In the and existing voter data bases are able case of a candidate making a negative own choosing. It also permits citizens to spend their own hard-earned dollars, to raise necessary campaign dollars, in attack, we try to improve the sense of small amounts, with far more ease responsibility and accountability by independent of any candidate, to influ- ence elections via letters to the editors than no-name challengers. Therefore, making it clear that the candidate who challengers must look to a small num- makes the attack should appear with of their local papers, pamphlets, and even television, radio, and newspaper ber of large contributors to launch a his own face, with his own voice.’’ campaign. This initial seed capital is I believe that the amendment I am advertisements. This is a precious essential for challengers to get their discussing today, just like the legisla- right to Americans. It sets us apart name and message out to the voters. tion by Senators MCCAIN and from many other countries. The limits on contributions imposed by FEINGOLD, will begin the process of re- Many, however, believe that we spend the 1974 amendments to the FECA have storing the confidence of the American too much money on this first amend- limited the ability of challengers to people in public service as an honor- ment right. Yet, given the importance of such speech, it is surprising to find raise seed capital. able endeavor and in the election proc- I believe that further restrictions on ess as one where ideas and platforms, that in the 1994 House and Senate contributions will force candidates to not the candidate’s personalities, are races, said to be among the most ex- spend more time fundraising and less debated. pensive ever, we spent roughly $3.74 per Mr. President, I would again like to eligible voter. According to columnist time meeting voters and discussing the commend my colleagues Senators George Will, this is about half as much issues. Contribution limits are a sig- nificant cause of the drain that fund- MCCAIN and FEINGOLD for their com- as Americans spend annually on yo- mitment to bringing this legislation to gurt. raising has become on a candidate’s the floor of the Senate and I hope that Simply put, Mr. President, the time. Instead, I favor placing PAC’s we will all vote tomorrow to allow de- amount of money spent in campaigns and individuals on an even footing. The bate and votes on amendments and the should not be the focus of our debate— existing $1,000 limit placed on individ- underlying legislation. The American that is not the problem. Let a well-in- uals should be raised to $5,000—the people deserve nothing less. formed public, not a Federal bureau- same level as PAC’s—and indexed for Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to crat, decide whether a candidate has inflation. The $1,000 contribution limit discuss the important issue of cam- spent too much in a campaign or has established by FECA in 1974, had it paign finance reform. I applaud the ef- accepted too much from a particular kept pace with inflation, would be forts of my colleagues on both sides of source. I believe there are significant worth approximately $3,000 today. the aisle for bringing this issue to the negative consequences to current ef- Raising the individual contribution forefront of our public policy debate. forts to reduce campaign spending. limit will help level the playing field The sole objective of any serious First, significant restrictions on the between challengers and incumbents. It campaign finance reform must be to amount of money that can be spent by will put individuals on an even par open up the political process—to make a candidate will reduce the amount of with PAC’s, reduce the time candidates it easier for more Americans to get in- information available to voters. Less need to spend raising campaign funds, volved, to have more competitive information means a less-informed and reduce the emphasis on a can- races, to increase the free exchange of electorate. That is the opposite of what didate’s personal wealth. ideas and debate, and to make our elec- we want to accomplish. More impor- Yesterday and today, I’ve heard the tions more reflective of the will of the tantly, spending limits on candidates arguments concerning other aspects of people. will merely increase the influence and the current legislation before us, name- To that end, I strongly support the power of special interests because they ly provisions that mandate free air following steps and believe they are a are not subject to spending limits and time and greatly reduced postage rates sound foundation for campaign finance aren’t required to disclose their elec- to candidates. I am opposed to those reform: tion financing efforts. provisions, however good intentioned S6794 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 they are, because they would place a nance reform, and I urge my colleagues step further—and instituted a tougher greater burden for funding Federal to do likewise. than required gift ban—months before campaigns on the backs of American Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in the Congress voted. taxpayers. support of the important campaign fi- Second, we passed a comprehensive Proposals to force American busi- nance reform legislation that is before lobbying disclosure bill—eliminating nesses to give away their products free us today. the cloak of secrecy which lobbyists of charge are misplaced and run I support this legislation because I once operated under, by requiring counter to a free-market society. Ac- believe it represents the right kind of greater disclosure of lobbying activi- cordingly, I oppose attempts to man- change. While not a perfect solution, it ties by both the individuals conducting date that private broadcasters be will help put our political process back and contracting the lobbying. forced to give free air time to can- where it belongs: with the people. And Now it is time for us to take the real didates. Similarly, allowing deep dis- it will take power away from the step to win-back the public trust—it is counts in postal rates is merely a sub- wealthy special interests that all too time for us to pass a tough, fair, and sidy paid for by the general taxpayers. often call the shots in our political sys- comprehensive campaign finance re- These are not sound reforms. tem. form bill. That bill must accomplish As I mentioned earlier, strong cam- Yet, ironically, by failing to act; by three things. First, it must be strong paign finance reform should also man- failing to pass this legislation; we will enough to encourage the majority if date the complete and full disclosure of also be opening the door to change— not all candidates for Federal office to all funds that unions and other special the wrong kind of change. Our political participate. Second, it must contain interest groups spend for political ac- system will continue to drift in the the spiraling cost of campaign spending tivity. This is a critical point. We can- dangerous direction of special interest. in this country. Finally, and most im- not outlaw special interest money, but Over the years since 1971, when Con- portantly, it must control the increas- the potential penalties for accepting it gress last enacted campaign finance re- ing amounts of undisclosed and unre- can be raised via the court of public form, special interest groups support- ported soft-money that is polluting our opinion. ing both political parties have found electoral system. We are all aware of the current mul- creative new ways, some of question- REFORM MUST REDUCE COSTS OF CAMPAIGNS timillion dollar effort by organized able legality, to get around the intent Under the current campaign system, labor to spend upward of $35 million to of our campaign finance laws. Things the average cost of running for a Sen- try and buy back control of the House like soft money, independent expendi- ate seat in this country is $4 million. for the Democrats. They are getting tures, and political action committees In 1994, nearly $35 million was spent be- the money for this massive, partisan all came about as a consequence of tween two general election candidates campaign through compulsory union very well-intended attempts at cam- in California. And nearly $27 million dues, even though 40 percent of their paign finance reform. was spent in the Virginia Senate race. membership voted for Republicans in NEED FOR REFORM There are some in Congress, I believe 1994. This is an arcane subject, but it hits House Speaker NEWT GINGRICH is one, No union member should be forced to home. One of the benefits to walking who say we do not spend enough on make compulsory campaign contribu- across Montana, in addition to the campaigns in this country. tions to support any candidate or issue beautiful scenery, is that I hear what When a candidate is faced with the unless they freely choose to do so. That real people in Montana think. Average daunting task of raising $12,000 a is the foundation for our constitutional folks who do not get paid to fly to week—every week—for 6 years to meet form of government and the first Washington and tell elected officials the cost of an average campaign, quali- amendment freedoms we enjoy as citi- what they think. Folks who work hard, fied people will be driven away from zens. To be forced, as a condition of play by the rules, and are still strug- the process. If we allow ideas to take a employment to do otherwise, is wrong. gling to get by. back seat to a candidate’s ability to As unfair as this is to union mem- People are becoming more and more raise money—surely our democracy is bers, it is even more poisonous to our cynical about government. Over and in danger. political process. There is no disclosure over, people tell me they think that Let me be clear—my first choice or reporting of the sources or the ex- Congress cares more about fat cat spe- would simply be to control campaign penditures paying for these activities. cial interests in Washington than the costs by enacting campaign spending Under current law, the unions are not concerns of middle class families like limits. However, the Supreme Court, in required to file and do not file any dis- theirs, or that Congress is corrupt. Buckley versus Valeo, made what I be- closure to report these political ex- EFFECT ON THE MIDDLE CLASS lieve was a critical mistake—they penditures. This should be changed. Middle-class families are working equated money with free speech—pre- In closing, I would like to quote a longer and harder for less. They have venting Congress from setting reason- section of the 1976 decision by the Su- seen jobs go overseas. Health care ex- able State-by-State spending limits preme Court in the Buckley versus penses rise. The possibility of a college that everyone would have to abide by. Valeo decision: education for their kids diminished. I have voted several times to over- In the free society ordained by our Con- Their hope for a secure retirement turn the Buckley decision and allow stitution it is not the government, but the evaporate. Today, many believe that to Congress to set limits that everyone people—individually as citizens and can- make the American dream a reality, would have to obey. didates and collectively as associations and you have to be born rich or win the lot- WHAT’S RIGHT WITH THE BILL political committees—who must retain con- tery. Part of restoring that dream is While I must admit this bill is not trol over the quantity and range of debate on restoring confidence that the political perfect, compromise never is, it will do public issues in a political campaign. system works on their behalf, not just several crucial things to reign in cam- Our system is not perfect, and we do on behalf of wealthy special interests. paign spending. First is, that it is the need meaningful campaign finance re- I believe that this Congress has first bipartisan approach to campaign form. But, placing artificial limits on taken some small but important steps finance reform in more than a decade. spending sends the opposite message of in that direction: Second, the bill establishes a system what we should be saying. We should First, we passed a tough, fair gift ban that does not rely on taxpayers dollars not drive spending control away from to ensure that special interests are not to work effectively. candidates and parties and to special out wining and dining Members of Con- The bill encourages campaigns to ac- interests. We should not enact reforms gress and executive branch officials. cept a voluntary spending limit in ex- that will result in less information to Helping to reassure folks that individ- change for free and reduced cost access the public. We should open up the sys- uals in Government, whether you agree to television advertising, and postal tem to allow for maximum dissemina- with their policies or not, are acting in rates. tion of information and maximum ex- what they sincerely believe is the Last, the bill bans both PAC con- change of ideas and debate. I intend to country’s best interest. I am proud to tributions, and indirect soft-money work toward this type of campaign fi- say that my office has taken this one campaign spending, while at the same June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6795 time increasing disclosure and ac- Second, the abolition of PAC’s as we much money campaigns can spend. countability in political advertising. know them; Such proposals raise serious constitu- Every election year, in addition to Third, the creation of a strong dis- tional questions. In the case of Buckley the millions of dollars in disclosed con- incentive to super-wealthy candidates versus Valeo, the U.S. Supreme Court tributions, there are the hundreds of throwing masses of family money into held that it is unconstitutional for millions in unreported, undisclosed a campaign; Congress to limit the ability of individ- contributions spent by independent ex- Fourth, the elimination of ‘‘soft- ual candidates to spend their own penditure campaigns and issue advo- money:’’ contributions to political par- money to finance their own political cacy funded by soft-money contribu- ties for activities such as voter reg- campaigns. How is it fair, then, for tions to national political parties. istration drives and political advertis- Congress to limit the ability of can- Where out-of-State special interest ing which indirectly—but inten- didates who are not wealthy to raise groups can spend any amount of money tionally—help one particular can- campaign money? If wealthy can- they choose, none of which is disclosed, didate; didates can spend all of the money that all in the name of educating voters— I am pleased to see that this year’s they want while candidates of modest when, in fact, their only purpose is to legislation includes campaign finance means cannot, then we will soon have a influence the outcome of an election. reform ideas I initiated many years Congress made up almost exclusively More times than not the seesawing 30- ago, specifically, a limitation on the of wealthy individuals. second sound bites do more to confuse amount of personal or family funds a Still another approach is that which than to educate. wealthy candidate may contribute to is embodied by S. 1219. Under the This lack of accountability is dan- his or her own race; and a limitation McCain-Feingold bill, voluntary cam- gerous to our democracy. These inde- on the acceptance of out-of-State con- paign spending limits would be adopted pendent expenditure campaigns can say tributions. and candidates who complied with Unfortunately, this year’s legislation whatever they wish for or against a those limits would be provided with also includes deeply problematic provi- candidate, and there is little that can- free and-or sharply reduced rates of ad- didate can do—short of spending an sions. These provisions, so called vol- vertising by the news media. I do not equal or greater amount of money to untary restrictions on spending, are favor this approach because I do not refute what are often gross distortions based on the premise that spending think that Congress should compel pri- and character assasinations. caps are the solution to the problems However, as I said earlier, the bill is with our campaign system. vate entities to offer their services at not perfect. As currently written, it The taxpayers will end up helping fi- below-market rates. Therefore, I sim- fails to address critical issues in cam- nance these campaigns because by ac- ply cannot support this bill. The McCain-Feingold bill, as well as paign reform. cepting spending caps under this bill, others, also proposes the elimination of WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS BILL candidates would receive steep dis- political action committees [PAC’s]. I I am concerned that this bill forces counts from the Federal Government have voted for this reform in the past. an unfunded mandate on television in postal rates, as well as from tele- I believe that the best way to reform broadcasters by requiring them to do- vision and radio broadcasters for adver- our system of campaign finance is to nate up to 30 minutes of free prime tising time. In addition, once can- find ways in which to encourage more time advertising air time to each can- didates exceed voluntary spending lim- participation by small donors. I am didate who abides with the limits in its, the Federal Election Commission proud to say that in my political cam- the bill. While I believe this free and [FEC] would raise the contribution paigns over the years, I have been sup- reduced cost air time is critical to en- limits for the opponents of these can- ported by many thousands of small couraging campaigns to accept spend- didates. contributors. ing limits, I don’t believe that broad- These spending caps threaten first I also strongly support the current casters should be forced to bear the en- amendment free speech rights. More- system under which congressional cam- tire burden. over, these voluntary spending limits I’m pleased that the sponsors have create burdensome new regulatory re- paigns must disclose the sources and included language to provide broad- sponsibilities and powers for the FEC. amounts of financial contributions casters with an exemption in the case If enacted, the legislation before us from all entities—large and small. I be- of economic hardship, however, it is today will create a quagmire of regula- lieve that the public has a right to this my belief that we should do more. tions making Federal campaigns even information. Last, but perhaps most importantly, more dependent upon professional cam- I believe that a responsible and this bill does not contain the strong paign strategists and lawyers, and less meaningful package of campaign fi- enough enforcement provisions that dependent upon, and more distant nance reform legislation can and are critical to ensure that individuals from, our constituents. should be developed and passed by the who promise to abide by the spending For these reasons, while I firmly be- Congress. I support that effort. limits don’t dump large sums of money lieve that we need campaign finance Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise into the campaign weeks or even days reform, I cannot support today’s pro- today to express my concerns regard- before the election. posed legislation in its current form. ing S. 1219, the Campaign Finance Re- Since 1985 I have fought to limit the Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in form Act of 1996, and to explain my spiraling cost of Federal elections in opposition to S. 1219, the Senate Cam- vote against the cloture petition. this country by cosponsoring five dif- paign Finance Reform Act of 1996. Let me begin by stating that I sup- ferent campaign finance reform propos- There are several major campaign fi- port campaign finance reform. How- als, as well as supporting efforts to nance proposals that are now being ever, the reform we need is not to be amend the Constitution to allow the considered by the Congress. I am found in S. 1219. In my view, the big- Congress to set reasonable spending pleased to offer my views on each of gest problem with the way our political limits. them. campaigns are financed is that it gives I remain committed to this cause and The most far-reaching campaign fi- rise to the perception that special in- will do everything in my power to en- nance reform proposals involve the tax- terest donations are dominating the sure that the Congress passes meaning- payer financing of congressional cam- political agenda. Indeed, many Ameri- ful campaign finance reform, this year. paigns. I do not favor that approach. I cans believe that special interest Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, those do not think that liberal Democratic money is the source of great corruption who follow campaign finance reform taxpayers should be forced to finance in our political campaign system. are well aware of my thoughts on this my political campaigns any more than While we should try to address this issue. I have long advocated four very conservative Republican taxpayers problem statutorily, I feel it is unnec- straightforward and specific changes in should be forced to finance the cam- essary to wait for legislation before reforms in campaign finance law: paigns of liberal Democratic politi- those of us concerned act. To that end, First, a flat-out prohibition on House cians. when I ran for the Senate in Michigan and Senate candidates raising money Other campaign finance proposals in 1994, I personally imposed my own outside their home State; have sought to place limits on how limits on the amounts I would accept S6796 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 from both out-of-State sources and po- communicate with the voters. For pect of this enhanced federal power had driv- litical action committees, and they these reasons, I have voted against clo- en groups as disparate as the American Civil were as strong or stronger than those ture and look forward to advancing my Liberties Union and the American Nurses’ Association to oppose the bill. in S. 1219. I lived up to that pledge and own legislation in the future. The desire to police politics better by mak- still won my seat. Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I ing the federal government a meaner watch- Now I recognize that not everyone have just been handed two very timely dog with a longer leash is based on flawed will disarm unilaterally, so I do believe additions to this debate: an editorial in premises. The first is that the influence of we must seek to achieve a similar out- today’s Wall Street Journal entitled money in politics is excessive and out of con- come legislatively. Unfortunately, S. ‘‘Muzzling Campaign Speech’’ and a trol. In fact, House and Senate races, which 1219 is overly broad and, if anything, letter dated today from the American unlike Presidential races don’t rely partly likely to tilt the field even further in Civil Liberties Union noting in some on public financing, saw about $700 million the direction of special interest influ- spent on them in 1994. As George Will has detail their many objections to the pointed out, that’s about half of what Ameri- ence. McCain-Feingold bill. cans spend on yogurt every year. In my view the central question we I would note for the benefit of those What is excessive in politics is not the must address in reforming campaign fi- who persist in mischaracterizing the money spent, but the amount of political nancing is ‘‘whose voice shall be heard proposed spending limits as ‘‘vol- power that government in our time has to di- during the campaign?’’ The proposals untary’’ that the first point in the rect economic outcomes and regulate behav- set forth in S. 1219 would have the iron- ACLU letter is the emphatic assertion ior. Given that Congress can either put ic effect of limiting the speech of the that they, in fact, are not. The bill whole industries at risk or hand them a sub- candidate while expanding the speech sidized bonanza, what’s surprising is that would severely handicap a noncomply- more money isn’t spent trying to influence of the special interest groups. The pro- ing candidate relative to a complying the people running for Congress. The reform- posed legislation would encourage can- candidate so there really would be no ers, especially inside the Beltway, give the didates to abide by certain expenditure choice other than to comply. At this clear impression that the government is so limits, thereby restricting their ability point, I ask unanimous consent that indisputably virtuous in its every mandate to communicate with the voters. Con- the ACLU letter and the Wall Street that private parties should bow before it, versely, the legislation does little to Journal article be printed in the rather than spend money to defend them- selves, an effort almost always seen by the curb the ability of special interest RECORD. For the benefit of colleagues groups to spend their money independ- Beltway as the work of non-virtuous ‘‘special who have not yet read the editorial I interests.’’ ently of any restrictions. This allows would note that the closing sentence The second mistaken premise behind cam- interest groups to define the central is- captures the essence of the bill before paign reform is that the country is clamor- sues of the campaign. It forces can- us today: ‘‘The Senate should vote ing for it. We’re told, for instance, that 1992 didates to follow the lead of these in- down the McCain-Feingold bill before Perot voters will have the heads of elected terest groups, preventing the voters it does to American democracy what officials on a platter if they don’t crack from hearing directly from the can- Clinton-Care would have done to medi- down on campaign cash. But there is little didates and judging for themselves evidence of that. A Tarrance Group survey in cine.’’ April found that just one voter out of a thou- which candidate has the proper posi- There being no objection, the mate- sand identifies campaign reform as the coun- tions and the proper priorities. rial was ordered to be printed in the try’s most pressing problem. Voters are jus- I believe that the solution begins RECORD, as follows: tifiably skeptical of political reforms pro- with limiting the amount of out-of- [From the Wall Street Journal, June 25, 1996] posed by incumbent politicians. State/district contributions and PAC This is not to say that nothing can be MUZZLING CAMPAIGN SPEECH donations as I did in my own campaign. done. We are attracted by the realistic ideas Some 20 years after Congress first re- of Larry Sabato and Glenn Simpson in their By limiting out-of-State/district con- stricted campaign speech, the Senate will tributions we can address the percep- new book ‘‘Dirty Little Secrets.’’ They con- vote today on a campaign finance proposal clude that individual limits on campaign tion that House and Senate Members that suggests the way to correct the prob- contributions, which haven’t been indexed are not primarily focused on the prior- lems those misguided ‘‘reforms’’ have cre- for inflation in 22 years, should be raised and ities of their own constituents. Simi- ated is with more restrictions. We don’t a regime of full disclosure on all political larly, by placing a limit on the amount think so. spending should be created. That will let the of PAC contributions a candidate may To the government goo-goos, led by Com- voters both hear from candidates other than receive, we can address the concern mon Cause, money is the root of all evil in incumbents and let them weigh the relative politics and should be pulled out regardless influence of everyone participating in the that public officials are unduly influ- of the cost or the Constitution. They have enced by special interest groups. process. convinced GPO Senator John McCain and The current effort at campaign finance re- Mr. President, I am also concerned Democrat Russ Feingold to propose a bill form has a lot in common with the failed about provisions in S. 1219 which shift that would pass out subsidies for low-cost Clinton health-care plan, which sought to resources from the private sector to mail and television advertising to candidates ‘‘fix’’ the problems created by government the candidates. These provisions, in ef- who abide by ‘‘voluntary’’ spending limits. involvement in health care by having the fect, allow candidates to do as they This is public financing under another guise. government micromanage the entire health please with other people’s involuntar- Subsidizing the mailing of more campaign care sector. The Senate should vote down the literature alone could cost $100 million, McCain-Feingold bill before it does to Amer- ily extracted money. The idea that tax- money the Postal Service would have to re- payers, through special postage rates, ican democracy what ClintonCare would cover by raising rates for other customers. have done to medicine. should subsidize complying campaigns, Having created a permanent entitlement seems to me wrong. And, just as the to cut-rate campaign ads, the goo-goos would AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, taxpayers should not be obligated to fi- then ban contributions from political action New York, NY, June 25, 1996. nance someone else’s political speech I committees. Advocacy organizations from Dear Senator: feel it inappropriate to extract such Emily’s List on the left to the Christian Coa- The American Civil Liberties Union had subsidies from the owners of broadcast lition on the right would see their activities the privilege of testifying before the Senate scrutinized by the Federal Election Commis- Rules Committee on February 1, 1996 and at entities. sion, which lately has seen one after another Mr. President, I believe that cam- that time we elucidated our objections to the of its edicts struck down by the courts. ‘‘reform’’ proposals set forth in the Feingold- paign finance reform should focus on In 1976 the Supreme Court ruled in Buckley McCain bill, S. 1219. Throughout the current limiting PAC and out-of-State/district v. Valeo that political contributions and Senate debate, our opposition has been re- money. I have codified these limits in spending are the equivalent of political peatedly referenced. Rather than reiterate my own campaign finance reform bill speech. Giving the FEC more control over all of our objections in detail in this letter, which I believe has the effect of per- politics will limit speech. The McCain- I encourage you to read the testimony pre- mitting candidates to speak freely Feingold bill would cede authority to the pared on our behalf by Professor Joel Gora, while curbing the influence of special FEC over any ‘‘expression of support for or of the Brooklyn Law School. opposition to a specific candidate’’ and per- Congress is endeavoring to reform current interest and out-of-State moneys. In mit it to block such expression with an in- campaign finance laws and regulations in an contrast, S. 1219 permits the increased junction if the agency believes there is a effort to reduce the perceived adverse impact influence of special interest money ‘‘substantial likelihood that a of monetary contributions on federal elec- while curbing candidates’ ability to violation . . . is about to occur.’’ The pros- tions. The call for reform is also punctuated June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6797 by cries of corruption. If there is corruption would encompass the kind of essential issue groups, yet it does nothing to limit the then Congress does have the obligation to advocacy which Buckley has held to be com- use of labor union dues for political correct systemic problems, and to ensure pletely immune from government regulation purposes. that the Federal Election Commission is ex- and control. Finally, there are unintended con- ercising fair and consistent enforcement of The bill so broadly defines ‘‘coordination’’ the existing laws. But influence is not syn- that virtually an individual who has had any sequences of well-intentioned reform. onymous with corruption, and labeling cer- interaction with a candidate or any cam- After all, the present system we are at- tain monetary contributions as such perpet- paign officials, in person or otherwise, is tempting to change is a product of ear- uates notions of corruption that have not barred from making an independent expendi- lier ‘‘reforms’’ from the post Watergate been, in our view, adequately borne out by ture. A disaffected campaign worker or vol- years. the hearings before the Senate Rules Com- unteer for example, who leaves the campaign Mr. President, specifically, I have mittee. because he or she thinks a candidate has concerns that spending limits function While rooting out corruption is a worth- acted improperly, is barred from making as an incumbent protection act. Fur- while objective, S. 1219 goes much further independent expenditures against the can- ther, the spending limits aid those than merely attempting to eliminate per- didate, for, ironically, they will be deemed a ceived corruption. Current proposals before contribution. without a primary. Look at the recent the Senate dramatically change the rules The bill gives unacceptable new powers of Presidential election. Senator Dole concerning financing of federal campaigns in political censorship to the Federal Election spent the maximum to get the GOP ways that do greater harm to civic participa- Commission. The FEC would be permitted to nomination—and is now virtually out tion in the federal electoral process than go to court and seek an injunction on the al- of money with respect to the spending good. Most importantly S. 1219 directly vio- legation of a ‘‘substantial likelihood that a limits. lates First Amendment guarantees of free- violation . . . is about to occur.’’ This is If we really want to change our sys- dom of speech and freedom of association. fraught with First Amendment peril because tem, we should have enacted term lim- Some of our specific objections to the individuals and groups will face ‘‘gag orders’’ Feingold-McCain (S. 1219) and similar pro- until a determination of wrongdoing is made. its. Members of Congress should be posals include: This bill serves the purpose of unfairly pro- more concerned with the next genera- The bill’s ‘‘voluntary’’ expenditure limits tecting incumbency by further limiting the tion than the next election but the are coercive and violate First Amendment overall amount of speech allowed during a constant pressure of re-election affects principles. The bill requires the receipt of campaign. A limitation in the quantity of votes and contributions. public subsidies to be conditioned by a sur- speech makes the incumbent’s name recogni- Mr. President, any reform system rendering of the constitutional right to un- tion and ability to create free press and limited campaign expenditures. The bill should be tilted more in favor of public media attention all the more valuable. disclosure of campaign contributions. grants postage and broadcasting discounts This bill unfairly hinders access to the po- only those candidates that ‘‘volunteer’’ for litical process of independent and third party The Federal Election Commission’s spending limits. The bill raises an individ- candidates by limiting access to public fi- main mission should be to publicize ual’s contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000 nancing and avenues for receiving private campaign finance information to the for those candidates that agree to spending donations. people. limitations and therefore fiscally punishes Constitutionally acceptable campaign fi- Finally, contributions limits from in- those candidates who wish to maintain their nance reform proposals could include the fol- dividuals should be adjusted to keep constitutional right of unlimited spending. lowing elements: The bill’s ban of Political Action Commit- pace with inflation. The declining Uncoerced public financing that include value in real dollars of the maximum tees are a violation of freedom of association the following provisions: Floors or founda- and is therefore unconstitutional. Such a tions upon which candidates can build their contribution from an individual to a provision would result in a restriction in campaigns, not ceilings to limit them, the Federal candidate is now worth only protected speech for any group the Federal availability of public financing to all legally about a third as much as when it went Election Committee deemed a ‘‘political qualified candidates who have demonstrated into affect in 1975. This change would committee.’’ All relevant constitutional an objective measure of support, the avail- lessen reliance on political action com- precedent, including Buckley v. Valeo 424 ability of matching funds without unconsti- mittee contributions and shorten the U.S. 1, 57 (1976) and FEC v. National Conserv- tutional conditions attached, institution of ative Political Action Committee 470 U.S. 480 time candidates must spend asking for the frank to all legally qualified federal can- money. (1985), clearly suggest that the Supreme didates. Court would overturn such a ban. Raise individual contribution limits. This Remember, State candidates in The limitation on out-of-state contribu- will serve to decrease reliance on PAC North Carolina can accept $4,000 con- tions is constitutionally suspect and is dis- sources of support. tributions per election while Federal turbingly insular. In-state limitations poten- Modest tax credits of up to $500 for private candidates can only receive $1,000. Ad- tially deny underfinanced, lesser-known in- political contributions. justing the contribution limits for indi- surgent candidates of the kind of out-of- Public access and timely disclosure of viduals coupled with greater disclosure state support they may need. As long as citi- large contributions. This is the most appro- zens in the affected district are the ones who would be a significant improvement. priate way to deal with problems of undue For this reason, Mr. President, I can- select the candidate, how the candidate is fi- influence on elected officials. nanced is a less compelling concern. After Thank you for your consideration of our not support the McCain-Feingold bill all, Congress is our national legislature, and views. in its present fashion. We share the although its representatives are elected from Sincerely, goal of reforming the campaign finance separate districts and states, the issues it de- LAURA W. MURPHY, system but there is a difference in the bates and votes on are of concern to citizens Director. details. My suggestion for reform in- from all over the nation. The bill’s disclosure requirements and reg- Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, first cludes term limits, greater public dis- ulations on ‘‘soft money’’ do not take into and most importantly, I strongly sup- closure of contributions, and increas- consideration the constitutional divide be- port reform of our campaign finance ing the limits on contributions from tween candidate-focused expenditures and system. Regrettably, there are several individuals to lessen reliance on politi- contributions, which are subject to some reg- broad problems with McCain-Feingold cal action committees. ulation, and all other non-partisan, political bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- and issue-oriented speech, which are not. First, I have serious concerns that ator from Wisconsin. This restriction does not live up to the this bill does more to limit the rights Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, to ‘‘most compelling government interest’’ under the First Amendment, than it make concluding remarks, and later standard in regards to electoral advocacy as required by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. does to reform our campaign finance Senator MCCAIN will make other con- Valeo, 424 U.S. at 14–15, 78–80. This restric- laws. It bans political action commit- cluding remarks, let me again clarify tion also does not satisfy the minimum scru- tee contributions—but it does nothing the point about constitutionality. The tiny of a ‘‘compelling’’ state interest in the to empower the individual by raising Senator from Virginia said clarity of regulation of political parties as required by individual campaign contribution lim- conscience prevents him from working the Supreme Court in Tashjian v. Republican its. for this bill because of the PAC ban. Party, 479 U.S. 208 (1986). Second, as we have come to learn, it But the fact is the Senator from Ken- The bill’s new provisions governing the right to make independent expenditures un- is impossible to plug all of the money tucky and the Senator from Virginia constitutionally invades the absolutely pro- loopholes in politics. This legislation and the Senator from Washington all tected area of issue advocacy. By broadening bans outside expenditures by political voted for the Pressler amendment 3 the definition of ‘‘express advocacy’’ the bill action committees and other interest years ago that does exactly what our S6798 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 bill does. It bans PAC’s, but if the PAC’s throughout industry are asked to con- Why is it partisan? It is partisan, Mr. courts say PAC’s cannot be banned, it tribute $1,000. President, because Republicans for the has a voluntary limit on PAC’s. The That is how it is done in this town. most part, accompanied by some inter- reason they voted for it then, the rea- That is what the gatekeepers want to esting allies, from the ACLU to the Na- son it is OK now, is because it is con- keep, and that is what we have to tional Education Association, believe stitutional, and this is a red herring. crack down on and eliminate. there is nothing inappropriate about The real issue here is what this vote To make my final remarks, let me American citizens participating in the is going to be. This is the vote on cam- say this thing has just gotten worse political process. We think that ought paign finance reform. I admire the can- year after year. I want to finish by to be applauded, not condemned. We dor of the Senator from Kentucky, who reading a few quotations from people are not offended by those exercising simply says he wants to kill campaign who have been troubled about this over their rights to petition the Congress, finance reform this session. He is not time. Woodrow Wilson: those exercising their right to engage up here proposing an alternative. He The Government of the United States is a in free speech. We do not think that is admits that is his goal. That is the foster child of the special interests. It is not bad for America, Mr. President. We vote. allowed to have a will of its own. think it is good for America. This is the first bipartisan bill in 10 President Eisenhower: Whether our opponents on the other years. Who will benefit from this bill? Many believe politics in our country is al- side of the aisle like it or not, the Su- Many people will benefit. Incumbents ready a game exclusively for the affluent. preme Court has been very clear that will benefit from having more time to This is not strictly true; yet the fact that we the speech of political candidates can- work on the issues, to not have their may be approaching that state of affairs is a not be restricted. Thank God for Buck- fractured attention, as the Senator sad reflection on our elective system. ley versus Valeo, one of the great deci- from West Virginia indicated. Chal- From Barry Goldwater: sions in the history of the Supreme lengers will be the main beneficiaries. It is not ‘‘We, the people,’’ but political ac- Court. Just look at the real statistics. Incum- tion committees and moneyed interests who The speech of candidates should not bents blow challengers out of the water are setting the Nation’s political agenda and be restricted. That is an extremely im- with the money. Does anyone out there are influencing the position of candidates on portant principle, Mr. President. After the important issues of the day. believe this bill would actually help in- all, if we make the candidates shut up cumbents? I can tell you as a former From Jack Kemp, explaining why he and if we make the people who want to challenger, this bill would have made a would not run for President in 1996: support them shut up, who controls the tremendous difference and would have There are a lot of grotesqueries in politics, discourse, the debate? Why, someone made the process more fair. not the least of which is the fundraising else. Where will this transfer of power We would also benefit in this country side. . .. I don’t seem to be talking about the go? One place it will go, obviously, is things that the fundraising people want me from the inclusion of all the people to talk about. to the newspapers, most of whom love who never choose to run. You heard the this legislation because they realize it Finally, from Robert F. Kennedy, Senator from West Virginia say he will enhance their power as the cam- who said: never would have run for office if it paigns’ power to communicate is di- would have involved this amount of The mounting cost of elections is rapidly minished. So they think this is a ter- becoming intolerable for a democratic soci- money. I bet the former majority lead- ety, where the right to vote—and to be a can- rific idea. er, Senator Dole, would not have run didate—is the ultimate political protection. Many of the large membership inter- either. So there will be winners under For we are in danger of creating a situation est groups are not particularly worried this bill and especially people back in which our candidates must be chosen only about this legislation because they home. from among the rich, the famous, or those know you cannot constitutionally re- But there will be losers under this willing to be beholden to others who will pay strict their ability to communicate bill. The losers are the people who got the bills. with their own members, what we call together on April 30, all the lobbyists Mr. President, what Robert Kennedy nonparty soft money, or in any real and all the PAC’s in this town that said over 30 years ago is even worse way restrict their ability to commu- have been cited by the other side. They than he could have imagined today. nicate with the public, what we call all got together to kill this bill. They What he feared has come to pass, and independent expenditures, both of said it would prevent their free speech. our bill would begin the process of re- which, or the latter of which is cer- But the fact is, they are the Washing- turning campaigns and elections, and tainly protected by the Buckley case. ton gatekeepers. They are the people yes, our Government, back to the peo- So what this is all about, Mr. Presi- you have to go up to when you are run- ple at home. dent, is who gets to speak and how ning for office and say, ‘‘Will you give I yield the floor. much—who gets to speak and how us the money?’’ The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- much—and whether or not private citi- I used to go back and say to a banker ator from Kentucky. zens can continue to band together and in Wisconsin or a labor member in Wis- Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how support candidates of their choice. consin, ‘‘Can you provide us with some much time do I have remaining? It is said that too much is spent, help?’’ Do you know what they would The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- which means to say there is too much say? ‘‘We have to check in with Wash- ator has 12 minutes. speech in the American political sys- ington. Washington has to say yes.’’ Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I do tem. My view is that it is not inappro- This bill will drive people back to their not think there is any issue which we priate to ask, when you say too much own home States and take away the deal with that more clearly sums up is being spent—compared to what? In power from the gatekeepers. the differences of the two parties to- the last cycle we spent about as much How does it work? I mentioned it be- ward American participation in poli- on political speech as we did on bubble fore. Here is one example. Here is a let- tics than the issue of campaign finance gum. Put another way, $3.74 per voter ter about how it works, and I will omit reform. in the last cycle. I would argue, Mr. the name of the Representative. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Presi- President, that is not too much politi- During this year’s congressional debate on dent, this is a partisan issue. The Re- cal speech—not too much political dairy policy, Representative [Blank] has led publican National Committee opposes speech. the charge for dairy farmers and coopera- the bill. The Democratic National Then they say, the public is clamor- tives by supporting the federation’s efforts Committee supports the bill. So there ing for this reform. A comprehensive to maintain the milk marketing order pro- is nothing particularly bipartisan poll by the Tarrance polling group gram and expand program markets abroad. about the bill. There are a few Repub- back in April of 1996 asked that ques- To honor his leadership the federation is licans who support it and a few Demo- tion in a variety of different ways. Suf- hosting a fundraising breakfast for [Blank] on Wednesday, December 6, 1995. To show crats who oppose it, but the heart of fice it to say, one person out of the your appreciation to [Blank], please show up the matter is, this is a very partisan 1,000 interviewed thought this was an at Le Mistral Restaurant at 8 a.m. for an en- matter as currently presented to the important issue confronting the coun- joyable breakfast with your dairy colleagues. Senate. try. There is no clamoring for this. The June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6799 interest in this all depends on how you sidy to a couple of private industries. ton and Bob Dole. No other Democrat is ask the question. If you ask the ques- They say, we are going to call on the challenging an obviously vulnerable incum- tion: Do you think it is a good idea to broadcasting industry to reduce the bent, and Republican contenders such as Phil Gramm, Pat Buchanan and Lamar Alexander restrict my right to participate in the prices for political ads by 50 percent. hover in single digits. In this second rank we political process? Obviously, people are What will happen? Why, of course, they now also have millionaire publisher Steve not in favor of that. will pass on the cost of that to all the Forbes, who started from nowhere to grab There has been some debate about other people advertising. So those tax- the first rung on the ladder. And of course, whether this is constitutional. Let me payers are going to have to pay more billionaire Ross Perot still haunts the scene. say maybe the other side has been able for their product because of the Gov- If you don’t like the remaining field, blame to scrape up a few people with a law de- Fred Wertheimer and Common Cause, the or- ernment-mandated program. ganization he until recently ran and still gree calling this constitutional, but There is a second industry that is af- animates, are the principal architects of the the heavies in this field do not think it fected by this as well, Mr. President. cockamamie financial gauntlet we inflict on is. The American Civil Liberties That is the people who use the mails. our potential leaders. Common Cause is Union—sometimes we love them; some- There is a postal subsidy in here. The point-lobby for the goo-goos, that is, the ear- times we hate them, but, boy, do they Postmaster General wrote me yester- nest folks always trying to jigger the rules know a lot about the first amendment day saying he opposed this. Of course, to ensure good government. One of their con- and have had a lot of success over the the Direct Marketing Association op- ceits is that money is the root of all political evil, so they seek salvation in the Sisyphean years in this country. They believe this poses this. Of course, the National As- task of eliminating its influence. The chief matter is clearly and unambiguously sociation of Broadcasters opposes this. result of this is a rule outlawing individual unconstitutional. They are not particularly interested in political contributions of more than $1,000, Assuming it could get past the con- having to reach into the coffers of their and a bureaucracy called the Federal Elec- stitutional problems, Mr. President, businesses to pay for political views tion Commission to count angels on pinheads pushing all these people out of the with which they might disagree. in deciding, for example, what counts as a process and putting a speech limit on contribution. So getting back to the direct mail A serious Presidential campaign is likely the campaigns, how would those speech subsidy, the rates of everybody else to cost $20 million. This means a potential limits be enforced? By, of course, the who uses the Postal Service are going Presidential has to start by persuading 20,000 Federal Election Commission, which to be increased so a subsidy can be pro- different people to pony up a grand. Take an would soon be the size of the Veterans vided by those taxpayers to support the arbitrary but probably generous hit rate of Administration trying to restrict the expression of views with which they 5%, and he (or she) has to pass the tin cup free speech of not only 535 additional may disagree. 400,000 times. Admittedly these numbers political races, but also of a bunch of So, Mr. President, spending limits oversimplify, but they give you the idea. Mr. Wertheimer’s brainstorm means fund-raising outsiders who might inadvertently are not free. There is no way to con- is so consuming that candidates have no band together and try to speak. So the coct, under the Buckley case, any ef- time for anything else. Even more impor- FEC is given injunctive relief, so it can fort to shut people up that does not tant, it is a process virtually designed to go into court and shut people up who have some cost. You can shift it around drain a potential President of any residue of are engaging in speech that the Gov- and kind of claim it is not part of the self-respect. ernment does not want to be expressed. Treasury. You can assess a business This may not be the only thing General That is what this bill is about—build- Powell means when he says running requires maybe. But they are not free. a fire he does not yet feel, but it is certainly ing a massive Federal bureaucracy to So what is wrong with this bill? Just a big one. His adviser Richard Armitage ex- restrict the speech of candidates and of about everything you can think of. It plicitly said, ‘‘Colin Powell going out and groups in this country. This is one of is based on the fallacious assumption asking people for money and then spending the worst ideas we have debated around that too much is being spent. It is all that money wasn’t attractive.’’ Mr. Kemp here since the last time a proposal like based on the notion that the public is was similarly explicit in not wanting to un- this was up on the Senate floor. clamoring for it. Neither of those prop- dertake the fund-raising exercise, and it no The Court said very clearly, if you ositions is true. It assumes there is doubt inhibited Mr. Cheney as well. On the want to try to entice campaigns into Democratic side, finding 20,000 donors to some way to level the political playing challenge an incumbent is an even more shutting up, and the Government ground for everyone, which is impos- daunting challenge; Senator Bradley and wants to say it is not good for can- sible to achieve. It is unconstitutional, Senator Nunn decided to quit rather than didates to speak more than a certain clearly and obviously. It would create a fight. amount—we see that in the Presi- gargantuan Federal Election Commis- It is no accident that the dropouts are pre- dential system and the nightmare that sion with the mission to shut people up cisely the types the goo-goo crowd would like to keep in politics, which is to say, has become. As Senator GORTON point- all across America. It would call upon ed out yesterday, there is only one per- those motivated by principle instead of sheer two industries, the broadcast industry ambition. In 1988, to take an earlier example, son in America who is told to shut up and the direct mail postal users, to pay the exploratory field included Don at that point, and that is one of two for the price of all of this big Govern- Rumsfield, who had been a Congressman, candidates who is running for Presi- ment. White House Chief of Staff, Defense Sec- dent, Bob Dole. That is what we ought For all of these reasons, obviously, retary and a spectacularly successful cor- to be reforming, the Presidential sys- Mr. President, this bill should be de- porate chief executive. But he threw in the tem. feated. The way to defeat this bill is to towel rather than run up possibly unpayable But the Court said, if you want to en- debts—‘‘as a matter of principle, I will not vote ‘‘no’’ on cloture. run on a deficit.’’ tice people into shutting up, not speak- Mr. President, I have a variety of The doleful effect of such limitations were ing too much, you can offer them some magazine articles that have come out entirely predictable; indeed, they were pre- kind of subsidy, a Federal subsidy. So against this bill, including Weekly dicted right here. As early as 1976, when the the Presidential system says to the Standard, the Wall Street Journal, Supreme Court partly upheld the 1974 Fed- candidates running for President: You Rollcall, the National Review, and the eral Election Campaign Act, we wrote that can only raise $1,000 per person. So, Baltimore Sun, and I ask unanimous the law ‘‘will probably act like the Franken- when looking at that difficult task of stein’s monster it truly is. It will be awfully consent that the editorials be printed hard to kill, and the more you wound it, the trying to put together a nationwide in the RECORD. more havoc it will create.’’ In the face of campaign at $1,000 a person, every can- There being no objection, the mate- hard experience, of course, the goo-goos pre- didate virtually, except Ross Perot and rial was ordered to be printed in the scribe more of the same, to the point where John Connally, has said, ‘‘OK. I’ll shut RECORD, as follows: ‘‘campaign finance reform’’ has become the up. You bought me off. There is no way [From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 16, 1995] Holy Grail. To be fair, the Wertheimer coven hasn’t I can possibly raise enough money to THE MAN WHO RUINED POLITICS run at $1,000 a person.’’ Then they get had its way entirely. The logic of the goo- So Colin Powell is not running for Presi- goo impulse is public financing of political the Federal subsidy. dent. Neither is Jack Kemp, Bill Bradley, campaigns, an idea mostly hooted down by In this bill, in order to allow the Dick Cheney, Sam Nunn or William Bennett. the same taxpayers who eagerly embrace sponsors to claim that there is no tax- Voters are left with the likely choice be- term limits—though in Presidential cam- payer money in it, they shift the sub- tween two rather tired war horses, Bill Clin- paigns public finance serves as the carrot S6800 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 getting candidates to accept the FEC nit- Wyden. Call this the Common Cause loop- that is sure to backfire on their party, if not picking. And the Supreme Court, while back- hole. on them, and probably on our democracy. ing away from the obvious conclusion that In the world of campaign reformers, money How ironic it would be if, in the name of con- limiting political expenditures is prima facie is the root of all evil. So they spend their trolling special interests, our sanctimonious an infringement of free speech, couldn’t time denouncing candidates who raise it for reformers merely made them more powerful. bending to ‘‘special interests.’’ Yet what the bring itself to say someone can’t spend his Mr. MCCONNELL. I ask unanimous own money on his own campaign. reformers won’t advertise is that there’s consent to have printed in the RECORD Thus the millionaire’s loophole. Mr. Perot nothing much they can do about the special was able to use his billions to confuse the interests who decide to spend money on their testimony on the constitutionality of last Presidential elections, going in, out and own. the broadcast provisions in the bill pre- back in at will. So long as he doesn’t accept As they did to great effect in Oregon. The pared for the National Association of public money, he can spend as he likes. AFL says it devoted 35 full-time profes- Broadcasters. Mr. Forbes is an even more interesting sionals and sent out 350,000 pieces of partisan There being no objection, the mate- case, since he was chairman of Empower mail for the cause. The Sierra Club and LCV rial was ordered to be printed in the spent $200,000 on 30,000 postcards, 100,000 tele- America, the political roost of both Mr. RECORD, as follows: Kemp and Mr. Bennett. Who would have phone calls and very tough TV and radio CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITIES OF PENDING guessed a year ago, the latter asks, that the spots accusing Republican Gordon Smith of POLITICAL BROADCASTING LEGISLATION Empower America candidate would be Steve ‘‘voting against . . . groundwater protection, Forbes. On the issues Mr. Forbes is perhaps clean air, pesticide limits, recycling.’’ (Prepared for National Association of Broad- an even better candidate than his col- The topper was a Teamster radio spot, run casters by P. Cameron DeVore, Gregory J. leagues—backing term limits where Mr. on seven stations in five cities, that in effect Kopta, Robert W. Lofton, of Davis Wright Kemp opposes them, for example—and with- accused Mr. Smith of being an accomplice to Tremaine) out his message his money wouldn’t do much murder because a 14-year-old boy died in an SUMMARY good. Still, to have a better chance at ulti- accident at one of his companies. ‘‘Gordon Pending Congressional campaign finance mately winning, it would have been logical Smith owns companies where workers get reform legislation would substantially ex- for him to bankroll one of his better-known hurt and killed. He has repeatedly violated pand federal political candidates’ ‘‘reason- colleagues. But that’s against the law, the law. Those are the facts.’’ able access’’ to broadcast time, raising fun- thanks to Mr. Wertheimer, so Mr. Forbes has In fact, the young worker had died after a damental issues under both the First and to hit the stump himself. fall in a grain elevator while being super- Fifth Amendments to the United States Con- With widespread disaffection with the cur- vised by his father, who still works for Mr. stitution. Several bills would require broad- rent field, and especially in the wake of the Smith and doesn’t blame him. An analysis of casters to provide free and/or heavily dis- Powell withdrawal, the lunacy of the current the ad in the liberal Oregonian newspaper es- counted time to political candidates as an rules is coming to be recognized. The em- sentially concluded that the whole thing was incentive for candidates to voluntarily com- peror has no clothes, think tank scholars are false. (By the way, the ad was the work of ply with campaign spending limits. The goal starting to say—notably Bradley A. Smith of consultant Henry Sheinkopf, who is part of of this legislation apparently is to reduce the the Cato Institute, whose views were pub- Bill Clinton’s re-election team this year and cost of federal election campaigns for House lished here Oct. 6. Following Mr. Smith, likes to say he believes in the politics of and Senate seats and thereby enhance the in- Newt Gingrich said last weekend we don’t ‘‘terror.’’ We trust Mr. Clinton will soon give tegrity of the electoral process. spend too much on political campaigns but him his post-Oklahoma City ‘‘civility’’ By requiring broadcasters to finance politi- too little. This heresy was applauded this speech to read.) cal candidates, the pending legislation would week by columnist David Broder, which may Even Mr. Wyden felt compelled to criticize compel broadcasters to engage in protected herald a breakthrough in goo-goo sentiment the rhetoric of the ad, but since it wasn’t run speech. Such a requirement could only be itself. by his campaign, he couldn’t be blamed for justified by compelling necessity, and then Formidable special interests, of course, re- it, even as it cut up his opponent. That’s the only if precisely tailored to the govern- main opposed to change in the current rules. beauty of these ‘‘independent expenditures’’: ment’s interest. Mandating that broad- Notably political incumbents who want cam- They work for a candidate without showing casters, rather than candidates, pay to com- paigns kept as quiet as possible and have his fingerprints. Mr. Wyden even took the municate partisan political messages would learned to milk other special interests who high road earlier this month and announced not advance the government’s interest in en- want access. So rather than having some that both candidates should stop negative hancing the integrity of the electoral proc- maverick millionaire funding his pet can- campaigning, while his allies kept dumping ess. In addition, the government could ad- didate on reasons that might relate to ideas garbage on Mr. Smith through the mail and vance that interest more effectively through and issues, we have all parties funded by on the airwaves! numerous alternatives that do not involve Now, we understand that Republicans do Dwayne Andreas and his sisters and his cous- encroachments on First Amendment free- this, too. The NRA doesn’t play beanbag. ins and his aunts, better to protect ethanol doms. And as a millionaire businessman, Mr. Smith subsidies. Finally, of course, we have Mr. Broadcasters historically have been sub- was able to spend enough of his own money Perot and his United We Stand hell-bent for ject to more restrictions than have other to answer this stuff in his campaign. But further restrictions on campaign finance, media on their constitutionally protected candidates who aren’t millionaires have to better to protect the political process for bil- editorial discretion, but the traditional ra- find money somewhere else, which means lionaires like himself. tionale of spectrum scarcity no longer justi- from people and interests that have money. Not so, thankfully, Mr. Forbes, who sees fied singling out broadcasters for reduced Yet if Mr. Wertheimer and Common Cause campaign spending limits as an incumbent First Amendment protection, particularly in get their way, nonrich candidates would find protection device. He recently told an Iowa light of the multiplicity of other outlets for their ability to raise that money drastically audience, ‘‘If Congress abolished the frank- diverse viewpoints. The pending legislation limited. The special interests would still be ing privilege, then I’d be impressed.’’ Lift the nevertheless could not survive even the ‘‘in- able to sling their junk, while a candidate caps on giving and spending, but make sure termediate scrutiny’’ requirements of nar- would lack the cash to respond. everything is disclosed, he says. ‘‘That’s real row tailoring to a substantial government Something very much like this probably reform.’’ purpose. Compelling broadcasters to finance cost Republicans the governorship last year political campaigns would bear no relation- in Kentucky, where the AFL spent lavishly [From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 2, 1996] ship to broadcasters’ public interest duties, for the Democrat but the Republican was and would upset the delicate balance be- RUINING POLITICS—II hemmed in by spending limits. And, of tween their journalistic freedoms and their Not long ago these columns described how course, operations such as the AFL or the obligations as licensees of the public air- the crazy campaign-finance reforms dreamed teachers unions have an unlimited supply of waves. By singling out broadcasting from up by the likes of Fred Wertheimer and Com- money from forced union dues, while other other media and usurping broadcast facili- mon Cause have been ruining politics. Or- liberal special-interest groups get taxpayer ties and time, the proposed legislation also egon voters just got another such lesson in subsidies that Republican Senators like Ver- denies broadcasters equal protection of the their special Senate election this week. mont’s Jim Jeffords are refusing to kill. law and takes their property without just Democrats are understandably pleased (Question: What does Mr. Jeffords have compensation, in violation of the Fifth with their narrow (less than 1% margin) vic- against electing other Republicans?) If Con- Amendment. tory, but so too are the Sierra Club, the gress tried to restrict such ‘‘independent’’ For all of these reasons, it is our view that League of Conservation Voters (LCV), the spending in some new reform, the Supreme those aspects of the pending legislation that Teamsters, the gay and lesbian lobby, the Court would probably (and rightly) strike it require broadcasters to provide free or sub- public-employee unions, NARAL (the abor- down as a violation of the First Amendment. sidized time for political candidates’ speech tion rights outfit), the National Council of The bigger point here is that John McCain, would likely be held unconstitutional by the Senior Citizens and the AFL–CIO. All of Fred Thompson, Linda Smith and other Re- courts. these liberal groups weighed in with what publicans who’ve joined up with Common campaign finance laws call ‘‘independent ex- Cause need to rethink their allegiances. Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I penditures’’ on behalf of Democrat Ron They’re lending credibility to an exercise ask unanimous consent to have printed June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6801

in the RECORD a constitutional analy- group of candidates, or to candidates of a nance ‘‘reforms,’’ friends of the First Amend- sis conducted for the National Right to particular party. ment feel like the man (in a Peter De Vries Life Committee. ‘‘(B) The term ‘‘expression of support for or novel) who said ‘‘In the beginning the earth opposition to’’ includes a suggestion to take There being no objection, the mate- was without form and void. Why didn’t they action with respect to an election, such as to leave well enough alone?’’ Reformers should rial was ordered to be printed in the vote for or against, make contributions to, repent by repealing their handiwork and RECORD, as follows: or participate in campaign activity, or to re- vowing to sin no more. Instead, they are pro- BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM, frain from taking action.’’ posing additional constrictions of freedom ATTORNEYS AT LAW, This extremely broad definition of ‘‘ex- that would further impoverish the nation’s Terre Haute, IN, November 7, 1995. press advocacy’’ would sweep in protected civic discourse. Re: Senate Campaign Finance Reform Act of issue advocacy which NRLC does, such as The additions would be the Forbes-Perot 1995. voter guides. For example, criticizing a can- Codicils, abridging the right of a rich person DAVID O’STEEN, Ph.D., didate for his or her proabortion stand near to use his or her money to seek elective of- National Right to Life Committee, an election time would fall within the ex- fice. This will be called ‘‘closing a loophole.’’ Washington, DC. press advocacy definition because it would To reformers, a ‘‘loophole’’ is any silence of DEAR DR. O’STEEN: You have asked me, as constitute ‘‘an expression of . . . opposition the law that allows a sphere of political ex- General Counsel for the National Right to to a specific candidate.’’ This phrase goes far pression that is not yet under strict govern- Life Committee (‘‘NRLC’’), to evaluate the beyond what the United States Supreme ment regulation. proposed Senate Campaign Finance Reform Court said was permissible to regulate as Jack Kemp, Bill Bennett, Dan Quayle, Act of 1995 (‘‘The Act’’). We have done so. electioneering in the case of Buckley v. Valeo, Dick Cheney and Carroll Campbell are Based on our evaluation, we recommend 424 U.S. 1 (1976). In Buckley, the Supreme among the Republicans who were deterred that NRLC oppose the Act because of the ef- Court held that in order to protect issue ad- from seeking this year’s presidential nomi- fects it would have on NRLC activities. vocacy (which is protected by the First nation in part by the onerousness of collect- These are set forth below. Amendment), government may only regulate ing the requisite funding in increments no election activity where there are explicit larger than $1,000. You may or may not re- SECTION 201 words advocating the election or defeat of a Section 201 would abolish connected politi- gret the thinness of the Republican field this clearly identified candidate. year, but does anyone believe it is right for cal action committees (‘‘PACs’’). The Act In sum, these provisions of the Act would government regulations to restrict impor- prohibits membership corporations, such as prevent NRLC from engaging in constitu- tant political choices? National Right to Life, from having a con- tionally-protected issue advocacy. There are restrictions on the amounts indi- nected PAC. This would abolish National SECTION 306 viduals can give to candidates and on the Right to Life PAC. This would severely af- Section 306 of the Act authorizes an in- amounts that candidates who accept public fect the ability of NRLC to influence federal junction where there is a ‘‘substantial likeli- funding can spend. Limits on individuals’ elections because NRLC would not have a hood that a violation . . . is . . . about to giving force candidates who are less wealthy connected PAC. occur.’’ Thus, the FEC would be authorized than Forbes or Perot to accept public fund- Section 201 also permits only individuals to seek injunctions against expenditures ing. Such restrictions are justified as nec- or political committees organized by can- which, in the FEC’s expansive view, could in- essary to prevent corruption and promote didates and political parties to solicit con- fluence an election. Such a preemptive ac- political equality. But Prof. Bradley A. tributions or make expenditures ‘‘for the tion against speech is an unconstitutional Smith of Capital University Law School in purpose of influencing an election for Fed- prior restraint and is unconstitutional ex- Columbus, Ohio, demolishes such justifica- eral office.’’ This appears to do two things. cept in the case of national security or simi- tions in an article in The Yale Law Journal, First, it appears to prohibit independent larly weighty situations. Prior restraint PACs, so that persons associated with NRLC beginning with some illuminating history. should never be allowed in connection with In early U.S. politics the electorate was couldn’t create an independent PAC to do ex- core political speech. There simply is no gov- small, most candidates came from upper- press advocacy for or against candidates. ernmental interest of sufficient magnitude class factions and the candidates themselves Second, it also appears to bar nonprofit, to justify the government stopping persons nonstock, ideological organizations—which paid directly what little campaign spending from speaking. Because prior restraints of there was, which went for pamphlets, and for under FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, speech are so repugnant to the Constitution, food and whisky for rallies. This changed 479 U.S. 238 (1986), could do independent ex- the usual remedy is to impose penalties after with Martin Van Buren’s organization of a penditures—from making such independent the speech is done, if a violation of law oc- mass campaign for Andrew Jackson in 1828. expenditures on behalf of or in opposition to curred in connection with the speech. candidates. Therefore, under the Act, the Federal Elec- Democratization—widespread pamphle- tion Commission would be authorized to pur- teering and newspaper advertisements for SECTION 251 the increasingly literate masses—cost Assuming that under the Act independent sue injunctions against the political speech of persons or organizations suspected of vio- money. Most of the money came from gov- expenditures can be done by someone other lating the Act. This means that NRLC would ernment employees, until civil service re- than an individual,1 so that NRLC still could be subject to a prior restraint of its speech, form displaced patronage. have a PAC capable of making contributions even issue advocacy, on the eve of an impor- Government actions—Civil War contracts, and expenditures to influence an election, tant election. Given its history of expansive then land and cash grants to railroads, and there remains a problem. The problem is readings of its powers to regulate constitu- protectionism—did much to create corpora- with the definition of independent expendi- tionally-protected speech, the Federal Elec- tions with an intense interest in the com- ture in the Act. tion Commission should never be handed the position of the government. Then govern- The Act defines ‘‘independent expenditure’’ weapon of prior restraint. ment created regulations to tame corporate as an expenditure containing ‘‘express advo- As stated at the beginning, there are se- power, further prompting corporate partici- cacy’’ made without the participation of a vere problems with the Act. The Act would pation in politics. Smith says that in 1888 candidate. ‘‘Express advocacy’’ is defined ex- profoundly alter NRLC’s ability to affect fed- about 40 percent of Republican national cam- tremely broadly: eral elections. Therefore, we recommend paign funds came from Pennsylvania busi- ‘‘18(A) The term ‘‘express advocacy’’ means that National Right to Life Committee op- nesses, and by 1904 corporate contributions when a communication is taken as a whole pose the Act. were 73 percent of Teddy Roosevelt’s funds. and with limited reference to external Sincerely, Democrats relied less on corporate wealth events, an expression of support for or oppo- JAMES BOPP, Jr. than on the largesse of a small number of sition to a specific candidate, to a specific RICHARD E. COLESON. sympathetic tycoons: in 1904 two of them Mr. MCCONNELL. In addition, I have provided three quarters of the party’s presi- 1 There is a way this could happen. Apparently due individual columnists like George Will dential campaign funds. By 1928 both parties’ to concerns about the constitutionality of what Sec- national committees received about 69 per- tion 201 of the bill does (§ 324 of the FECA), the Act and David Broder who have expressed cent of their contributions in amounts of at creates a fall-back position for times when those opposition to various parts of this least $1,000 (about $9,000 in today’s dollars). provisions might not be in effect, i.e., might be en- measure, and I ask unanimous consent Only a few campaigns have raised substan- joined for unconstitutionality. This fall-back provi- sion is that during the time when the ban on con- that those columns be printed in the tial sums from broad bases of small donors. nected and independent PACs might be enjoined RECORD. These campaigns have usually been ideologi- from enforcement the total that a candidate can re- There being no objection, the mate- cal insurgencies, such as Barry Goldwater’s ceive from a ‘‘multicandidate’’ PAC is ‘‘20 percent of rial was ordered to be printed in the in 1964 ($5.8 million from 410,000 contribu- the aggregate Federal election spending limits ap- tors), George McGovern’s in 1972 ($15 million RECORD, as follows: plicable to the candidate for the election cycle.’’ from contributions averaging about $20) and [From Newsweek, Apr. 15, 1996] Thus, the fallback is that if connected and independ- Oliver North’s 1994 race for a U.S. Senate ent PACs cannot be abolished altogether, then the CIVIC SPEECH GETS RATIONED total contributions from such PACs would be seat from Virginia (small contributors ac- capped. Under this provision, the ability of NRL (By George F. Will) counted for almost all of the $20 million that PAC to contribute to federal candidates would be se- Surveying the constitutional and political enabled North to outspend his principal op- verely affected. damage done by two decades of campaign fi- ponent 4 to 1 in a losing effort). S6802 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 The aggressive regulation of political giv- candidate who spends most usually wins. But that ‘‘almost the entire first amendment lit- ing and spending began in 1974, in the after- as Smith notes, correlation does not estab- erature produced by liberal academics in the math of Watergate. Congress, itching to ‘‘do lish causation. Money often follows rather past twenty years has been a literature of something’’ about political comportment, than produces popularity: many donors give regulations, not freedom—a literature that put limits on giving to candidates, and on to probable winners. Do campaign contribu- balances away speech rights . . . Its basic spending by candidates—even of their per- tions purchase post-election influence? strategy is to treat freedom of speech not as sonal wealth. Furthermore, limits were Smith says most students of legislative vot- an end in itself, but an instrumental value.’’ placed on total campaign spending, and even ing patterns agree that three variables are And Bradley Smith says that ‘‘after twenty on political spending by groups unaffiliated more important than campaign contribu- years of balancing speech rights away, lib- with any candidate or campaign. In 1976 the tions in determining legislators’ behavior— eral scholarship is in danger of losing the Supreme Court struck down the limits on party affiliation, ideology, and constituent ability to see the First Amendment as any- unaffiliated groups, on candidates’ spending views. ‘‘Where contributions and voting pat- thing but a libertarian barrier to equality of personal wealth and on mandatory cam- terns intersect, they do so largely because that may, and indeed ought, to be balanced paign spending ceilings. The Court said these donors contribute to those candidates who away or avoided with little thought. amounted to government stipulation of the are believed to favor their positions, not the Fortunately, more and more people are permissible amount of political expression other way around.’’ having second thoughts—in some cases, first and therefore violated the First Amendment. Smith argues that limits on campaign giv- thoughts—about the damage done to the po- But in a crucial inconsistency, the Court ing and spending serve to entrench the sta- litical process, and the First Amendment, by upheld the limits on the size of contribu- tus quo. As regards limits on giving, incum- the utilitarian or ‘‘instrumentalist’’ under- tions. Such limits constitute deliberate sup- bents are apt to have large lists of past con- standing of freedom of speech. Campaign pression by government of total campaign tributors, whereas challengers often could ‘‘reforms’’ have become a blend of cynicism spending. And such suppression constitutes best obtain financial competitiveness quick- and paternalism—attempts to rig the rules government rationing of political commu- ly by raising large sums from a few dedicated for partisan advantage or the advantage of nication, which is what most political spend- supporters. If today’s limits had been in incumbents’ or to protect the public from ing finances. Furthermore, in presidential place in 1968, Eugene McCarthy could not what the political class considers too much campaigns, limits on the size of contribu- have mounted his anti-war insurgency, political communication. Any additional tions make fund raising more difficult, which depended heavily on a few six-figure ‘‘reforms,’’ other than repeal of the existing which coerces candidates (at least those less contributions. As regards spending limits, ones, will make matters worse. flush than Forbes or Perot) into accepting the lower they are the better they are for in- public funding. Acceptance commits can- cumbents: incumbents are already well [From the Washington Post, Nov. 14, 1995] didates to limits on how much can be spent known and can use their public offices to GINGRICH’S HERESY in particular states during the nominating seize public attention with ‘‘free media’’— process, and on the sums that can be spent in news coverage. (By David S. Broder) the pre- and post-convention periods. The rage to restrict political giving and Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) knew he Now, leave aside for a moment the ques- spending reflects, in part, the animus of lib- was headed into a test of wills with the tion of whether the ‘‘reformers’’ responsible erals against money and commerce. There president that might force a shutdown in the for all these restrictions remember the rule are, after all, other sources of political influ- government and boost his already high nega- that Congress shall make no law abridging ence besides money, sources that liberals do tive ratings. The last thing he needed was the freedom of speech. But why, in an era in not want to restrict and regulate in the in- another fight—especially one in which his which the United States has virtually elimi- terests of ‘‘equality.’’ Some candidates are position would guarantee denunciation from nated restrictions on pornography, is govern- especially articulate or energetic or phys- all respectable quarters. ment multiplying restrictions on political ically attractive. Why legislate just to re- Nonetheless, when Gingrich testified the expression? (Here is a thought rich in possi- strict the advantage of those who can make other day at a congressional hearing on cam- bilities: Would pornographic political expres- or raise money? Smith notes that one reason paign finance, he deliberately committed sion be unregulatable?) media elites are apt to favor restricting the heresy. He argued that too little money—not When reformers say money is ‘‘distorting’’ flow of political money, and hence the flow too much—is going into campaigns. the political process, it is unclear, as Smith of political communication by candidates, is The editorial pages and columnists issued says, what norm they have in mind. When re- that such restrictions increase the relative the predictable squawks. The speaker also formers say ‘‘too much’’ money is spent on influence of the unrestricted political com- took fire from the rear: The freshman Repub- politics, Smith replies that the annual sum munication of the media elites. licans who have been his shock troops were is half as much as Americans spend on yo- To justify reforms that amount to govern- in shock. They wanted to hear him say, as gurt. The amount spent by all federal and ment rationing of political speech, reformers everyone from Common Cause to Ross Perot state candidates and parties in a two-year resort to a utilitarian rationale for freedom regularly intones, that American politics is election cycle is approximately equal to the of speech: freedom of speech is good when it ‘‘awash’’ in special-interest money. annual sum of a private sector’s two largest serves good ends. This rationale is defen- That is the operative premise of all the fa- advertising budgets (those of Procter & Gam- sible; indeed, it has a distinguished pedigree. vorite ‘‘reforms’’: abolition of PACs (politi- ble and Philip Morris). If the choice of politi- But it has recently been repudiated in many cal-action committees); allowing only people cal leaders is more important than the of the Supreme Court’s libertarian from the home state or home district to con- choice of detergents and cigarettes, it is rea- construings of the First Amendment. Those tribute to a candidate; getting rid of ‘‘soft- sonable to conclude that far too little is decisions, taking an expansive view of the money’’ corporate contributions, which pay spent on politics. First Amendment in the interest of individ- for political party facilities and grass-roots The $700 million spent in the two-year elec- ual self-expression, have made, for example, operations. tion cycle that culminated in the November almost all restrictions on pornography con- All of this Gingrich challenged in his testi- 1994 elections (the sum includes all spending stitutionally problematic. And such libertar- mony on Nov. 2. The total amount spend on by general-election candidates, and indirect ian decisions generally have been defended House and Senate races in 1994 was $724 mil- party-building expenditures by both parties, by liberals—who are most of the advocates of lion—a record sum and shocking to many. and all indirect political spending by groups restrictions on campaign giving and spend- But the cost of 435 House races and 33 Senate such as the AFL–CIO and the NRA) amount- ing. campaigns was, he pointed out, roughly dou- ed to approximately $1.75 per year per eligi- But liberals of another stripe also advocate ble what the makers of the three leading ble voter, or a two-year sum of $3.50—about campaign restrictions. They are ‘‘political antacids budgeted for advertising last year. what it costs to rent a movie. In that two- equality liberals’’ rather than ‘‘self-expres- This is a scandal? year cycle, total spending on all elections— sion liberals.’’ They favor sacrificing some Ah, but it said, the candidates and office- local, state and federal—was less than $10 per freedom of speech in order to promote equal holders were forced to spend an inordinate eligible voter, divided among many can- political opportunity, as they understand amount of time dialing for dollars, going hat didates. And because of the limits on the size that. Such liberal egalitarians support in hand to prospective contributors. True of contributions, much of the money was not speech codes on campuses in the name of enough, but the main reason is that con- spent on the dissemination of political dis- equality of status or self-esteem for all tribution limits have not been adjusted for course but on the tedious mechanics of rais- groups, or to bring up to equality groups des- inflation in 21 years. In 1974 the limit on in- ing money in small amounts. Furthermore, ignated as victims of America’s injustices. dividual contributions was set at $1,000. That the artificial scarcity of money produced by Liberal egalitarians support restrictions on is worth $325 today. If you really want politi- limits on political giving and spending has pornography because, they say, pornography cians spending less time fund-raising, Ging- strengthened the incentive for the kind of deprives women of civic equality by degrad- rich suggested, lift that limit to $5,000 and spending that delivers maximum bang for ing them. And liberal egalitarians support index it for inflation. the buck—harsh negative advertising. restrictions on political expression in order If this were not heretical enough, the Does a money advantage invariably trans- to achieve equal rations of political commu- speaker had one other idea. Instead of think- late into political potency? Try telling that nication for all candidates. ing of campaign finance as a separate prob- to Forbes, who spent $440 per vote in finish- Prof. Martin Shapiro of the University of lem, screaming for solution, think about a ing fourth in the Iowa caucuses. True, the California’s Law School at Berkeley writes way to pay for the cost of politics that would June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6803 actually serve the interests of voters and of What is more striking is the extent to insists it despises the influence of wealth, governing. which the Democrats—the self-styled party and then resists liberalizing campaign con- Do that, he said, and you may find that the of the people—have begun to rely on afflu- tribution limits. best remedy is not to legislate limits on con- ence as the criterion for picking their Senate Rich men understand that. It’s too bad the tributions or spending but to enable greater candidates. reformers can’t figure it out. activity by the political parties—Repub- In Colorado, New Hampshire, South Caro- licans, Democrats and any third force that lina and Virginia, the favored candidates for [From the Washington Post, Jan. 31, 1996] may emerge to challenge them. the Democratic nomination are all men of ‘‘FRONTLINE’S’’ EXERCISE IN EXAGGERATION The biggest problem in our campaign fi- independent means, and in many cases, with- (By David S. Broder) nance system, he said, is the gross disparity out wealth would not be considered to have between what House incumbents can raise Senate credentials. In Illinois, North Caro- As if the cynicism about politics were not and what most challengers can muster. The lina, Oklahoma and Oregon, men of similar deep enough already, PBS’s ‘‘Frontline’’ last PACs are a big part of this problem for they backgrounds are given a chance of winning night presented a documentary called ‘‘So use their contributions to ensure access to nomination because of their bankrolls. It is YOU Want to Buy a President?’’ whose thesis legislators handling their issues. The PAC not a new pattern. Among the Democratic seems to be that campaigns are a charade, system, as Gingrich said, ‘‘has become an senators seeking reelection this year is John policy debates are a deceit and only money arm of the Washington lobbyists’’ and needs D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, talks. to be reduced in significance. who spent more than $10 million of his own The narrow point, made by Sen. Arlen But limiting PAC contributions is likely to money to be elected in 1984. Specter (R–Pa.), an early dropout from the be an empty gesture. Increasingly, organized Retiring Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), a bank- 1996 presidential race, about millionaire pub- interest groups are mounting independent er’s son who earned big money as a New lisher Malcolm S. (Steve) Forbes Jr., is that expenditure campaigns, boosting their York Knicks basketball star, writes about ‘‘somebody is trying to buy the White House, friends and targeting their enemies, which the advantage wealth confers on a politician and apparently it is for sale.’’ they can do without limit. in his newly published memoir, ‘‘Time The broader indictment, made by cor- Since we cannot effectively stifle these Present, Time Past.’’ Bradley recounts how respondent/narrator Robert Krulwich, is that special-interest voices, Gingrich said, let us he decided he could afford to give or lend a Washington is gripped by a ‘‘barter culture’’ submerge them in appeals from the parties. quarter-million dollars to his first Senate in which politicians are for sale and public Increase substantially the limits on what campaign in 1978—about one-fifth of his policy is purchased by campaign contribu- people can give to political parties, he said. budget. ‘‘It assured me that I could compete tions. And allow those parties to contribute far even if I didn’t raise as much as I had The program rested heavily on a newly more than they do now to help challengers hoped,’’ he says. ‘‘With the existence of that published paperback, ‘‘The Buying of the offset the many advantages incumbents self-generated cushion, I was able to raise President.’’ Author Charles Lewis, the head enjoy—not only greater leverage on the more. When potential contributors see a of the modestly titled Center for Public In- PACs but all the staff, office and commu- campaign with money, they assume it’s well- tegrity, was a principal witness, and Kevin nications facilities that are provided at tax- run, and they are more likely to make con- Phillips, the conservative populist author payers’ expense. tributions. Everyone likes to be with a win- who wrote the book’s introduction, was also Barring such changes, Gingrich rightly ner, whether in basketball or politics.’’ a major figure in the documentary. said, we are almost certain to see a continu- Bradley points out that he was a piker It dramatized the view asserted by Lewis ation of the trend to millionaire candidates. compared with many of his colleagues. in the conclusion of his book: ‘‘Simply stat- Because the wealthy are allowed (by Su- ‘‘Four years later in New Jersey, Frank Lau- ed, the wealthiest interests bankroll and, in preme Court decision) to spend whatever tenberg, a wealthy computer executive with effect, help to preselect the specific major they wish on their own campaigns, the Sen- no elective experience, would spend over $3.5 candidates months and months before a sin- ate has become a millionaires’ club and the million of his own money to win a U.S. Sen- gle vote is cast anywhere. . . . We the people House is moving in the same direction. ate seat. . . . In Wisconsin in 1988, Herb Kohl have become a mere afterthought of those we All of this was a challenge to conventional promised to spend primarily his own money put in office, a prop in our own play.’’ wisdom. But Gingrich is not, in fact, alone. in his Senate campaign; $7.5 million later, he Viewers say a number of corporate execu- In the same week that he testified, the lib- won.’’ tives—no labor leaders, no religious leaders, ertarian Cato Institute and the liberal Com- Financial disclosure statements show that no activists of any kind, for some reason— mittee for the Study of the American Elec- at least 28 of the 100 sitting senators have a who have raised and contributed money for torate published essays arguing that the sup- net worth of $1 million or more—many of presidents and presidential candidates and ply of political money should be increased, them much more. Michael Huffington, a thereafter been given access at dinners, pri- not decreased. As Curtis Gans, the author of Texas oil man, spent $28 million of his own vate meetings or overseas trade missions. the latter study, pointed out, ‘‘The over- money in trying for a California Senate seat It is implied—but never shown—that poli- whelming body of scholarly research . . . in- in 1994—but still lost. The price is going up. cies changed because of these connections. Wealth is not a determinant of votes in the dicates that low spending limits will under- As Krulwich said in the transcript of a media Senate. There are liberals like Rockefeller mine political competition by enhancing the interview distributed, along with an advance and Ted Kennedy along with conservatives. existing advantages of incumbency.’’ tape, with the publicity kit for the broad- But wealth confers an unfair advantage in Gingrich has been accused of foot-dragging cast, ‘‘We don’t really know whether these the campaigns for the Senate, and makes it on the handshake agreement he struck with are bad guys or good guys. ... I’m not real- much harder than it should be for people of President Clinton last June to form a bipar- ly sure we’ve been able to prove, in too many tisan commission on campaign finance.* * * talent, but no wealth, to compete. The main reason for this disadvantage is cases, that a dollar spend bought a particu- lar favor. All we’ve been able to show is that [From the Washington Post, Jan. 17, 1996] the unrealistically low limit on individual contributions. The law, as Bradley notes, over and over again, people who do give a lot A SENATE OF MILLIONAIRES provides that ‘‘whereas a candidate could of money to politicians get a chance to talk (By David S. Broder) contribute as much of his own money as he to those politicians face to face, at parties, Want a perfectly safe bet on the November chose, he could accept individual contribu- on planes, on missions, in private lunches, election results? Bet that there will be even tions of only $2,000 from others—$1,000 of it and you and I don’t.’’ more millionaires in the U.S. Senate. for the primary and $1,000 for the general If that is the substance of the charge, the What once was called ‘‘The World’s Most election.’’ innuendo is much heavier. At one point, Exclusive Club’’ increasingly requires per- The contribution limits were set 22 years Krulwich asked Lewis, in his most disingen- sonal wealth as a condition for membership. ago and never have been adjusted; inflation uous manner, ‘‘Do you come out convinced The combination of rising campaign costs has eroded their value by two-thirds since that elections are in huge part favors for and foolishly frozen limits on individual con- then. Raising contribution limits is far down sale, or in tiny part?’’ tributions has increased the advantage of the list of proposals of most campaign fi- And Lewis replied that while ‘‘there are a self-financed candidates. The 1996 candidate nance reformers; many want to freeze them lot of wealthy people that do want to express lists are full of them. or reduce them. broad philosophical issues,’’ the ‘‘vested in- In Georgia, for example, all three Repub- But all the contribution limits are accom- terests that have very narrow agendas that licans seeking nomination to the vacancy plishing today is to create an ever-greater they want pursued see these candidates as created by the retirement of Democratic advantage for self-financed millionaire can- their handmaidens or their puppets. The Sen. Sam Nunn are men of substantial didates. Steve Forbes’s rivals in the Repub- presidential campaign is not a horse race or means. In Minnesota, former Republican sen- lican presidential race are complaining that a beauty contest. It’s a giant auction.’’ ator Rudy Boschwitz, a wealthy retired busi- his wealth is tilting the odds in the contest, That is an oversimplified distortion that nessman, is trying to reclaim the seat he where he is the only one who is paying his can do nothing but further alienate a cynical lost to populist professor Paul Wellstone six own way and therefore spending as much as electorate. Of course, money is an important years ago. And in a half-dozen other states, he wants. But the Senate picture is not very ingredient in our elections and its use de- Republicans either have or are trying to re- different. serves scrutiny. But ideas are important too, cruit challengers who can afford to pay their If we really want to be ruled by a wealthy and grass-roots activism even more so. The own way. elite, fine; but it is a foolish populism that Democratic Leadership Council’s Al From S6804 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 and the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rec- reformers’ scathing rhetoric, rooting out The campaign finance reform debate, in tor have had more influence in the last dec- these special interests is a job for a new Sen- particular, is advanced on the premise that ade than any fund-raisers or contributors, ate Committee on Un-American Activities. special interest influence is pervasive, corro- because candidates have turned to them for In fact, the special interest tag depends on sive, and must be abated at all costs. But the policy advice. the viewer’s vantage point rather than on cost of the alleged reforms in terms of con- John Rother of the American Association any objective criteria. So-called good gov- stitutional freedom for all Americans is of Retired Persons and Ralph Reed of the ernment groups would have people believe high. And the special interest premise is Christian Coalition work for organizations that the antonym is ‘‘public’’ interest—as deeply flawed. So the next time you hear that are nominally nonpartisan and make no defined by them. These groups usually con- someone hail campaign finance reform as the campaign contributions at all. But their strue good government to mean big govern- answer, ask them what is the question. And membership votes—so they have power. ment and therefore deem big government to when they say special interest influence is The American political system is much be in the public interest. By this logic, oppo- the problem, ask them: What is a special in- more complex—and more open to influence sition to any government regulation or tax terest? by any who choose to engage in it—than the virtually guarantees a special interest proponents of the ‘‘auction’’ theory of de- charge. [From USA Today, June 11, 1996] mocracy understand, or choose to admit. Capitalism should not be a dirty word in a By exaggerating the influence of money, free society, but having observed the enmity DISASTER FOR TAXPAYERS, CANDIDATES they send a clear message to citizens that directed toward its practitioners in many [By Mitch McConnell] the game is rigged, so there’s no point in quarters, one could reasonably wonder. Some The most talked-about campaign-finance playing. That is deceitful, and it’s dan- nonprofit so-called ‘‘good government’’ schemes are unconstitutional, undemocratic, gerously wrong to feed that cynicism. groups readily pin the special interest label Especially when they have nothing to sug- on profit-seeking enterprises. Yet behind bureaucratic boondoggles. Further, their gest when it comes to changing the rules for corporate balance sheets are employees, fam- sponsors think taxpayers should foot the the money game. ilies, shareholders and communities of which bill. And for good measure, these ‘‘reform’’ At one point, Phillips said that the post- they are part. schemes also would greatly increase the Watergate reforms succeeded only in having Does the special interest connotation ex- power of the media. ‘‘forced them [the contributors and politi- tend to employees and their families? To the Perhaps that is simply a fortunate happen- cians] to be more devious.’’ That is untrue. legions of Americans whose retirement funds stance for the liberal newspapers pushing Those reforms, which mandated the disclo- and investments are keyed to the stock mar- them. In any event, the media clearly have a sure of all the financial connections on ket? By such extrapolation does the ‘‘special ‘‘special interest’’ in campaign finance ‘‘re- which the program was based, also created interest’’ smear cut a wide swath. forms’’ which would increase their power by publicity which, even Krulwich and Co. ad- What happens when a purported public in- limiting the speech of every other partici- mitted, foiled the ‘‘plots’’ of some contribu- terest organization is funded by a group that pant in the political process. tors. is universally regarded as a ‘‘special inter- Because political campaigns exist to com- And Krulwich, for his part, suggested very est,’’ such as the plaintiffs’ lawyers? Are we municate with voters, the U.S. Supreme helpfully that ‘‘every high-profile politician to conclude that the special interest in this Court ruled two decades ago that campaign agrees that some things have got to change. instance is subsumed in the nobler public in- spending must be accorded First Amendment Change the limits. Change the rules. Change terest? Or is the public interest group simply protection. Ergo, campaign spending limits the primaries. Change the ads. Change en- laundering the special interest influence are unconstitutional speech limits. forcement. You gotta change something.’’ money and acting as a front organization? Or The simple fact is that communication How about changing the kind of journalism is it merely coincidence when their interests with America’s nearly 200 million eligible that tells people that politicians are bought- converge on, say, lawsuit reform? voters is expensive. For instance, one full- and-paid-for puppets and you’re a sucker if Most people would probably conclude that page color campaign ad in a Friday edition you think there’s a damn thing you can do to a special interest is contrary to the majority of USA TODAY would cost $104,400. Tele- make your voice heard? interest. Should special interest be defined vision and mail are also essential means of as being not immediately relevant to more communicating with voters. Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, than 49.9 percent of American citizens? Must These are expensive venues, but they are over the years working on this issue I its membership comprise a majority of the the only way to reach all the voters in large, have written several pieces which I ask country to be legitimate? If so, such a quali- modern electorates. Limiting campaign unanimous consent to have printed— fication should be carefully pondered, as spending would limit political discourse by ‘‘special interests’’ could be equated with one in the Washington Post and one in candidates, thereby enhancing the power of any narrow or minority interest, thus auto- the USA Today—in the RECORD. the media. That is bad public policy. There being no objection, the mate- matically tarnishing what could be a very worthy cause. For all the whining, the fact is that con- rial was ordered to be printed in the Being a senator from Kentucky, I regularly gressional campaign spending (less than $4 RECORD, as follows: go to bat for Kentucky industries (and their per eligible voter in 1994) is paltry relative to what Americans spend on consumer items [From the Washington Post, Feb. 21, 1996] employees, suppliers and subcontractors) threatened by onerous regulations and tax- like bubble gum and yogurt. JUST WHAT IS A SPECIAL INTEREST? ation. These industries may, in the minds of What we should do is adjust the individual (By Mitch McConnell) some people, epitomize ‘‘special interest.’’ contribution limit for inflation. President Clinton, in his State of the To me, they and the Kentuckians whose live- The contribution limits candidates must Union address, beseeched Congress to enact lihoods depend on them are constituents, and abide by in 1996 were set over two decades campaign finance reform to reduce ‘‘special my assistance to them is in the public’s in- ago (when a new Ford Mustang cost $2,700). interest’’ influence. Campaign finance re- terest. These inflation-eroded limits benefit the forms that the president favors would con- Is a Pacific Northwest lumber company well-off (rich candidates who can fund entire strict fundamental democratic freedoms to automatically a special interest? The compa- campaigns out of their own pockets) and the participate in the political process. In other ny’s employees? How about the Washington- well-known (principally incumbents) who words: speech would be limited and some based environmentalists who would sacrifice have a large base from which to draw con- citizens’ freedom to participate in elections jobs and disrupt human lives for the sake of tributions. beyond voting would be ‘‘reformed’’ out of an owl? Are owls special interests? Enhanced public disclosure of all cam- existence based on their alleged status as The truth is that the special interest label paign-related spending is also a worthy re- ‘‘special interests.’’ But if ‘‘special interest’’ is a political weapon utilized, often reflex- form that would enable voters to make in- is not defined, how are we to know just ively and perhaps thoughtlessly, by people formed decisions on Election Day. whose influence should be curbed? throughout the ideological spectrum. It can By comparison, the so-called ‘‘good govern- Judging from the fervent bipartisan (and be found in statements I have made in the ment’’ groups’ campaign-finance schemes third party) scorn heaped on ‘‘special inter- past. Using it is a hard habit to break. Nev- would be disasters. Delay is preferable to the ests,’’ the casual observer would logically as- ertheless, in the interest of more honest and enactment of such constitutional monstros- sume that this scourge of democracy was civil public discourse, the invocation of the ities. readily identifiable. The Congressional ‘‘special interest’’ mantra to propel a reform Record, newspaper editorials and campaign agenda or wound an opponent is a habit that Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, speeches are replete with diatribes against should be broken. some information about the cost to the the ‘‘special interests.’’ A recent search of All Americans have a constitutional right Postal Service, estimated by this post- newspapers on the Nexis database found to petition the government and participate al rate subsidy, and I ask unanimous more than 60,000 articles and editorials con- in the political process, however unpopular consent that be printed in the RECORD. taining the phrase ‘‘special interest.’’ the cause or narrow its appeal may be. ‘‘Special interest’’ is the most pejorative Americans do not forfeit those rights be- There being no objection, the mate- phrase in the American political lexicon cause they have been tagged with the special rial was ordered to be printed in the since ‘‘communist-pinko.’’ Judging from the interest label. RECORD, as follows: June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6805 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, able to price its products competitively. It the candidate spending limits is not— Washington, DC, June 24, 1996. cannot do this if costs are arbitrarily added as the Senator from Wisconsin stated Hon. MITCH MCCONNELL, to its rate base. Legislation such as this en- yesterday—that candidates who did not U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. dangers the financial base of the Postal comply with spending limits would be DEAR SENATOR MCCONNELL: I am writing to Service and the service it can provide to voice my concerns about campaign finance American businesses and consumers. giving up benefits they do not cur- reform legislation, S. 1219, which would place Again, we urge you to vote no on the clo- rently enjoy such as the 50 percent dis- an unfair financial burden on the Postal ture motion. count and the free TV time. What Service and its ratepayers. Sincerely, makes the provision unconstitutional Let me first say that the Postal Service RICHARD BARTON. is the severe handicapping candidates takes no position on the general merits of would experience if they did not com- campaign finance reform. This issue appro- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ply with the limits. priately rests with the Congress. However, S. BROADCASTERS, 1219, as well as several other campaign fi- Washington, DC., June 24, 1996. This is a crucial distinction from the nance reform bills in the House and Senate, Hon. MITCH MCCONNELL, presidential system. Steve Forbes did provide for reduced postage rates for eligible U.S. Senate, not have to pay twice as much for TV candidates. These bills do not contain a Washington, DC. ads as the complying presidential can- funding mechanism through which the Post- DEAR SENATOR MCCONNELL: First, I would al Service would be reimbursed for the dif- like to thank you for the leadership role you didates. He did not forego free time and ference between regular rate postage and the have taken in opposing S. 1219, the campaign Bob Dole’s spending limit did not in- reduced rate used by the candidates. In es- finance reform legislation introduced by crease when independent expenditures sence, the legislation creates an unfunded Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold. were made against him. And his spend- mandate, and the costs would have to be ab- As originally introduced, this legislation ing limit did not increase when Forbes sorbed by our customers, the postal rate- would require broadcasters to offer qualified spent over the limit. Had the presi- Senate candidates an additional 50% dis- payers. Testimony at campaign finance re- dential system had the inducements of form hearings estimated the reduced postage count off the discounted television advertis- costs for S. 1219 to be $50 million per elec- ing rates candidates currently receive. The the McCain-Feingold bill, Steve Forbes tion. Estimates for other campaign finance legislation further requires broadcasters give might very well have elected not to get bills with reduced postage provisions range candidates free advertising time. We believe into the race, at all. from $50 to $150 million per election. these provisions are unconstitutional and It simply would not make sense for a I would also like to point out that it is impose significant financial burdens on local very unlikely that the Postal Service and its broadcasters and we must oppose the legisla- candidate not to comply with the customers would be made whole even if a tion. McCain-Feingold bill unless he or she funding mechanism were included in cam- We understand Senators McCain and were so extraordinarily wealthy they paign finance reform legislation. After years Feingold have introduced a substitute to S. could spend many times the spending of underfunding our annual appropriation for 1219. At your request we have reviewed the limit for their own wallet. So you Congressionally mandated reduced rate broadcast provisions of the substitute. We could have two extreme types of cam- have done so and have determined that for mailings, Congress enacted the 1993 Revenue paigns under McCain-Feingold—very Forgone Reform Act. In eliminating future the most part the broadcast provisions are funding for reduced rate mailings, this law the same as those in S. 1219. There is, how- low spending ones complying with the mandates that the Postal Service receive a ever, new language in the broadcast section limits and extremely expensive cam- series of 42 annual appropriations of $29 mil- which causes us great concern. paigns. What would disappear is the lion as partial reimbursement for past fund- The new provision would give to the U.S. middle ground—not as cheap as the ing shortfalls. Even this ‘‘partial’’ relief is Court of Federal Claims exclusive jurisdic- McCain-Feingold model but not at the now threatened as our House Treasury, Post- tion over challenges to the constitutionality extreme high-end, either. al Service, and General Government Appro- of the broadcast rate and free time provi- priations Subcommittee proposed that this sions. Further, by its terms it precludes any If you looked long and hard enough appropriation be reduced by over $5 million injunctive relief, providing only for money and had common cause and public citi- during their markup of our FY ’97 appropria- damages. It is unclear whether this is an at- zen helping, even a tiny needle in a tions bill. tempt to somehow deny us the opportunity giant haystack could be found. And so I recognize the importance of the campaign to bring a First Amendment claim against it is that at long last—after a decade of finance reform issue in Congress this year, these provisions. No other section of the bill and it is with reluctance that I express these appears to have the same requirement and debate on this scheme—some people concerns to you. Nonetheless, S. 1219, as well we do not understand why the broadcast pro- with law degrees have been located to as others, would offer political candidates re- visions are given a different avenue for judi- say the McCain-Feingold/common duced postage costs at the expense of the cial review. cause spending limit structure is con- Postal Service and its customers. I urge you We must oppose the substitute to S. 1219, stitutional. How expert they are re- and your colleagues to identify alternate and we continue to support your efforts in mains to be seen and their submittals opposing this legislation. If I can be of fur- provisions that would not require postal on the subject will certainly be scruti- ratepayers to bear the burden of campaign fi- ther assistance, please do not hesitate to nance reform. phone. nized. Best regards, Sincerely, In any event objective liberals and MARVIN RUNYON. EDWARD O. FRITTS, conservatives can agree that the Amer- President. ican Civil Liberties Union is the reposi- DIRECT MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC., Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, tory of expertise on first amendment Washington, DC, June 19, 1996. calling the McCain-Feingold voluntary issues. The ACLU led, and triumphed, Hon. MITCH MCCONNELL, does not make it so, its proponents in the fight against mandatory spend- U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. protestations to the contrary. Anyone DEAR SENATOR MCCONNELL: It now appears ing limits 20 years ago in the Buckley that S. 1219, campaign finance legislation who dared not to comply with its vol- versus Valeo case. And the ACLU will sponsored by Senators McCain and Feingold, untary limits would have to: pay twice be in front again—along side me— is scheduled for debate next week. as much as their opponent for TV ads should anything resembling the We strongly urge you to cast a no vote on and more for postage; with half the McCain-Feingold bill ever become law. the cloture motion that will be offered dur- contribution limit; and forgo 30 min- The ACLU is singularly focused on con- ing the debate. utes of free time. As I have written to you before, DMA is op- stitutional freedom and has probably All this and their complying oppo- aggravated just about everybody at posed to S.1219, largely because of the provi- nent’s spending limit would be in- sions for low cost mailings for Senatorial sometime with unpopular stands. But candidates, without compensation to the creased up to 100 percent to counteract they have a remarkable record of suc- Postal Service for lost revenues. any excessive spending. Moreover, the cess in this area. We estimate that, should the House pass complying candidate could spend un- similar legislation, these provisions could limited amounts to counteract—dollar- At this point I will read excerpts cost the Postal Service as much as $350 mil- for-dollar—independent expenditures. from the ACLU’s testimony—given by lion dollars over a two-year election cycle. So I say again, technically, mugging professor and Buckley versus Valeo at- Every penny of this will ultimately come out victims had options, too. That does not torney Joel M. Gora—before the Senate of the pocket of the businesses and consum- mean that handing over their wallets Rules Committee on February 1 of this ers who use the mails. year. The Postal Service finds itself in an in- to muggers were voluntary acts. And I creasingly competitive environment. In should stress here that the essential The provision for ‘‘voluntary’’ spending order to survive, the Postal Service must be point in regard to the voluntariness of limits in Senate campaigns violates the free S6806 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 speech principles of Buckley v. Valeo. The contributions and expenditures—is regula- paigns, is an attempt to coerce what the law outright ban and severe fall back limitations tion of political speech and subject to the cannot command: limitations on overall on PACs violate freedom of speech and asso- strictest constitutional scrutiny. The Act’s campaign expenditures and on the use of per- ciation, as do the limitations on ‘‘bundling.’’ limitations on political expenditures—by sonal funds for a candidate’s own campaign. The unprecedented controls on raising and committees, campaigns and candidates, no It is a backdoor effort to impose campaign spending ‘‘soft money’’ by political parties matter how wealthy—flatly violated the spending limits—which inevitably benefit in- and even non-partisan groups intrude upon First Amendment. Nothing can justify the cumbents—in violation of the essential free First Amendment rights in a manner well government telling the people how much speech principles of Buckley v. Valeo and the beyond any compelling governmental inter- they could spend to promote their can- doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. And est. The revised provisions governing the didacies or causes. Not in this country. it should be observed that what triggers ben- right to make independent expenditures both Nothing. ‘‘In the free society ordained by our efits for some candidates and burdens for improperly obstruct that core area of elec- Constitution it is not the government, but others is not that a candidate approaches or toral speech and impermissibly invade the the people—individually as citizens and can- exceeds relevant spending limits, but simply absolutely protected area of issue advocacy. didates and collectively as associations and refuses to agree to be bound by them. The reduced recordkeeping threshold for political committees—who must retain con- The ACLU believes that the receipt of pub- contributions and disbursements, from $200 trol over the quantity and range of debate on lic subsidies or benefits can never be condi- down to $50, invades associational privacy. public issues in a political campaign.’’ Buck- tioned on surrendering constitutional rights. And the new powers given to the Federal ley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1,57 (1976). To do so would be to penalize the exercise of Election Commission to go to court in the Nor could the Congress try to help ‘‘equal- those rights. See Perry v. Sindermann, 408 midst of a campaign to enjoin ‘‘a violation of ize’’ political speech and the ability to influ- U.S. 593, 597 (1972); FCC v. League of Women this Act’’ pose an ominous and sweeping ence the outcome of elections by imposing Voters, 468 U.S. 364 (1984). Since candidates threat of prior restraint and political censor- restraints on some speakers: ‘‘. . . the con- have an unqualified right to spend as much ship. cept that government may restrict the as they can to get their message to the vot- S. 1219 suffers from many of the same flaws speech of some elements of our society in ers, and to spend as much of their own funds as the original statute at issue in v. Buckley order to enhance the relative voice of others as they can, and to raise funds from support- Valeo. There the ACLU contended that the is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.’’ ers all over the country, they cannot be Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 was Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. at 48–49. made to surrender those rights in order to bad constitutional law because it cut to the Unfortunately, the decision in Buckley receive public benefits. heart of the First Amendment’s protections upheld the Act’s contribution limits of $1,000 In Buckley the Court suggested that Con- of political freedom. It limited the ability of for individuals and $5,000 for political com- groups and individuals to get their message gress could establish a system whereby can- mittees. The Court did this because of its didates would choose freely between full pub- across to the voters. The very essence of the stated concern that unlimited gifts to can- First Amendment is the right of the people lic funding with expenditure limits and pri- didates was a recipe for corruption, a ruling vate spending without limits, ‘‘as long as the to speak, to discuss, to publish, to join to- that ensured the two decades of frustration gether with others on issues of political and candidate remains free to engage in unlim- and unfairness that have ensured. With no ited private funding and spending instead of public concern. This constitutional protec- limits on overall campaign spending or on tion of the right of the people to join to- limited public funding.’’ Republican National wealthy candidates, and with independent Committee v. Federal Election Commission, 487 gether to form groups and organizations and campaign committees, issues groups and the societies and associations and unions and F. Supp. 280, 284 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d mem., 445 press free to use their resources to comment U.S. 955 (1980). See Buckley at 57, n. 65. Con- corporations to articulate and advocate their on candidates and causes without limit; but interests is the genius of American democ- trary to its supporters’ claims, S. 1219 does with less well-funded candidates hampered in not establish such a regime of voluntary racy. And this is particularly vital in con- their ability to raise money from family, nection with political election campaigns campaign spending limits. Rather, the bill friends and supporters, the stage was set to denies significant benefits to and imposes when issues, arguments, candidates and make two factors dominant: the advantages causes swirl together in the public arena. burdens on those candidates who refuse to of incumbency and the dependency on PACs. agree to limit their campaign expenditures, Yet, the 1974 Act imposed sweeping and Dra- The advantages of incumbency meant that conian restraints on the ability of citizens while conferring a series of advantages upon public resources such as franking privileges, those candidates who agree to the limits. and groups, candidates and committees, par- government funded newsletters and free tele- ties and partisans to use their resources, to First, by banning PAC contributions en- vision coverage (C-Span) made it easier for tirely, the bill makes it more difficult for make political contributions and expendi- Members of Congress to communicate with tures, to support and embody their freedom candidates to raise and spend money at all, the voters, while challengers have to spend which will make them more susceptible to of speech and association. restricted amounts of money in order to The ACLU also insisted the Act was poorly accepting the expenditure and other limita- achieve the same visibility. tions. Candidates who refuse to accept spend- crafted ‘‘political restructuring’’ rather than The dependency on PACs resulted from se- ing limits have to work harder to raise funds real ‘‘political reform’’ because it exacer- vere limitations on the amounts of money because the limits on contributions to their bates the inequality of political opportunity, that individuals can contribute directly to opponents are raised automatically from enhances dependence upon money and candidates, coupled with the markedly in- $1,000 to $2,000. And then such disfavored can- moneyed interests in politics and magnifies creased cost of campaigning, which made didates have to pay full rates for broadcast- the power of incumbency as the single most PAC contributions a very important source ing and postage. Finally, the expenditure significant factor in politics. Limits on giv- of campaign funding. And the individual con- ceilings of their opponents are raised by 20% ing and spending make it harder for those tribution limit was kept at $1,000, which, ad- to make it easier to counter the messages of subject to the restraints to raise funds and justed for inflation, is probably worth about ‘‘non-complying’’ candidates. easier for those outside the restraints to $400 in real dollars today. bring their resources to bear on politics. That is why for twenty years candidates In short, this scheme does everything pos- Limiting individual contributions to $1,000 have had to look more to PACs order to raise sible to help the candidate who agrees to per candidate, while allowing PACs, made le- funds and incumbents, in particular, have spending limits to overwhelm the candidate gitimate by the ‘‘reforms,’’ to contributes had an easier ability to do so. who does not. That is not a level playing $5,000 per candidate, would make it harder to And for twenty years, the ACLU has sug- field. raise money from individuals and make can- gested the way to solve these various dis- Indeed, in Buckley the Court upheld public didates more dependent on PACs. And PACs, parities and dilemmas is to expand political funding of Presidential campaigns because often representing entrenched interests, participation, by providing public financing its purpose was ‘‘not to abridge, restrict or would be more likely, though far from inevi- or support for all legally qualified can- censor speech, but rather to use public tably, to prefer incumbents to challengers as didates, without conditions and restrictions, money to facilitate and enlarge public dis- beneficiaries of their largesse. The Act would not to restrict contributions and expendi- cussion and participation in the electoral stifle not expand political opportunity. What tures which enable groups and individuals to process, goals vital to a self-governing peo- you had, we warned, was an unconstitutional communicate their message to the voters. ple.’’ 424 U.S. at 92–93. S. 1219 fails this test, law, enacted by Congress, approved by the Unfortunately, in all of its critical aspects, for its purposes and effect are to limit President, enforced by an agency, the Fed- S. 1219, The Senate Campaign Finance Re- speech, not enhance it. Recent cases have in- eral Election Commission, beholden to each, form Act of 1995 fails to facilitate broader validated other schemes for making can- and designed to restrain the speech and asso- political participation and it also unconsti- didates ‘‘voluntarily’’ agree to expenditure ciation of those who would criticize or chal- tutionally abridges political expression. and other restraints by penalizing those who lenge or oppose the elected establishment. Mr. President, the proponents of this do not, see Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Maupin,—F.3d—, 64 Law Week 2409 (8th Cir. Talk about the powers of incumbency. That’s bill are very mistaken if they believe why we called the Act an ‘‘Incumbents Pro- 1995) (restricting funding sources of those tection Act.’’ the spending limits are constitutional. who refuse to agree to abide by expenditure In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court The ACLU differs: limits violates the First Amendment) (‘‘We held that any government regulation of po- Title I of the bill, providing ‘‘spending lim- are hard-pressed to discern how the interests litical funding—of giving and spending, of its and benefits’’ for Senate election cam- of good government could possibly be served June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6807 by campaign expenditure laws that nec- ‘‘Elimination of Political Action Commit- of PACs which suggests that the Court would essarily have the effect of limiting the quan- tees from Federal Election Activities’’ and uphold a total ban on PAC contributions to tity of political speech in which candidates which bans PAC political activity, is flatly federal candidates. Political contributions for public office are allowed to engage.’’ Id. unconstitutional. In outlawing all political are fundamentally protected by the First at—); expenditures and contributions ‘‘made for Amendment, as embodiments of both speech Moreover, even if the Act did create a level the purpose of influencing an election for and association. PACs do amplify the politi- playing field, the incumbent starts the game Federal office’’—except those made by politi- cal voices of their contributors and support- 10 points ahead because of greater fund-rais- cal parties and their candidates,—Section 201 ers across the entire spectrum of American ing ability, name recognition, access to the of the bill cuts to the heart of the First politics, and the Court is not likely to let news media and other benefits of incum- Amendment’s protection of freedom of polit- you still all those voices. bency. All things being equal, the incumbent ical speech and association. It gives a perma- Moreover, banning PAC contributions is starts out ahead. Any law which imposes fi- nent political monopoly to political parties futile as a reform. All the PAC money that nancial penalties and disincentives on speech and political candidates, and would silence cannot be contributed directly to candidates because of the interaction between the sta- all those groups that want to support or op- will go instead into an upsurge of independ- tus of the speaker and the content of the pose those parties and candidates. ent expenditure campaigns for favored or speech is constitutionally suspect. See Simon ‘‘PACs’’ of course have become a political against disfavored candidates. & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York dirty word. We tend to think of the real es- BANNING PAC EXPENDITURES State Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105 (1991) tate PACs or the Trial Lawyers’ PAC or the (law improperly escrowed profits from The Supreme Court made it clear that insurance and medical PACs or the tobacco- independent PAC expenditures are at the writings about a criminal’s crime); United related PACs. But the ACLU’s first encoun- States v. National Treasury Employee’s Union, core of the First Amendment and totally off ter with a ‘‘PAC’’ was when we had to defend limits to restrictions. Federal Election Com- 516 U.S.—(1995) (invalidating overbroad hono- a handful of old-time dissenters whom the rarium ban on moonlighting speeches and ar- mission v. National Conservative Political Ac- government claimed were an illegal ‘‘politi- tion Committee, 470 U.S. 480 (1985). It may be ticles by federal employees). Schemes of pub- cal committee.’’ The small group had run a lic benefits for political action which are a little less tidy to run an independent cam- two-page advertisement in The New York paign, than to write a check to your favored structured in such a fashion that the govern- Times, urging the impeachment of President ment seems to be showing favoritism to cer- candidate, but PACs will adapt. They’re good (and re-election candidate) Richard Nixon at that. And little will have been gained-ex- tain categories of candidates and penalizing for bombing Cambodia and praising those others also have been held to be a form of cept making it harder for candidates to raise few hardy Members of Congress who had money since you will have deprived them of unconstitutional political discrimination, voted against the bombing. In the summer of violative of both free speech and equality a major source of resources, without provid- 1972, before the ink was dry on the brand new ing any alternatives. Candidates of moderate principles. See Greenberg v. Bolger, 497 F. Campaign Act of 1971, the Justice Depart- Supp. 756, 774–78 (E.D.N.Y. 1980) (preferential means will be particularly vulnerable to ment used that ‘‘campaign reform’’ law to campaigns by personally wealthy opponents. mailing rates for major parties struck down haul the little group into court, label them a REDUCING PAC CONTRIBUTIONS as violative of the First Amendment); Rhode ‘‘political committee’’ and threaten them Island Chapter of the National Women’s Politi- with injunctions and fines unless they com- The ‘‘fallback’’ provision, which goes into cal Caucus v. Rhode Island State Lottery plied with the law—all for publicly speaking effect when the flat ban is ruled unconstitu- Comm’n, 609 F. Supp. 1403, 1414 (D.R.I. 1985) their minds on a key political issue of the tional, as it surely will be, would lower PAC (allowing major parties but not other groups day. The Court of Appeals quickly held that contributions from $5,000 to $1,000 per can- to conduct fundraising lottery events vio- the group was an ad hoc issue organization, didate per election. This might be a closer lated the First Amendment); McKenna v. not a covered ‘‘political committee.’’ But we constitutional question. But the Court threw Reilly, 419 F. Supp. 1179, 1188 (D.R.I. 1976) got an early wake-up call on what ‘‘cam- out a $250 limit on contributions to a ref- (state parties’ allocation of tax check off paign reform’’ really meant. erendum campaign committee. See Committee funds to endorsed candidates and exclusion Of course, ‘‘real’’ PACs, i.e., those that Against Rent Control v. Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 of funds to unendorsed candidates violated give or spend money to or on behalf of fed- (1981). Indeed, just recently the Eighth Cir- First Amendment). eral candidates, come in all sizes and shapes. cuit likewise invalidated a $300 contribution Finally, some of the strings attached to They can be purely ideological or primarily limitation for donations to statewide can- the benefits offered would impose unprece- self-interested, or both simultaneously. And didates. Carver v. Nixon, — F.2d — ,64 Law dented controls on political speech by dictat- they span the political spectrum. Labor Week 2407 (8th Cir. 1995). And Meyer v. Grant, ing the format of campaign speech. The re- PACs were organized first, in the 1940’s, usu- 486 U.S. 414 (1988) held that people had a quirement that free air time cannot be used ally to provide funds, resources and person- right to spend money to hire others to gath- for campaign commercials of less than 30 nel to assist political candidates, usually er election petition signatures, strongly re- seconds is an impermissible interference Democrats. Corporate PACs came on line in affirming the right of a person to use his or with the content of political speech. See her resources to enlist others to advance McIntyre v. Ohio Election Commission, 115 S. the early 1970’s, usually on the Republican side. And both corporate and labor PACs their causes. In any event, this provision is Ct. 1511, 1518 (1995). The only conceivable fatally overbroad because it treats all PACs purpose for this restriction is that Congress were legitimized and liberated by the ‘‘re- forms’’ of the FECA, which allowed those alike, even those made up only of small con- thinks 10 second spot commercials are politi- tributors. cally objectionable. That is the kind of con- and all other PACs to contribute five times as much money to federal candidates as indi- Finally, apart from the First Amendment tent-based judgment that Congress cannot issues, what purpose is served by reducing make, even when it is conferring a benefit; viduals could. All this turned the Federal Election Campaign Act into the PAC Magna the ability of candidates to raise money nor can Congress compel the structure of without providing alternatives? speech in that fashion. See McIntyre, supra; Carta Act. Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977); Riley v. We think all that PAC activity is simply a Mr. President, earlier I mentioned National Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781, reflection of the myriad groups and associa- Col. Billie Bobbit (USAF), the EMILY’s 797 (1988). tions that make up so much of our political List member who is quiet certain the The McIntyre and Riley decisions also call life. And so many of them are an effective first amendment protects her right to into question the provisions of the Bill (Sec- way for individuals to maximize their politi- participate in elections via bundling. tion 302, Campaign Advertising) that man- cal voice by giving to the PAC of their Colonel Bobbitt’s instincts are right on date certain specific identifications and dis- choice. While many PAC contributors and closures in the text of print, display or supporters probably do fit the stereotype of the mark as the ACLU testimony ob- broadcast political advertisements. In McIn- the glad-handing, Washington-based influ- serves: tyre the Court reaffirmed the historic right ence peddler, millions of PAC supporters BUNDLING of political anonymity and invalidated a re- contribute less than $50 and expect nothing The same objections pertain to the ban on quirement that leaflets on referenda issues from the candidates in return. Indeed, for ‘‘bundling’’ of individual PAC contributions. state the name of the person responsible for millions of Americans, writing a check to This fallback proposal would abridge free- the publications. And in Riley, the Court the candidate, committee or cause of their struck down a compulsory disclosure state- dom of association which the Supreme Court choice is a fundamental political act, second has recognized as a ‘‘basic constitutional ment on charitable solicitation literature, in importance and meaning only to voting. finding a violation of the settled principle freedom.’’ Kusper v. pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 57 Proposals to restrict, restrain or even re- (1973). And the Court has pointedly observed that the First Amendment encompasses ‘‘the peal PACs would suppress the great variety decision of both what to say and what not to that ‘‘the practice of persons sharing com- of political activity those PACs embody. mon views banding together to achieve a say.’’ 487 U.S. at 797. Most of those proposals are doomed to defeat 2. The complete ban on, as well as the ‘‘fall- common end is deeply embedded in the as unconstitutional. All of them are doomed American political process.’’ Citizens Against back’’ restrictions of, Political Action Commit- to defeat as futile. tees are invalid under clear Supreme Court Rent Control v. Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290, 294 precedent. BANNING PAC CONTRIBUTIONS (1981). The practice of bundling reflects Subtitle A of Title II, the Draconian provi- There is not a word in Buckley v. Valeo or broad issue support to a candidate, indicat- sion which proudly proclaims that it enacts any of the other relevant cases on regulation ing that continued support is dependent on S6808 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 continued adherence to the views rep- to citizens all over the nation. When such is- no to government dependents.’’) should be a resented by the group. The proposed bill sues become central in certain campaigns, welcome development, rather than the tar- would severely restrict ideological groups people and groups from all over the country get for new and overbearing regulatory re- like Emily’s List, which have made a critical should be entitled to have their views and strictions. It is also a constitutionally-de- contribution to expanding political oppor- voices heard on those issues. Any other ap- rived right: ‘‘. . . Discussion of public issues tunity and opening up political doors to can- proach takes a disturbingly insular and iso- and debate on the qualifications of can- didates and groups so long excluded. lated view of political accountability and the didates are integral to the operation of the RECEIVING PAC CONTRIBUTIONS obligations of a Member of Congress. system of government established by our 3. The new controls on ‘‘soft money’’ con- The fallback provision would also prohibit Constitution . . . In a republic where the tributions and expenditures are unprecedented any PAC from making a contribution which people are sovereign, the ability of the citi- and unjustified restraints on political parties. raises a candidate’s PAC receipts above 20% zenry to make informed choices among can- The new sweeping controls on ‘‘soft- didates for office is essential.’’ Buckley v. of the campaign expenditure ceilings appli- money’’ contributions to and disbursements cable to that election. But this restraint also Valeo, 424 U.S. at 14–15. by political parties and other organizations, Finally, to some extent the motivations seems overbroad. The corruption concern be- federal, state or local, would expand the for the new restraints on party activity may comes very attenuated in this setting, and reaches of the FECA into unprecedented new reflect a concern about the source of the the rationale for the overall 20% limit seems areas and far beyond any compelling interest ‘‘soft money’’ funding, namely, from cor- weak against First Amendment standards. would require. porations and large individual donors. In Once the limit is reached, candidates and For the first time, any amounts expended that regard, it should be observed that Buck- PACs, in effect, would be banned totally or disbursed by a political party in an elec- ley upheld the $1,000 limit on individual con- from political interaction with one another, tion year ‘‘for any activity which might af- tributions to candidates in part because which would seem as constitutionally vul- fect the outcome of a Federal election, in- there would be so many other ways in which nerable as a total ban and have the effect of cluding but not limited to any voter reg- people and organizations could bring their fi- a limitation on campaign expenditures. And istration and get-out-the-vote activity, any nancial resources to bear on politics. See 424 what of new groups that wanted to support a generic campaign activity and any commu- U.S. at 28–29, 44–45. The bill would block ave- candidate after the candidate’s PAC quota nication that identifies a Federal can- nues of advocacy that the Buckley Court as- had been reached, especially if the campaign didate. . .’’ would be subject to regulation. sumed would remain open. turns on an issue—abortion for example—of See Section 212. The full panoply of FECA These issues are presently before the Su- great moment to that group? compliance and control would be brought to preme Court in an important case in which Finally, all of this begins to resemble yet bear on the enormous amount of political certiorari was granted in early January. See another backdoor effort to limit overall party activity which heretofore has been ex- Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Com- campaign expenditures, in violation of Buck- empt from controls because it was not di- mittee v. Federal Election Commission, O.T. ley’s core principles. rectly and explicitly focused on specific fed- 1995, No. 95–489, reviewing, 59 F.3d 1015 (10th LIMITING OUT-OF-STATE POLITICAL eral candidates. And even beyond that, ‘‘soft Cir. 1995). At the very least, any action on CONTRIBUTIONS money’’ spending by persons other than po- this section of the bill should await the Somehow, I have always found particularly litical parties is also for the first time sub- Court’s resolution of the Colorado case. For troublesome those proposals to limit the ject to comprehensive regulation, with re- your information, the ACLU plans to file an amount of out-of-district or out-of-state con- porting, disclosure and notification require- amicus curiae brief in support of the Colo- tributions to candidates. Section 241 does ments mandated as well as a required certifi- rado Republican Federal Campaign Commit- not seem to operate as a direct ban on out- cation of whether the disbursement ‘‘is in tee. of-State contributions. Rather it provides support of, or in opposition to, one or more 4. The new provisions governing the right to that a candidate must receive not less than candidates or any political party.’’ make independent expenditures improperly in- 60% of their overall contributions from in- The reach of these new proposals is breath- trude upon that core area of electoral speech state individuals in order to remain in com- taking. Starting with Buckley v. Valeo, the and impermissibly invade the absolutely pro- pliance with the spending limits and receive Court has recognized a fundamental con- tected area of issue advocacy. the statutory benefits. Obviously, this is a stitutional distinction between candidate-fo- Two basic truths have emerged with crys- backdoor effort to limit PAC contributions cused expenditures and contributions, which tal clarity after twenty years of campaign fi- to candidates, since so many PAC contribu- can be subject to certain specific regulation, nance regulations. First, independent elec- tors come from States different from the and all other non-partisan, political and toral advocacy by citizen groups lies at the candidates their PACs contribute to, as do issue-oriented speech, advocacy and associa- very core of the meaning and purpose of the the PACs themselves. It also seems to be an tion. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. at 14–15, First Amendment. Second, issue advocacy by effort to insulate incumbents from well- 78–80, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, citizen group lies totally outside the permis- funded challenges supported from another 435 U.S. 765 (1978); FEC v. Massachusetts Citi- sible area of government regulation. State. zens For Life, 479 U.S. 238, 249 (1986). The rea- In Buckley the Court upheld the speech and Any potential justification for this ban son for this First Amendment Continental association rights of individuals to engage in seems highly unlikely to pass constitutional Divide is to insure that the permissible regu- independent campaign expenditures ex- muster. Analogizing this restriction to a vot- lation of candidate-focused political cam- pressly advocating the election or defeat of er’s residency requirement falls short after paign funding remains confined to that area, political candidates. In Federal Election Com- McIntyre v. Ohio Board of Elections,—US— and does not expand to encompass all the mission v. National Conservative Political Ac- (1995) which held that restrictions on politi- funding of all political issues and groups. tion Committee, 470 U.S. 480 (1985), the Court cal speech about candidates or referenda These regulations of funding which is not assured the same rights to political action cannot be upheld on the grounds that they candidate-focused transgresses this boundary committees. And in Federal Election Commis- are merely ballot or electoral regulations, and requires, at the very least, the dem- sion v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 470 because, in reality, they are free speech limi- onstration of the most compelling govern- U.S. 238 (1986) the same right of express elec- tations. Indeed, a federal court in Oregon re- mental interests, necessarily and narrowly toral advocacy was extended to certain kinds cently so held in overturning a requirement achieved by the sweeping new controls. of non-profit advocacy groups despite their that state and local candidates had to raise Moreover, any regulation of political par- corporate form, although a later case held all their campaign funds from individuals ties is a regulation of a quintessential First that other corporate entities could be re- who resided within their election districts. Amendment instrumentality and likewise stricted in this regard. See Austin v. Michi- Vannatta v. Keisling,—F. Supp.—(D. Ore. requires compelling justification, at a mini- gan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990). 1995). mum. See Tashjian v. Republican Party, 479 S. 1219 abridges these rights in two ways. Moreover, in-state limitations could de- U.S. 208 (1986); Eu v. San Francisco Democratic First, Section 201 of the bill completely bans prive particular kinds of underfinanced, in- Party, 489 U.S. 214 (1989). Political parties independent expenditures by PACs, which is surgent candidates of the kind of out-of- play a vital role in galvanizing the political flatly unconstitutional, as noted above. On state support they need. Just as much of the life of the nation. Indeed, many political sci- the ‘‘fallback’’ assumption of such likely in- civil rights movement was funded by con- entists have expressed mounting concern validation, Section 251 redefines independent tributors and supporters from other parts of that one consequence of the current regime expenditures so narrowly and ‘‘coordinated’’ the nation, so, too, are many new and strug- of candidate-focused political funding and expenditures so broadly that the area of free- gling candidates supported by interests be- activity is unfortunately to undermine the dom of speech and association is drastically yond their home states. This proposal would role of parties, special interest groups or ad reduced and abridged in the process. severely harm such candidacies. Perhaps, hoc coalitions as instruments for political Under current law, an independent expend- that is its purpose. activity and vitality. For that reason, an ex- itures is one made without the knowledge or Finally, Congress is our national legisla- panded amount of party spending on voter permission of a candidate, his or her agent or ture, and although its representatives come registration, party identification, get-out- campaign committee. See 2 U.S.C. section and are elected from separate districts and the-vote drives, and partisan-based issue dis- 431(17) (‘‘The term ‘independent expenditure’ states, the issues you deal with are, by defi- cussion (‘‘The Republicans want to cut Medi- means an expenditure by a person expressly nition, national issues that transcend dis- care and Medicaid. Don’t let them do it.’’ or, advocating the election or defeat of a clearly trict and state lines and may be of concern ‘‘The Democrats support a welfare state. Say identified candidate which is made without June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6809 cooperation or consultation with any can- new powers to go to court to seek an injunc- call on Congress to send me legislation that didate, or any authorized committee or tion on the allegation of a ‘‘substantial like- will address the American public’s desire for agent of such candidate, and which is not lihood that a violation . . . is about to real change in our political process, and in so made in concert with, or at the request or occur’’ is fraught with First Amendment doing renew our democracy and strengthen suggestion of, any candidate or any author- peril. our country. I support the legislation now ized committee or agent of such can- As indicated earlier in this testimony, the being considered. In particular, I approve of didate.’’). Coordinated expenditures are very first suit brought under the brand several reforms such as placing limits on treated like and limited like contributions spanking new campaign reforms in 1972 was spending, curbing PAC and lobbyist influ- to a candidate. against a small group of dissenters who spon- ence, discounting the cost of broadcast time, The proposed bill, however, so broadly de- sored an ad in The New York Times criticizing and reforming the soft money system. fines coordination that virtually any person the President and praising a handful of his Organized interests have too much power who has had any interaction with a can- Congressional critics. Reminiscent of some in the halls of government. Oftentimes, rep- didate or any campaign official, in person or of the language in the bill before you, the resentatives from such interest groups oper- otherwise, is barred from making an inde- government’s claim was that the advertise- ate without accountability and are granted pendent expenditure. For example, under ment was an electioneering message because special privileges that ordinary Americans Section 251, any expenditure is deemed co- it was ‘‘in derogation of’’ candidate Nixon don’t even know exist. In addition, elections ordinated, and not independent, if the person and ‘‘in support of’’ the praised Members that represent an opportunity in which ordi- making it ‘‘has advised or counseled’’ the who were also up for re-election. While the nary voters should have the loudest voice candidate or his agents on any matter relat- courts quickly and sharply rebuffed those ef- have become so expensive that these voices ing to the campaign or election. If you use forts to use political campaign laws to con- are sometimes drowned out by big money. the same political consultant or firm as the trol issue advocacy, see United States v. Na- Let us capitalize on the progress made in candidate you are likewise deemed coordi- tional Committee for Impeachment, 469 F.2d 1135 the last three years. In 1993, we repealed the nated. (2d Cir. 1972); American Civil Liberties Union v. tax loophole that allowed lobbyists to deduct These restrictions embody a new and im- Jennings, 366 F. Supp. 1041 (D.D.C. 1973), the the cost of their activities. In 1994, I signed permissible version of ‘‘guilt by associa- Commission’s record of sensitivity to First a law that applies to Congress the same laws tion,’’ and a new kind of ‘‘gag rule’’ by asso- Amendment values in the area of issue advo- if imposes on the general public. Last year, ciation. See De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 cacy was once described as ‘‘abysmal.’’ See Congress answered my call to stop taking (1937) (A speaker cannot be punished for or- National Committee for Impeachment, supra, 469 gifts, meals, and trips from lobbyists, and I ganizing a meeting and appearing on the F.2d at 1141–42 (Kaufman, C.J. concurring). signed the Lobbying Disclosure Act into law. same public platform where radicals were And ever since then, non-partisan, issue-ori- We now have an opportunity to finish the job also speaking). Indeed, it could have some ented groups like the ACLU, the National by addressing campaign finance reform. perverse effects. A disaffected campaign Organization for Women, the Chamber of As we work to reform campaign finance, worker or volunteer, who leaves a campaign Commerce, Right-to-Life Committees and we must do everything in our power to en- because he or she thinks a candidate has many others, have had to defend themselves sure that we open, not limit, the political acted improperly, is barred from making against charges that their public advocacy process. Our goal is to take the reins of our independent expenditures against that can- rendered them subject to all of the FECA’s democracy away from big special interests, didate, for, ironically, they will be deemed a restrictions, regulations and controls. And from big money, and to return them to the contribution. the problem persists. See Federal Election hands of those who deserve them—ordinary The other way in which the provision gov- Commission v. Survival Education Fund, 65 Americans. Real reform is now achievable. I erning independent expenditures is fatally F.3d 285 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding, 2 to 1, that urge the Senate to pass this legislation and flawed is in its expanded definition of ‘‘ex- 1984 fund-raising mailings critical of Presi- give the American people something we can press advocacy,’’ which is defined as a com- dent Reagan’s foreign policies constituted a all be proud of. munication that ‘‘taken as a whole and with solicitation of a contribution subject to Sincerely, limited reference to external events’’ com- FECA requirements). BILL CLINTON. municates ‘‘an expression of support for or The kind of ‘‘chilling effect’’ that such en- BROADCAST PROVISIONS opposition to’’ a specific candidate or groups forcement authority generates in the core of candidates. ‘‘Expression of support’’ in- area of protected speech makes the strongest Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it has cludes ‘‘a suggestion to take action with re- case against giving the Commission addi- been suggested that the broadcast pro- spect to an election,’’ including ‘‘to refrain tional powers to tamper with First Amend- visions in this bill may adversely affect from taking action.’’ ‘‘Throw the rascals ment rights. the broadcast industry and I would like out’’ has just become express advocacy. This broadened definition of ‘‘express advo- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- to respond to that point. cacy’’ would sweep in the kind of essential ator has 16 seconds remaining. First, with respect to the free time issue advocacy which Buckley and cases pre- Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I provision, it is important to under- dating Buckley by a generation, see Thomas thank my staffers, Tamara Somerville stand that this is really a limited free v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945), have held to be and Lani Gerst for their good work on time benefit. It is limited to 30 minutes immune from government regulation and this most important issue. Tam and I of free time. Second, the free time is control. It seems to be targeted exactly have been through these battles a few only available to general election can- against the kind of voting record ‘‘box score’’ discussion that emanates from the times, including staying up all night, a didates—not primary election can- hundreds and thousands of issue organiza- couple years ago. She has been a great didates. And third, of the general elec- tions that enrich our public and political help. I have enjoyed working with her tion candidates, it is only available to life. In Buckley, the Court adopted a bright on this and thank her for her service to those general election candidates who line test of express advocacy (words that in the Nation. agree to limit their spending. express terms advocate the election of defeat The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- We have also carefully crafted this of a candidate) in order to immunize issue ator from Wisconsin has 9 minutes. provision to have as minimal effect on advocacy form regulation: ‘‘So long as per- Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I the broadcasters as possible. First, no sons or groups eschew expenditures that in thank Andy Kutler, Susan Martinez, express terms advocate the election or defeat one candidate can request more than 15 of a clearly identified candidate, they are and Larry Murphy. minutes of their free time from any free to spend as much as they want to pro- I ask unanimous consent that a let- one broadcast station. Second, use of mote the candidate and his views.’’ Id. at 45. ter from President Clinton, a longtime the free time must occur in intervals Indeed, the 1975 Act contained a similar pro- supporter of campaign finance reform, between 30 seconds and 5 minutes. This vision regulating issue groups and their ‘‘box urging the Senate to pass this legisla- will ensure that the requirement to score’’ activities, and that section was tion be printed in the RECORD. provide free time will not interfere unanimously held unconstitutional by the en There being no objection, the mate- with the normal programming of the banc Court of Appeals, without any further rial was ordered to be printed in the appeal by the government. See Buckley v. broadcast station. Valeo, 519 F.2d 817, 832 (D.C. Cir. 1975). The RECORD, as follows: And finally, the bill clearly states expanded definition of ‘‘express advocacy’’ is THE WHITE HOUSE, any broadcast station that can dem- similarly flawed. Washington, DC, June 24, 1996. onstrate that providing such free time 5. The bill gives unacceptable new powers of Hon. THOMAS A. DASCHLE, will cause the station significant eco- prior restraint and political censorship to the Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, nomic hardship is exempt from the free DC. Federal Election Commission. time requirement. With all of these problems with the bill, DEAR MR. LEADER: Just over a year ago, I particularly those that pertain to issue advo- shook hands with Speaker Gingrich and pub- So clearly, the free time provision is cacy and independent expenditures, giving licly affirmed my commitment to reforming not going to have a significantly bur- the Federal Election Commission sweeping the nation’s campaign finance laws. Now I densome effect on the broadcasters. S6810 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 With respect to the 50-percent dis- general election candidates who agree imum, it is likely to be much less than count, it should be noted that this pro- to voluntarily limit their spending. In this. vision is really the linchpin of the leg- any given State, where only two Sen- And as you can see from this chart, islation. Without public financing, ate elections occur every 6 years, this the broadcast provisions in the there must be some alternative incen- will have a nominal impact on broad- McCain-Feingold proposal would cost tive to encourage candidates to volun- casters. Even if all general election the broadcast industry less than two- tarily limit their campaign spending. candidates do agree to comply with the tenths of 1 percent of their total adver- Such an incentive had to have an effect bill and receive the benefits, that tising revenues in 1994. And again, similar to that of public funding in the means that all of the broadcasters in a these nominal costs would only have to Presidential system—that is, to lower particular State will only have to pro- be incurred twice every 6 years. campaign costs so the candidate can vide 2 hours of free time over a 6-year So I think it is clear, Mr. President, spend less time on the phone raising period. that not only does the broadcast indus- money and more time running a state- It may interest my colleagues to try have a legal obligation to contrib- wide grassroots campaign. know that the Congressional Research ute to the political process, such a con- As we all know, the great proportion Service has analyzed the broadcast pro- tribution would have a minimal effect of a Senate candidate’s campaign budg- visions of the McCain-Feingold pro- on their overall revenues. The benefit et is devoted to broadcast advertising. posal, and prepared a cost-estimate of to the public of cleaning up our con- And therefore, the most sensible solu- how much these provisions might cost gressional elections, in contrast, would tion for lowering campaign costs is to the broadcast industry. be enormous. cut the costs of running television ad- I ask unanimous consent that the Mr. President, it has been suggested vertisements. text of this report be placed in the that the bipartisan proposal put forth Keep in mind, Mr. President, current RECORD at the conclusion of my re- by myself and the Senators from Ari- law already recognizes a public trustee marks. zona and Tennessee would somehow standard with respect to broadcasters. According to CRS, assuming all gen- further entrench incumbents and make Under current law, broadcasters must eral election candidates were eligible it more difficult for challengers to run provide all Federal candidates with the for and used the free time benefit, this for office. lowest price they charge to commercial provision would cost the broadcast in- Mr. President, this is yet another ar- advertisers for similarly run advertise- dustry a maximum, a maximum Mr. gument put forth by the defenders of ments. President, of about $6 million per Sen- the status quo that does not pass the That is current law. All we are doing ate election. straight face test. is providing an additional discount to Figures provided by the National As- First of all, let us remember what that special price. sociation of Broadcasters [NAB] show sort of campaign finance system we This is entirely consistent with the that total political television advertis- currently have and how it affects chal- Supreme Court’s 1969 ruling in Red ing revenues in 1994 for the broadcast lengers and incumbents. I don’t think Lion Broadcasting Company versus industry were $355 million. That is just that anyone can dispute that the cur- Federal Communications Commission political advertising revenues. rent campaign finance system confers decision. In the Red Lion decision, the Total television advertising revenues significant benefits on incumbent Sen- Court upheld the congressional deter- in 1994 were $24.7 billion. ators that provides incumbents an mination made in 1934 that the air- That means that the free time provi- overwhelming advantage over chal- waves belong to the American people, sion in the McCain-Feingold proposal, lengers. and this decision has subsequently scored at a maximum of $6 million by Incumbents start out with more been used to require the broadcasters CRS, would cost the broadcasters name recognition. Incumbents are per- to provide services such as lowest unit about 1.6 percent of their annual politi- mitted to send out free mass mailings rate and equal time to qualifying Fed- cal advertising revenues, and less than to the voters of their States, which eral candidates. three-hundredths of 1 percent (.025 per- often are little more than thinly dis- To suggest that the provisions em- cent) of their total annual advertising guised campaign newsletters. bodied in the McCain-Feingold bill are revenues. And of course, this would And most importantly, as virtually somehow a violation of the broad- only occur in a brief period of time every legitimate study has shown, the casters first amendment rights is a every 2 years. campaign cash overwhelmingly flows proposition that has already been And what about the 50-percent dis- to incumbents. Whether it is PAC tossed out by the courts. count provision, that has been pur- money, soft money, bundled money— Let me quote from the legal analysis ported to be potentially catastrophic you name it. The campaign money al- of this issue prepared by Law Professor for the broadcast industry. According ways flows to incumbents. Fred Schauer of Harvard University. to CRS, the total cost of the 50-percent To suggest that spending limits will Professor Schauer writes, discount provision in the primary and somehow make it more difficult for general election would be $48 million, challengers to run for office is to sug- As long as Red Lion remains the law, Con- gress may within limits consider broadcast again, assuming all candidates were el- gest that challengers have access to time to belong to the public, and to be sub- igible for the discount. the kind of money that incumbents ject to allocation in the public interest. In So the most this provision would cost have access to. this respect, therefore, price restrictions on the broadcast industry according to That assertion is just factually false. advertising, and direct grants of broadcast CRS’s independent analysis is less than Challengers cannot raise millions of time, will not violate the First Amendment $50 million. dollars as incumbents can. The few as it is presently interpreted. Again, how does this compare as a challengers that are able to mount So it is clear that what we are re- percentage of the industry’s revenues, credible campaigns are those few chal- quiring in this campaign finance re- both political and commercial? lengers that are millionaires, and that form bill is not only sound public pol- Using the NAB’s numbers on political is why more and more Senate cam- icy, but completely within the confines advertising revenues and all other ad- paigns are turning into races between of first amendment principles. vertising revenues, this $48 million pro- an incumbent and a millionaire. So now we come to the question of vision in S. 1219 would cost broad- As this first chart demonstrates, how this provision will affect the finan- casters, at most, about 13 percent of money does matter. In 1990, 1992, and cial viability of the broadcast industry. their political advertising revenues, 1994, the Senate average winning can- Mr. President, when we talk about and less than half of 1 percent (.19 per- didate not only outspent the loser in what sort of costs the broadcasters are cent) of their total advertising reve- that particular race, but far out- going to incur as a result of this legis- nues. And again, this would only be distanced them. lation, there are several important fac- every 2 years. In fact, in most cases, the winning tors to keep in mind. Mr. President, we are talking about candidate doubled—doubled—Mr. Presi- First, with respect to the free time less than one-half of 1 percent of the dent, what the losing candidate spent. provision, we are only talking about industry’s revenues. And that is a max- That means that for every television June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6811 spot the losing candidate was able to voluntary spending limits might be lation is modeled after. We provide a run, the winning candidate was able to found by the courts to be unconstitu- voluntary system of spending limits run two television spots—in some tional, is unfounded. Mr. President, and benefits. No one is forced to par- cases, three or four or five times as this argument is a giant red herring ticipate, no one is coerced into partici- many spots. meant to divert attention away from pating, and there are no penalties, not Now the fact that money is clearly the real issues. a single one, for candidates who choose the most determining factor in influ- Let us be very clear about what the not to voluntarily comply. encing the outcome of Senate elections Supreme Court held in the Buckley Just like the Presidential system is troubling by itself. It is a harsh in- versus Valeo decision in 1976. The that has been specifically upheld by dictment of the current limitless- Court said two very important things the Supreme Court. spending campaign spending that the in the Buckley decision; The assertion that the Senator from junior Senator from Kentucky is de- First, the Court made a distinction Kentucky is making, that voluntary fending. between mandatory limitations on ex- spending limits tied to the offering of But if we know that the candidate penditures by candidates, and manda- cost-saving benefits is unconstitu- who spends the most money is likely to tory limitations on contributions to tional, is a challenge that has been spe- be the winning Senate candidate, the candidates. The Court said that we cifically rejected by the courts. Let me next logical question is, who’s getting cannot place mandatory spending lim- repeat that Mr. President. The argu- the money? its on all candidates, because that ment that the Senator from Kentucky As you can see, Mr. President, in- would infringe on the first amendment is making, that voluntary spending cumbents are getting the money. Not rights of those candidates who may limits tied to benefits is unconstitu- only are they getting the money, they wish not to abide by the spending lim- tional, has specifically been rejected by are blowing challengers out of the its. the Federal courts. water. Second, the Court upheld mandatory The case was Republican National That is the current campaign finance limitations on campaign contributions, Committee versus Federal Election system—a system in which the can- declaring that such contributions could Commission, and in that case a three- didate who spends the most money is have, or appear to have, a corrupting judge Federal panel specifically upheld the likely winner, and a system in influence on the recipient of those con- the constitutionality of voluntary which the money flows overwhelmingly tributions, and contributions could spending limits and rejected the argu- to incumbents. The current system is therefore be limited. ment put forth by the Senator from rigged to protect incumbents, and our Now, I have heard the Senator from Kentucky. That decision was sum- proposal, for the first time ever, will Kentucky say on many occasions that marily affirmed by the U.S. Supreme provide challengers who do not have the Supreme Court has said that Court. access to millions and millions of dol- money equals political speech and that It is true that unlike the Presidential lars to run a fair and competitive cam- since we cannot limit political speech, system, the McCain-Feingold-Thomp- paign. we cannot limit the flow of money. As son proposal does not have public fi- We have spending limits in the Presi- the Senator from Kentucky just as- dential system, Mr. President. Have nancing. It would have been my pref- serted, money, in his view, equals they protected incumbents? They erence to have public financing, but I speech and we can’t limit it. agreed to forgo public financing as a didn’t protect President Ford. They However, Mr. President, the Supreme didn’t protect President Carter. And part of this compromise proposal. Court did not, in fact, say that money Instead, we offer broadcast and post- they didn’t protect President Bush. is speech and cannot be limited, and The Presidential system, thanks to age discounts that will substantially saying it over and over again doesn’t reduce the costs of running for a Sen- voluntary spending limits, has pro- make it any more true. duced fair and competitive elections ate seat. And the outlandish suggestion The Court did say that money is a has been made by a few—very few in- for 20 years now. The congressional form of speech, and can only be limited system, with unlimited campaign deed—that this distinction, between by the Government in certain cir- public financing and advertising dis- spending, has produced the opposite. cumstances. And as I said, one of those The evidence is clear, Mr. President counts, is what makes our legislation circumstances is in the form of limits and I am hopeful my colleagues will unconstitutional. on campaign contributions. If the Su- see through the phony and absurd argu- Mr. President, that is an absurd prop- preme Court had held that money ment that spending limits hurt chal- osition. The only way such a voluntary equals absolute speech, then they lengers. system could possibly be unconstitu- would not have upheld limitations on THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT tional is if the system were not truly campaign contributions. voluntary, or in other words, if can- Mr. President, I have listened to the Besides contribution limits, the Su- arguments of the Senator from Ken- didates were essentially coerced into preme Court has said that there are participating. How do you coerce a can- tucky, the Senator from Washington, other ways we can constitutionally and others, with respect to the con- didate into participating? By making limit the flow of campaign money, in- stitutionality of this campaign reform the benefits so incredibly valuable and cluding campaign expenditures. by imposing tough penalties against proposal. As the Court said in the Buckley de- I share his concern that we should those who choose not to comply, so cision: not pass legislation that would be a that there really is not choice for a clear violation of the first amendment. Congress may engage in public financing of candidate to participate or not. election campaigns and may condition ac- And this is where the Senator from I stand behind no one when it comes ceptance of public funds on an agreement by to defending the first amendment and the candidate to abide by specified expendi- Ketucky’s—Senator MCCONNELL—argu- the principles it stands for. That is ture limitations. Just as a candidate may ment completely falls apart. The court why I will not support a constitutional voluntarily limit the size of the contribu- ruled in the Buckley case that public amendment that would allow us to im- tions he chooses to accept, he may decide to financing was not coercive. So for our pose mandatory spending limits. At forgo private fundraising and accept public bill to be unconstitutional, the benefits one time, I did vote for a sense of the funding. would have to be even more valuable Senate resolution regarding such an In short, the Presidential system is a than direct public financing. amendment but I have come to believe completely voluntary system that of- Mr. President, the benefits in our bill that we should respect the Supreme fers incentives in the form of public fi- are very valuable. The 50-percent Court’s rulings on this issue, and that nancing to candidates who agree to broadcast discount alone will cut a these rulings have provided enough limit their spending. That, the Court candidate’s advertising costs in half. guidance and direction that we can said, was perfectly constitutional. But these benefits do not even come write a constitutional proposal that And that sort of voluntary system, close to the value of direct public fi- would be upheld by the Supreme Court. specifically upheld by the Supreme nancing. I have to say that what the Senator Court in the Buckley decision, is what Suppose you are a Federal candidate from Kentucky is suggesting, that the the McCain-Feingold-Thompson legis- running a $1 million campaign. And S6812 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 suppose you had a choice of two bene- and respected first amendment au- I should also say, Mr. President, that fits; you could either have a 50-percent thorities in the country. a proposal to not only ban PAC con- discount on your broadcast advertis- These authorities include Professor tributions, but also to prohibit PAC’s ing, or you could have a check for $1 Daniel Hays Lowenstein of the UCLA from engaging in independent expendi- million. Which benefit are you going to Law School, Professor Cass Sunstein of tures as the Pressler-Durenberger take? the University of Chicago Law School, amendment did, can actually be found The question is obvious, Mr. Presi- Professor Fred Schauer of Harvard Uni- in another reform bill—a bill intro- dent. Every candidate in America faced versity, Professor Jamin Raskin of the duced by the junior Senator from Ken- with such a choice would clearly favor Washington College of Law at Amer- tucky. I am somewhat surprised that the public financing. Public financing ican University and Professor Marlene the junior Senator from Kentucky, who is a far more valuable benefit, and for Arnold Nicholson of the DePaul Uni- has condemned such a proposal as un- the Senator from Kentucky to suggest versity College of Law. constitutional and a blatant violation otherwise flies in the face of the reality These experts, among the most wide- of the first amendment, would include of our campaign system. ly respected first amendment and con- such a provision in the reform bill he I find it interesting that during the stitutional scholars in the country, all wrote. course of the many hearings that have agree that the voluntary structure of So, Mr. President, just a couple of been held in the Senate Rules Commit- spending limits tied to broadcast and years ago, 86 Senators went on record tee, much testimony was heard from postage discounts is fully consistent in favor of a PAC ban coupled with fall- several constitutional experts. How- with the Constitution. back limitations in case of an unfavor- ever, only one of those experts, Law Now, Mr. President, some have also able Supreme Court ruling. The provi- professor Fred Schauer of Harvard Uni- suggested that the provision in our sion in our proposal is actually far less versity, made it clear that he had no proposal to prohibit Political Action restrictive than that included in the position on the policy aspects of the Committee contributions to Federal Pressler-Durenberger amendment, as McCain-Feingold bill. Every other ex- candidates may not pass constitutional we only limit PAC contributions, not pert called by the committee—on both muster. I, for one, am skeptical that their independent expenditures. If 86 sides of the issue—made clear that in you can constitutionally prohibit a Senators, including the Senator from addition to their legal views, they also group of individuals from banding to- Kentucky, believed a complete PAC has a bias as to either being in favor or gether, pooling their resources and prohibition to be constitutional enough opposition to the reform bill. contributing to a Federal candidate that they could vote for it, I see no rea- And how did Professor Schauer re- any more than you can prohibit any son why the same number, or even spond to the Senator from Kentucky’s single individual from contributing to more Senators now could not support a claim that the voluntary structure of a Federal candidate. far less restrictive regulation. spending limits in our bill was uncon- However, we must remember that the In closing, Mr. President, I want to stitutional? After pointing out that the Supreme Court has taken a favorable assure my colleagues that I believe, arguments asserted by the Senator position with respect to the Govern- and the Senator from Arizona believes, from Kentucky were the same argu- ment limiting campaign contributions, that the key provisions of this legisla- ments rejected in the RNC decision, a and indeed, the Supreme Court has tion would be upheld by the courts. decision that was summarily affirmed upheld the constitutionality of abso- Moreover, nonpartisan experts from by the Supreme Court, Professor lute prohibits on specific entities mak- around the country, including the Con- Schauer said: ing campaign contributions, such as gressional Research Service, who do If we stick to the question * * * and sepa- labor unions and corporations. not have a prejudice one way or the rate the constitutional questions from the Nonetheless, our proposal con- other on this proposal, have told us policy question * * * voting against the bill templates such a legal challenge, and that these provisions are constitu- on the assumption that it is clearly incon- contains specific fall-back provisions if tional. sistent with existing Supreme Court and fed- the Supreme Court ruled a PAC con- I ask unanimous consent that a eral court precedent is not an accurate char- tribution ban unconstitutional. These statement designating that the broad- acterization of the precedent. fall-back provisions would reduce al- cast provisions in the bill would have Mr. President, the Schauer testi- lowable PAC contributions from $5,000 only a relatively nominal impact in mony is just a move in a chorus of ob- to $1,000, and stipulate that no can- the broadcast industry be printed in jective analyses from constitutional didate could receive more than 20 per- the RECORD. experts around the country who have cent of the applicable spending limits There being no objection, the mate- held that the voluntary spending limits in aggregate PAC contributions. rial was ordered to be printed in the in the McCain-Feingold-Thompson bill Where did this fall-back proposal RECORD, as follows: does pass constitutional muster. With- come from, Mr. President? It is the CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, out asking for anyone’s view on the exact same proposal, word for word, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, policy implications of our proposal, we that was contained in the Pressler- Washington, DC, February 8, 1996. asked several authorities in the legal Durenberger amendment offered to S. To: Honorable Russell Feingold, Attention: and academic community for their 3, the campaign finance reform bill Andy Kutler. opinions about the constitutionality of From: Joseph E. Cantor, specialist in Amer- considered in the 103d Congress. ican National Government, Government this proposal. That amendment, which not only Division. We asked the nonpartisan American banned PAC contributions, also banned Subject: Estimated value of free and dis- Law Division of the Congressional Re- all PAC expenditures in a Federal elec- counted TV time under S. 1219—the Sen- search Service to prepare a constitu- tion including independent expendi- ate Campaign Finance Reform Act of tional analysis of our proposal. The tures, included these very fall-back 1995. analysis, prepared by Paige Whitaker, limitations on PAC contributions if the This memorandum provides information a well-respected attorney with CRS Supreme Court ruled such a ban uncon- relevant to estimating the dollar value of who has prepared a number of reports the free and discounted TV air time that stitutional. The Pressler-Durenberger would be offered to Senate candidates under for Congress on this issue and who has amendment passed the U.S. Senate by S. 1219, the Senate Campaign Finance Re- been called to testify before Congress a vote of 86 to 11. form Act of 1995. on campaign reform, states very clear- Yes, 86 to 11, Mr. President. I voted S. 1219, introduced by Senator McCain and ly that the voluntary system created for it. Most of the Members of this you, establishes a system of voluntary ex- in our bill of offering incentives in ex- body, including the Senator from Ken- penditure limits for Senate candidates, in change for compliance with spending tucky, voted for it. exchange for three cost-reduction benefits: limitations is wholly consistent with Our provisions dealing with PAC con- (1) 30 minutes of free TV time; (2) additional TV time at 50 percent of the lowest unit rate the Court’s ruling in Buckley versus tributions are actually far more per- (LUR); and (3) a reduced postal rate for two Valeo. missive than the provisions contained mailings per eligible voter. This memoran- In addition to CRS, my office con- in the Pressler-Durenberger amend- dum focuses on estimating the value of the tacted some of the most well-known ment which 86 Senators voted for. first two benefits, dealing with TV time. June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6813 As I have explained to you, and as has been commercial advertiser, we subtracted 15 per- mission (FEC), payments to broadcast sta- reinforced in my conversations with all my cent to reflect the rate most stations charge tions usually are not itemized and are often sources, both these tasks are highly specula- to political advertisers (this political rate, included among other payments to media tive, and the resulting estimates I have de- not required by law, should not be confused consultants; nor do the reports group ex- rived are subject to challenge on any number with the lowest unit rate which Federal law penditures by category for easier retrieval of of grounds. I have used different methodol- requires broadcasters to offer candidates). desired information. Furthermore, the Fed- ogy and sources for each of the two tasks, re- We arrived at a national political rate per eral Communications Commission does not lying in both cases on a combination of ac- point of $21,593. I then calculated a national systematically compile data of this nature tual cost figures, published estimates, and average cost per rating point, by dividing from the broadcast stations. Until very re- educated guesses and assumptions by appro- $21,593 by 211 (the number of U.S. media mar- cently, observers were forced to rely on anec- priate authorities. While these assumptions kets), yielding an average political cost per dotes, surveys, or estimates of the amount of can legitimately be challenged, I believe this point of $102. campaign money that was directed specifi- effort to represent a reasonable, logical at- In order to get a cost figure for an actual cally to broadcast time purchases. tempt at a rough approximation of the dollar 30-second spot, one must multiply the cost Following the 1990 congressional elections, value of the proposed benefits. Appropriate per point by the number of points which a two reporters for The Los Angeles Times un- caveats and sources are noted herein. particular program (or TV show) commands. dertook a massive, systematic study of con- gressional campaign expenditures in that BENEFIT NO. 1: FREE TV TIME We chose five popular TV shows in Monday through Friday prime time, and then aver- election—based on candidates’ disclosure fil- PROPOSAL aged their national rating point numbers. ings—and arranged the data into categories.7 The bill would provide 30 minutes of free The shows (and their national rating points) Comparable studies were done following the television air time to participating can- were: NYPD Blue, ABC (15.90); 20/20, ABC 1992 and 1994 elections, by Dwight Morris didates, to be used: (1) in the general election (17.10); Law and Order, NBC (12.80); Frasier, (one of the original authors) and Murielle period (i.e., once the candidate has qualified NBC (14.70); and Chicago Hope, CBS (14.90).4 Gamache. Because of their exhaustive efforts for the general election ballot); (2) on Mon- The average national rating points of these and professional skill, these studies are wide- days-Fridays, between 6 PM and 10 PM (un- shows came to 15.1. Hence, the average 30- ly accepted by campaign finance experts as less the candidate elects otherwise); (3) in second spot on a popular prime time show is containing the most reliable, authoritative segments of between 30 seconds and 5 min- 15.1 multiplied by $102, or $1,540. data on campaign expenditures by type of utes; and (4) on stations within the State or If 60 of these 30-second spots are used, the service. Consequently, my estimates are an adjacent State, but with no more than 15 benefit equals $92,400 per candidate, on aver- based heavily on the data in the most recent minutes on any one station. age. Obviously, a New York area candidate’s published study: Handbook of Campaign METHODOLOGY benefit would be much higher, while a Mon- Spending: Money in the 1992 Congressional Our goal was to make a reasonable deter- tana candidate’s benefit would be much Races, By Dwight Morris and Murielle E. mination of the dollar value of 30 minutes of lower. Gamache (Washington, Congressional Quar- television advertising time which Senate ESTIMATED TOTAL terly, Inc., 1994. 592 p.). (The 1994 edition will be published later in 1996.) candidates would use during a general elec- To derive a national figure, we made a sim- tion period. The summary tables, copies of which are ple calculation, based on the assumption of attached, reveal that in 1992, major party At the outset, one is faced with the fact 66 major party general election candidates, that there are enormous variations in costs Senate candidates who ran in the general with no qualifying minor party candidates. election spend $86.8 million on ‘‘electronic of TV time. First of all, there are 211 media Of course, it is a considerable assumption markets in the U.S., with substantial dif- media advertising.’’ This category was de- that all major party nominees would partici- fined on page xiv of Handbook of Campaign ferences in costs among them. Second, the pate in this system, just as it is that no broadcast market is a commodity market, Spending as including: All payments to con- minor party candidates would qualify. But as sultants, separate purchases of broadcast subject to the laws of supply and demand. your bill calls for an hour of free time per Hence, there are wide variations in costs time, and production costs associated with State, having minor parties qualify would the development of radio and television ad- within a single market or broadcast station, not change the total. Hence, multiplying even for comparable periods of time on com- vertising. $92,400 by 66 candidates yields a national Because the data unavoidably include pro- parable TV shows. Furthermore, there are no total of $6,098,400, rounded to $6 million.5 duction costs and consultant fees (which are sources on the exact cost of TV ads, because BENEFIT NO. 2: DISCOUNTED TV TIME irrelevant to the benefits in S. 1219 concern- of the extremely complex system for buying ing air time), it is necessary to estimate the and setting rates for TV time. Finally, our PROPOSAL percentage solely for air time. The authors task was compounded by the uncertainties Your bill also provides participating Sen- report that most media consultants add a 15- involved in a political campaign setting, ate candidates the benefit of buying addi- percent charge to media buys for their serv- with the number of candidates eligible for tional broadcast time at 50 percent of the ices (which include producing the ads). the benefit unknown and with the way in lowest unit rate. This benefit would be avail- Hence, I would subtract this 15 percent, or which candidates might use the benefit able during the last 60 days of the general $13.0 million, and assume the remaining 85 (within the parameters outlined in your leg- election (when the LUR requirement is in ef- percent of the ‘‘electronic media advertis- islation) unknowable. fect) and the last 30 days of the primary elec- In undertaking this project, I was fortu- tion (the LUR is now available to candidates ing’’ total went for air time purchases. This nate in obtaining assistance from two Wash- in the 45 days before a primary, but your bill leaves $73.8 million for air time costs. Several other factors must be taken into ington-area media buyers who are substan- would change that to 30 days). account in making the data in this study ap- tially involved in campaign work.1 Despite METHODOLOGY plicable to our purposes. First, the electronic their cautionary notes about the nature of Whereas the first benefit involves a speci- media figure includes radio advertising; our this task (as outlined above), they under- fied amount of time in specific time periods, interest is solely in television. In a telephone stood the value of devising an intellectually this provision would affect an indeterminate discussion on February 1 with Dwight Mor- defensible estimate and provided essential amount of broadcast purchases. Also, rather ris, one of the authors, we agreed that it guidance in the process. than involving a new form of candidate ac- would be reasonable to assume that 95 per- Our effort first focused on devising an av- tivity (i.e., a free service), this second bene- cent of the total went for television. Hence, erage cost of a TV spot, based on the follow- fit involves one candidates already use, but subtracting another 5 percent, or $3.7 mil- ing assumptions: the 30 minutes would be with a prospectively lower cost. Hence, lion, leaves $70.1 million for TV air time used by the Senate candidate in the form of whereas the first exercise was more theoreti- cost. 60 spots of 30 seconds each; the candidate cal, the second can be based more on what Second, the data include spending by the would seek to place all free spots in prime we know about current behavior among Sen- candidates in the primary as well as the gen- time (your bill covers the early news (6 PM— ate candidates.6 eral election period, as FEC data unavoid- 7 PM) and prime access (7 PM—8 PM) peri- Specifically, by estimating the current ably does. The benefits in S. 1219 would apply ods, as well as most of the prime time (8 level of campaign air time, one can make a to both periods, but only for the last 30 days PM—11 PM) period; and the candidate would reasonable assessment of the dollar value of in the primary and the last 60 days in the place the ads on as many of the most popular the reduced cost benefit to candidates. This general election. In our phone discussion, (i.e., highly rated) shows as possible. exercise involves deriving a percentage esti- Dwight Morris and I agreed that it would be 2 According to the Media Market Guide for mate of the share of overall campaign ex- reasonable to assume that 90 percent of the the fourth quarter of 1995 (which covers the penditures that can be attributed to TV time media expenditures occurred in the general months relevant to a general election), the buys during the periods affected by your bill, election period. Taking 10 percent of $70.1 national average cost per rating point for a and then extrapolating this percentage onto million yields $7.0 million for primary TV air 30-second spot in prime time (aimed at an campaign expenditure data. time spending and $63.1 million for TV air audience of all adults over the age of 18) was There is no official source for data on time in the general election. $25,403.3 As this represents the cost for a broadcast expenditures in Federal elections. The final estimation involved the extent to While campaign expenditures are required to which the air time in the primary is bought 1 Footnotes appear at end of letter. be disclosed with the Federal Election Com- in the last 30 days and the air time in the S6814 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 general election is bought in the last 60 days. the final 30 days of the primary election. 4 Ratings based on: A.C. Nielsen Company, Net- Morris and I agreed (as did some of the This figure represents approximately 8 per- work Programs by DMA, November 1995. media buyers I worked with in the first esti- cent of the figure listed for electronic media 5 A more thorough effort might involve looking at mate) that at least 95 percent of the air time advertising and 3 percent of the $219.1 mil- each State’s media dynamics, given the variations in media market configurations. A candidate in New would be used in those periods. Hence, sub- lion in total Senate candidate expenditures Jersey, for example, has to buy time in both the tracting an additional 5 percent in each case in the Morris/Gamache study. New York and Philadelphia markets, while more leaves an estimated $6.7 million for TV air Step 2. I next applied the 3 percent figure than 90 percent of California voters are reached by time in the last 30 days of a primary and cited above to the total expenditures re- seven markets, all within that State’s boundaries. $59.6 million for TV air time in the last 60 ported to the FEC by 1994 Senate candidates. These types of calculations, while yielding perhaps a days of a general election. Again, I started with the $270.7 million spent more accurate estimate, involved undue time invest- ment and raised significant, complex additional GENERAL ELECTION BENEFIT by major party Senate general election can- didates in the 1993–94 election cycle, and questions. Step 1. Starting with $86.8 million total for 6 One caveat, of course, is that this approach is then added the $12.6 million these candidates electronic media advertising, I subtracted based on current candidate behavior, not taking into spent from 1989 to 1992. Applying the 3 per- the estimates of $13.0 million for consultant account prospective increased TV air time purchases cent figure from 1992 to the resulting total of fees, $3.7 million for radio time, $7.0 million because of the lower cost. While this could well $283.3 million, I got a 1994 figure of $8.5 mil- occur, this tendency would be clearly circumscribed for primary spending, and $3.5 million for lion for the cost of TV air time in the last 30 by the overall campaign spending limits to which time purchased before the final 60 days of the days of the primary election. participating candidates must agree. general election. The resulting $59.6 million Step 3. I averaged the 1992 estimated TV 7 Fritz, Sara, and Dwight Morris. Handbook of (for TV air time in the final 60 days of the cost of $6.7 million and the 1994 estimate of Campaign Spending: Money in the 1990 Congres- general election) represents approximately $8.5 million, to yield $7.6 million, rounded to sional Races. Washington, Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1992. 567 p. 69 percent of the ‘‘electronic media advertis- $8 million for convenience. This represents ing’’ figure and 27 percent of the $219.1 mil- 8 U.S. Federal Election Commission. 1994 Congres- estimated spending on TV air time during sional Fundraising Sets New Record (press release): lion in total Senate candidate expenditures the last 30 days of the primary by candidates November 1995. in the Morris/Gamache study. who went on to compete in the general elec- 9 U.S. Federal Election Commission. 1991–92 Con- Step 2. Although the comparable 1994 data tion. gressional Spending Soars to $680 Million (press re- are not yet available, it may be instructive Step 4. Major party Senate candidates who lease): January 1994. to apply the 27 percent figure cited above to were defeated in primary elections spent a 10 U.S. Federal Election Commission. 1994 Congres- the total expenditures reported to the FEC total of $75.9 million in 1992 9 and $45.9 mil- sional Fundraising Sets New Record (press release): by 1994 Senate candidates. The FEC reported 10 November 1995. lion in 1994. Because all of this money was 11 that $270.7 million was spent by major party It may seem counterintuitive that primary los- spent on the primary election, we adjusted ers would spend twice as much on TV as primary Senate general election candidates in the only for consultant fees, radio time, and winners, and this may point up a flaw in our esti- 8 1993–1994 election cycle. Because the Morris/ time purchased before the final 30 days. I as- mation process. But it is often the case that well- Gamache study included data for the six- sumed the same total percentage of money funded primary candidates (often wealthy individ- year period leading up to and including 1992, went for TV time by the primary losers as by uals) spend large sums of money in losing attempts I added the $12.6 million 1994 Senate can- all candidates in this six year study. Start- at nomination, while in perhaps the majority of didates spent from 1989 to 1992 (which I cal- ing with the $86.8 million total for electronic cases, Senate party nominees (especially incum- culated from the same press release). Hence, bents) have little or no real opposition in the pri- media advertising, I subtracted the esti- mary. I arrived at a total of $283.3 million spent by mates of: $13.0 million for consultant fees, major party Senate general election can- $3.7 million for radio time, and $.35 million Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the remain- didates in the entire six-year period. Assum- for time purchased before the final 30 days of der of my time to my friend and a lead- ing the same 27 percent of total spending the primary. This left $69.8 million, which is er today in the future on campaign fi- went for TV air time in the last 60 days of approximately 32 percent of the $219.1 mil- nance reform, the Senator from Ari- the general election, I got an estimated 1994 lion in total expenditures reported in the zona. figure of $76.5 million. Morris/Gamache study. Step. 3. The 1992 estimated cost of TV air Applying this 32 percent to the $75.9 mil- Mr. MCCAIN. I yield 30 seconds to the time of $59.6 million and the 1994 estimate of lion spent by 1992 primary losers yields $24.3 Senator from California. $76.5 million can be averaged (in case one of million; applying the same percentage to the Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the years was an anomaly in the context of $45.9 million spent by 1994 primary losers my friend for yielding. I thank him for overall spending trends), to yield $68.1 mil- yielded $14.7 million. Averaging the 1992 and his leadership, as well as that of Sen- lion, rounded to $68 million for convenience. 1994 figures gave us $19.5 million, rounded to ator FEINGOLD. Let me say, as one of While this is just an estimate, subject to all $20 million; this represents an estimate of the caveats inherent therein, I would be fair- TV air time purchases in the last 30 days of the two Senators from California, we ly comfortable using this as the basis for any the primary election by Senate primary los- need to raise at least $20 million—that further estimates you may wish to make, ers. is obscene—to win a Senate seat. That specifically that the value of the broadcast Step 5. Finally, I added the $8 million from means a candidate running for Senate discount would be 50 percent of this, or step 3 for party nominees to the $20 million for California must raise $10,000 a day, roughly $34 million. for primary losers, yielding an estimated 7 days a week, for each day of the 6- PRIMARY ELECTION BENEFIT total of $28 million as being spent on TV air year term. This is unconscionable. I time by Senate candidates in the final 30 The process for estimating the benefit in will support cloture. I will support days of the primary.11 Reducing this by half the primary period is complicated by the campaign finance reform. fact that our primary data source not only left us with $14 million, as the estimated does not distinguish between primary and value of the 50 percent LUR reduction to I intend to vote for campaign finance general spending, but it leaves out can- Senate primary candidates. reform and for this measure cutting off didates who lost the nomination contest. ESTIMATED PRIMARY AND GENERAL TOTAL debate so we can have the opportunity Hence, I added a fourth and fifth step to the Using the methodology in this memoran- to discuss this crucial issue. We must process: (1) use the Morris/Gamache 1992 data dum, I estimate the value of the 50 percent pass campaign finance reform this on cost breakdowns, apportioning amounts broadcast rate reduction to be worth $34 mil- year. to specific functions; (2) apply the same per- lion to Senate candidates in the general elec- I feel we must limit the influence of centage to 1994 FEC data; (3) average the 1992 tion and $14 million in the primary—a total and 1994 figures; (4) examine 1992 and 1994 of $48 million. special economic interests so that the FEC data on primary losers, apply an appro- I trust that this memorandum and the ac- public has no fear that Senators are priate percentage, and average the two dol- companying material meet your needs in representing those interests instead of lar figures; and (5) add the average from step this matter. Please feel free to contact me 7– the people of their State and the Na- 4 to the figure in step 3. 7876 if I can be of further assistance. tion. Step 1. To apportion the share of primary FOOTNOTES election candidates expenditures that were As a Senator from the largest State 1 Carole Mundy, of Fenn-King-Murphy-Putnam in the Union, I am particularly aware spent on TV air time in the last 30 days of Communications, Inc. in Washington, D.C., assisted the primary, I started with the $86.8 million in developing the methodology and obtaining source of the need for reform. Candidates for total for electronic media advertising in the material. Gail Neylan, of Neylan & Roy—an inde- the U.S. Senate in California must Morris/Gamache study. I subtracted the esti- pendent media buying service, provided guidance in raise at least $20 million. This means mates of: $13.0 million for consultant fees, corroborating and finetuning the approach devel- that a candidate running for the Sen- oped with Ms. Mundy. $3.7 million for radio time, $63.1 million for ate must raise at least $10,000 a day, 7 general election spending, and $.35 million in 2 Media Market Guide, 4th Quarter 1995 (October- December). NY, Bethlehem Publishing, Inc. 1995. days a week, for each day of a 6-year time purchased before the final 30 days of the 3 Those cost per (rating) point is the standard unit term. This is obscene. primary election. This left an estimate of used by advertisers and media buyers in evaluating $6.7 million as being spent by 1992 major relative costs of delivering one percent of the audi- For me it is more important to meet party Senate candidates for TV air time in ence share in different markets. with constituents here and in the June 25, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6815 State, write legislation, and partici- nancing laws so greatly advantage in- Again, these are voluntary spending pate in debates like this one, let alone cumbents then we should prove im- limits. They are voluntary and they read as much as I can. mune to public pressure for reform. We are fair. There are several important aspects are indeed greatly advantaged by the Mr. President, the opponents of cam- of campaign finance reform. current system, Mr. President, but no paign finance reform are as passionate First, to establish limits on cam- one, no matter how abundant his or her in their opposition as we are in our paign spending. The root of our prob- campaign coffers, can forever disregard support. I do not doubt the sincerity of lems with the current system is that a demand for reform that is supported their conviction that too little money campaigns spend too much. To me lim- by three-quarters or more of the Amer- is spent on campaigns today. I dis- its are one of the most important ele- ican public. No one. agree, of course, but I cannot challenge ments of reform. Not all campaigns are waged in such their earnestness nor resent the pas- Second, we must end the practice of clear opposition to the public will. In sion with which they advance their ar- using soft money to evade contribution most elections, candidates generally gument. On a few occasions, I have limits. Soft money originally was in- avoid giving great offense to the vot- been known to invest my arguments tended to be used for party building ac- ers. It is in most elections that incum- with a little heated rhetoric, and it tivities, but in many cases, it has bents are undeniably, unmistakably, would be unfair of me to begrudge the turned into a negative campaign appa- and overwhelmingly advantaged over genuine ardor our opponents hold for ratus. challengers. their cause, as unsound as that cause Opponents of this measure, who are There are many approaches to cam- might be. paign finance reform. I favor the Fein- my friends, argue eloquently that we I commend them for their willingness stein bill because it recognizes the who propose this reform are the en- to extensively and openly debate this rights of organizations of every politi- emies of the first amendment; that we legislation, so that the public may cal persuasion to participate in the po- are engaged in that most un-American judge from our arguments who has car- of activities—the attempted litical process by gathering small do- ried the day. The cloture vote will indi- abridgement of every American’s right nations to candidates. cate legislative failure or success I speak from the heart when I say to free speech. I believe we have effec- today. But it will not necessarily indi- that we must pass campaign finance re- tively refuted that serious charge, in cate whose argument has prevailed. form this year and begin to restore the part because we have had an ample Nor, as I noted at the beginning of my faith and confidence of the American body of opinion by constitutional remarks, will this vote, should we fail people. scholars to rely on. For the record, let to reach cloture, signal an end to this Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, the Sen- me state the obvious: I did not seek campaign for reform. We will be back ate is about to determine whether bi- public office so that I might violate the next year. We will ultimately prevail. partisan campaign finance reform will Constitution. In my life, I have taken Before I conclude, Mr. President, I be an accomplishment of this Congress no oath more seriously than my oath want to again commend the Repub- or not. As I noted yesterday, the Mem- to defend the Constitution. I hope my licans and Democrats who sponsored bers of the 104th Congress can point colleagues will accept that I am their and helped to craft this first genuinely with pride, well-earned pride, to the equal in my love of our Constitution. substantial institutional reforms that Mr. President, we proponents of cam- bipartisan campaign finance reform were passed by this Congress. But the paign finance reform do not seek to bill. They have all distinguished them- reform which the public believes to be curtail the free speech of incumbents. selves in this debate, and in this cru- most necessary and most urgent—cam- We seek to give voice—a greater sade to keep faith with the people’s paign finance reform—is not yet among voice—to challengers than is usually just demands for reform. First among the accomplishments of this reform- the case under the present system of these friends is my partner, the Sen- minded Congress. campaign financing. These are vol- ator from Wisconsin, RUSS FEIGNOLD. Today, the Senate has an oppor- untary spending limits we have pro- The Senator is a man of honor, and his tunity to begin remedying that defi- posed. Yes, there are incentives in this sense of honor prevails over his sense ciency, and take a giant step toward bill to encourage candidates to abide of politics. That is a virtue, Mr. Presi- becoming one of the most important by these limits, and disincentives to dent, a sometimes inexpedient virtue, reform Congresses in American his- discourage candidates from exceeding but a virtue nonetheless, and one tory. Invoking cloture cannot guaran- them. But if a candidate feels that cir- which I greatly admire. tee this legislation will be enacted into cumstances necessitate campaign ex- Mr. President, the Senator from Wis- law, but we will be well on the way, penditures in excess of these voluntary consin and I came to the Senate to Mr. President. Momentum toward final limits, he or she is free to make those argue with one another. We came to passage may well prove irresistible in expenditures. the Senate with different ideas about the wake of a successful cloture vote. Their opponent, however, should not the proper size and role of Government But should we fall short of that goal be unfairly disadvantaged by the other in this country. today, it will not mean a permanent candidate’s refusal of spending limits. We came here to serve our constitu- end to this effort. Mr. President, we So, we have included provisions in our ents by serving those ideas, and we will have campaign finance reform; if legislation to help a candidate who want to spend our time here in open, not this year, then next; if not the abides by the limits keep pace with the fair, and honest debate over whose 104th Congress, then the 105th. We will campaign of the candidate who rejects ideas are the most sound. We did not have campaign finance reform because the limits. come here to spend the majority of our the people demand it. The people have Implicit in the arguments of this time raising vast funds to ensure our perceived in the manner in which we fi- bill’s opponents is the definition of free reelection. Nor did we come here to nance our reelection a profound in- speech as more speech. They argue that incur obligations to a few narrowly de- equity between incumbent and chal- if an incumbent does not spend more fined segments of this country. All lenger; an inequity which serves to dis- money on advertising than the chal- Americans deserve fair representation tance Members of Congress from the lenger, either because of voluntary by their Congress. will of the people; to further estrange limits or because the challenger is al- Mr. President, despite our philosophi- us from our employers, and indebt us lowed more discounted advertising and cal and political differences, Senator to an array of monied interests. The postage rates, then somehow the in- FEINGOLD and I have made a common people’s will cannot be forever denied cumbent’s free speech has been cur- cause in our pursuit of genuine cam- no matter how well inoculated we are tailed. In reality, Mr. President, our paign finance reform. To do so, we both by the financial advantages we claim legislation does not abridge the incum- knew that we would have to relinquish as incumbents. The people will have bent’s right to free speech; it advances all partisan advantages that had under- this reform, if not by our work, then by the free speech of challengers. It re- mined previous legislative attempts at the work of our replacements. futes the notion that for speech to be reform. We were determined to be fair, Some may see in that statement a free, one candidate must have more of Mr. President, and on no occasion—no contradiction. If current campaign fi- it than another. occasion—did Senator FEINGOLD, or S6816 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 25, 1996 any of the cosponsors, attempt to seed pation in our political process by indi- on both sides of the issue and on both into this legislation an advantage for viduals who get together not because sides of the aisle, it has been an out- one party or the other. We were fair, they have some narrow economic inter- standing debate. we were committed to genuine reform, est in a particular bill but because they I commend specifically Senator and we were and are determined. have a broad interest in the direction MCCAIN, Senator FEINGOLD, Senator I have found the experience liberat- of government. That is exactly the THOMPSON, and others who have spon- ing, and I commend it to all of my col- kind of grassroots participation that sored this legislation, and for the qual- leagues. I urge all of my colleagues to groups like EMILY’S List and, yes, ity of their cooperation and debate. join us in this necessary endeavor, to WISH List, encourage. Yet this bill I also commend the courage, once accept the public will and restore the would ban such participation. In my again, of the outstanding leader of the public’s respect for the institutions opinion, that is a serious flaw. opposition to this campaign finance re- that are derived from their consent. But this bill does fix some of what is form, Senator MCCONNELL. He has done Vote for cloture. Vote for reform. most broken about the current cam- a magnificent job. I think we should f paign finance system. It sets reason- recognize that. able spending limits. It makes political I think this is an important issue RECESS campaigns more competitive for chal- which we will address, I am sure, again The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under lengers. And it sets reasonable limits in the future. But I think it is too im- the previous order, the hour of 1 on the influence of PAC’s. portant to address right at this point o’clock having arrived, the Senate will This is not an attempt by one party in the heat of the national election de- now stand in recess until the hour of to rewrite the rules to its own advan- bate. 2:15 p.m. tage. This is a bipartisan effort that I do not think we have the solutions Thereupon, the Senate, at 1:02 p.m., will be good for both our parties, and here. So I urge that cloture not be in- recessed until 2:15 p.m.; whereupon, the for our Nation. I want to thank Sen- voked. Senate reassembled when called to ators MCCAIN and FEINGOLD for their I hope the Senate will not invoke clo- order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. leadership in getting us to this point ture on the McCain-Feingold substitute COATS). against what must have seemed at amendment to S. 1219. f times very long odds. We all agree that campaign finance I will vote for cloture because I be- reform is an important issue. But it’s CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM lieve it is wrong if another Congress become too important to deal with it The Senate continued with the con- comes and goes and does nothing about during the heat of a national election. sideration of the bill. campaign finance reform. It is already too late in the calendar Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Talk may be cheap. But when endless year to make this bill’s provisions McCain-Feingold campaign finance re- talk is used to block action on cam- apply to the elections of 1996. So we are form bill is not a perfect bill. But it is paign finance reform, it becomes ter- not going to lose anything by waiting a good bill. More important, it provides ribly expensive because special inter- until early next year to get this job a good start on what ought to be one of ests are able to undermine efforts to done. our top priorities: loosening the grip of solve the problems that matter most to When we do it, we have to do it big-money special interests on politics. America’s families. right—the first time. We should not I will vote for cloture not because I A while back, the Speaker of the make the same mistake the Senate think this bill cannot be improved—it House said, and I quote—‘‘One of the made back in 1974, when it hastily cob- can—but because we must change the big myths in modern politics is that bled together a campaign reform bill way campaigns are financed, and this campaigns are too expensive. The po- that later came apart at the seams be- is, for now, the only means we have to litical process is not overfunded; it is fore the Supreme Court. make that change. underfunded.’’ Since the Court’s decision in Buckley There are those who say they oppose Mr. President, the American people versus Valeo in 1974, the Congress has cloture because they want to be able to do not agree. A poll conducted earlier been on notice that, when it comes to amend this bill and improve it. But let this year by a Republican and a Demo- imposing rules and restrictions on the no one in this Chamber be fooled: a cratic pollster asked people whether financing of political campaigns, we vote against cloture is a vote to kill they agreed that ‘‘those who make must be scrupulously careful of the campaign finance reform. We know large campaign contributions get spe- first amendment. that because the leading opponent of cial favors from politicians.’’ Sixty- In short, our good intentions must this bill has told us he intends to fili- eight percent said yes, they agreed, and pass constitutional muster. My per- buster this bill and kill it if we give they said they were deeply troubled by sonal judgment is that this bill does him the chance. it. not do so. To block reform with calls for debate So the need for campaign finance re- I recognize that others may disagree, is more than cynical. It is dangerous. form will not go away, even if, for some but when it comes to the free speech A while back, the Kettering Institute reason, campaign finance reform is not protections of the first amendment, I conducted a survey of Americans’ atti- enacted in this Congress. Ultimately, prefer to err on the side of caution, tudes about the influence of money on we must change the rules. We must rather than zeal. politics. The survey found a widespread lessen the influence of money on poli- I need not go into all the details al- belief that ‘‘campaign contributions tics. I urge my colleagues to join me in ready covered by other speakers, but I determine more than voting, so why beginning that change by voting now note that one of the key provisions in bother?’’ It described ‘‘a political sys- to bring this reasonable, modest pro- this legislation—concerning political tem that is perceived of as so autono- posal forward for a vote. action committees—has a fallback pro- mous that the public is no longer able Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair. vision, in case the original provision is to control or direct it.’’ The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ma- overturned by the Supreme Court as a ‘‘People talk about government,’’ the jority leader. violation of the first amendment. study said, ‘‘as if it has been taken Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unan- What that means to me is that we over by alien beings.’’ imous consent that I may use leader know at least some parts of this bill We will never restore faith in govern- time for a very brief statement. are on shaky ground. I think we should ment if people believe the political sys- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without craft campaign finance reforms that tem is rigged against them, if they be- objection, it is so ordered. are rock solid. lieve it serves the wealthy, the power- Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, just very Two of our colleagues from the Re- ful, and the politically connected at briefly, I want to commend the Senate publican side of the aisle have played their expense. for the quality of the debate on this crucial roles with regard to this legis- The McCain-Feingold proposal, as I campaign finance reform issue. I have lation. Both have acted out of con- have said, is not perfect. For instance, been able to listen to several of the science and principle, and have come to I believe we should encourage partici- speeches that have been given. I think opposite conclusions.