March 19, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2433 related policy decisions is perceived to be ex- we are not going to take care of those The Senate proceeded to consider the panding. public lands and preserve the resources bill. Projected energy consumption in devel- and the environment. But we can do Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President, oping countries will begin to exceed that of developed countries, a change that will carry both. We have done that in Wyoming I ask unanimous consent the time be- political, economic, and environmental con- for a number of years. We have been tween 1 and 3:15 p.m. today be equally siderations. very active in energy production, and divided for debate only between the The spread of information technology and at the same time we have been able to chairman and ranking member. I fur- use of the Internet dramatically change the preserve the lands. That is not the ther ask unanimous consent that at way business is conducted, and this change choice, either preserve it or ruin it. 3:15 today I be recognized to offer an carries with it a new set of vulnerabilities. That is not the choice we have. amendment. The prospects of cyberterrorist attacks on We also need to do some more re- energy infrastructure are very real; such at- Mr. MCCAIN. Madam President, re- tacks may be the greatest threat to supply search on clean coal, one of our best serving the right to object—I will not during the years under review. energy sources. object—that would not in any way pre- Global warming is attracting growing at- I was just in Wyoming talking to clude Members from coming down for tention, and that attention will likely shape some folks who indicated we need to opening statements. We want to make debate on future energy policies; it is hoped find ways to get easements and move sure everyone can make their opening that debate will reflect sound science and energy. If it is in the form of elec- statements. I know there are a lot of factual analysis. tricity, it has to be moved by wholesale Members who would like to make open- Security of Supply transmission. We need a nationwide ing statements on the bill. If U.S. military power is committed to a grid to do that, particularly if we are Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President, limited but extended protection effort in going to deregulate the transmission Northeast Asia, the capacity to respond to a I believe that is what the time is for. I crisis like that of 1990 in the Persian Gulf and the generation side, which we are concur with the Senator from Arizona. will be severely limited. The United States planning to do. Mr. MCCAIN. There may be more will need to rebalance its security relations. We have to have gas pipelines. Cali- than 2 hours, and Members may come Policy Contradictions fornia has become the great example. down afterwards since some Members The greater need for oil in the future is at They wanted to have more power. are coming back late this afternoon. I odds with current sanctions on oil exporters Their demand increased and production would like to make that clear. Libya, Iraq, and Iran. went down. Then they said: We will de- Mr. DODD. Madam President, reserv- The United States deals with energy policy regulate. So they deregulated the ing the right to object—I will not ob- in domestic terms, not international terms; wholesale cost and put a cap on resale ject—I urge Members who have opening U.S. energy policy is therefore at odds with cost. Those things clearly don’t work. statements to make on this bill to globalization. We have to have some incentives to come to the floor between now and 3:15. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- produce—tax incentives, probably, for Obviously, later in the day during con- pore. Under the previous order, the low-production wells. sideration of amendments Members time until 1 p.m. shall be under the We need to eliminate the boom-and- can make whatever statements they control of the distinguished Senator bust factor so small towns are not liv- wish. But to have some coherency to from Wyoming. ing high one day and in debt the next. the remarks, this would be the appro- Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have Finally, we need to take a look at priate time to do so. We urge Members 5 minutes remaining in our time; is conservation, of course. You and I need to come to the floor. that correct? to decide how we can use less of that The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- energy and still maintain our kind of objection? pore. The Senator is correct. economy and way of life. Mr. REID. Madam President, reserv- Mr. THOMAS. I thank the chairman I again thank the chairman of the ing the right to object, I am wondering of the Energy Committee, the Senator Energy Committee for all he is doing if anyone knows that there is going to from Alaska, for the work he has done and urge him to continue so we can set be a vote this afternoon. That was on the energy problem. Clearly, we the right direction for this country in talked about last week. have one; there is no question. The order to have the energy we need and Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President, question is, How do we best resolve it? save our national resources as well. I it is my understanding that there was We are in desperate need of a na- am persuaded we can do both. tional energy policy. We have not had I yield the floor and suggest the ab- a plan to have a vote at 6:15. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there one for a number of years. We need to sence of a quorum. objection to any of the requests? With- have some direction with respect to do- The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- pore. The clerk will call the roll. out objection, it is so ordered. mestic production—how much we want The Senator from Kentucky. to let ourselves become dependent on The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President, OPEC and other such issues. It seems we are in business for opening state- there are a number of issues about Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order ments, if anyone would like to proceed. which the chairman has talked. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- We need to talk about diversity. We for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. LIN- ator from Connecticut is recognized. have all kinds of things we can go on: Mr. DODD. Madam President, I yield We can go on oil, on gas, on coal— COLN). Without objection, it is so or- dered. 30 minutes to the distinguished Sen- which is one of our largest reserves. We ator from Wisconsin, Mr. FEINGOLD. need to make it more clean. Of course, f The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- we can do that. We can take another CONCLUSION OF MORNING ator from Wisconsin is recognized. look at nuclear, look again at our stor- BUSINESS Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Madam age problems. It is one of the cleanest The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning President. sources we have. Hydro needs to be business is closed. Mr. MCCAIN. Madam President, may maintained and perhaps improved. We I say to my distinguished colleague, f need to go to renewables, where we can my statement would be 5 minutes long. use wind and sunlight and some of the BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM Mr. FEINGOLD. As always, I defer to other natural sources. ACT OF 2001 my commander on this, the senior Sen- I will always remember listening to The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under ator from Arizona. someone back in Casper, WY, a number the previous order, S. 27 is discharged The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- of years ago, saying we have never run from the Committee on Rules and Ad- ator from Arizona is recognized. out of a source of fuel; what we have ministration, and the clerk will report Mr. MCCAIN. Madam President, I done is found something that worked a the bill by title. thank my friend, Senator FEINGOLD, little better. So we need to continue re- The legislative clerk read as follows: for his partnership and for his friend- search to find ways to do that. A bill (S. 27) to amend the Federal Election ship. We need to have access to public Campaign Act of 1971 to provide bipartisan Today we begin the first open Senate lands. That doesn’t mean for a minute campaign reform. debate in many years on whether or

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S2434 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 19, 2001 not we should substantially reform our the quality of our deliberations will triotism and that of their neighbors, on campaign finance laws. I want to thank impress the public as evidence of the the civilization that they have built Senators LOTT and DASCHLE for their good faith that sustains our resolve. and defended, and not on the hope that commitment to allowing a fair and The many sponsors of this legislation politicians will ever take courage from open debate, and for their assurance have but one purpose: to enact fair, bi- our convictions and not our campaign that the Senate will be allowed to exer- partisan campaign finance reform that treasuries. cise its will on this matter and vote on seeks no special advantage for one Our former colleague, Senator David the legislation that emerges at the end party or another, but that helps change Boren of Oklahoma, recently reminded of the amendment process. the public’s widespread belief that poli- me of a poll that Time magazine has Mr. REID. Madam President, may I ticians have no greater purpose than conducted over many years. In 1961, 76 ask my friend to yield? our own reelection. And to that end, we percent of Americans said yes to the Mr. MCCAIN. No. will respond disproportionately to the question, ‘‘Do you trust your govern- Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry. needs of those interests that can best ment to do the right thing?’’ This year, Mr. MCCAIN. I am into my state- finance our ambition, even if those in- only 19 percent of Americans still be- ment. After 5 minutes, I will be privi- terests conflict with the public interest lieve that. Many events have occurred leged to do so. and with the governing philosophy we in the last 30 years to fuel their dis- Madam President, I want to thank as once sought office to advance. trust. Assassinations, Vietnam, Water- well, Senator MCCONNELL, our stead- The sad truth is that most Americans gate, and many subsequent public scan- fast and all-too-capable opponent, who do believe that we conspire to hold dals have squandered the public’s faith honestly and bravely defends his be- onto every single political advantage in us, and have led more and more liefs, for agreeing to the terms of this we have, lest we jeopardize our incum- Americans from even taking responsi- debate, a debate that we hope may set- bency by a single lost vote. Most Amer- bility for our election. But surely fre- tle many of the questions, held by ad- icans believe that we would let this Na- quent campaign finance scandals and vocates and opponents of reform, that tion pay any price, bear any burden for their real or assumed connection to have yet to be resolved by this body. the sake of securing our own ambi- misfeasance by public officials are a I, of course, want to thank from the tions, no matter how injurious the ef- major part of the problem. bottom of my heart, all the co-sponsors fect might be to the national interest. Why should they not be? Any voter of this legislation for their steadfast And who can blame them? As long as with a healthy understanding of the support, and for proving to be far more the wealthiest Americans and richest flaws of human nature and who notices able and persuasive advocates of our organized interests can make the six the vast amounts of money solicited cause than I have had the skill to be. and seven figure donations to political and received by politicians cannot help Most particularly, I want to thank parties and gain the special access to but believe that we are unduly influ- my partner in this long endeavor, Sen- power that such generosity confers on enced by our benefactors’ generosity. ator RUSS FEINGOLD, a man of rare the donor, most Americans will dismiss Why can’t we all agree to this very courage and decency, who has risked the most virtuous politician’s claim of simple, very obvious truth: that cam- his own career and ambitions for the patriotism. paign contributions from a single sake of his principles. To me, Madam The opponents of reform will ask if source that run into the hundreds of President, that seem a pretty good def- the public so distrusts us and so dis- thousands or millions of dollars are not inition of patriotism. likes our current campaign finance sys- healthy to a democracy? Is that not I want to thank the President of the tem why is there no great cry in the self-evident? Is it to the people, Madam United States for engaging in this de- country to throw us all out of office? President. It is to the people. bate, and for his oft stated willingness they will contend—and this point is Some will argue that there isn’t too to seek a fair resolution of our dif- disputable—that no one has ever lost much money in politics. They will ferences on this issue for the purpose of or won an election because of their op- argue there is not enough. They will providing the people we serve greater position to or support for campaign fi- argue that soft money, the huge, un- confidence in the integrity of their nance reform. Yet public opinion polls regulated revenue stream into political public institutions. Too often, as this consistently show that the vast majori- party coffers, is necessary to ensure debate approached, our differences on ties of our constituents want reform, the strength of the two-party system. I this issue have been viewed as an ex- and believe our current system of cam- find this last point hard to understand tension of our former rivalry. I regret paign financing is terribly harmful to considering that in the 15 years or so that very much. For he is not my rival. the public good. But, the opponents ob- that soft money has become the domi- He is my President, and he retains my serve, they do not rank reform among nant force in our elections the parties confidence that the country we love the national priorities they expect have grown appreciably weaker as will be a better place because of his their Government to urgently address. independents become the fast growing leadership. That is true, but why is it so? voter registration group in the coun- Lastly, I wish to thank every Mem- Simply put, they don’t believe it will try. ber of the Senate—especially Senator ever be done. They don’t expect us to Some will observe that we spend HAGEL, my friend yesterday, my friend adopt real reforms and they defensively more money to advertise toothpaste today, my friend tomorrow—for their keep their hopes from being raised and and yogurt in this country than to con- cooperation in allowing this debate to their inevitable disappointment from duct campaigns for public office. I occur so early in what will surely be being worse. don’t care, Madam President. I am not one of the busier congressional sessions The public just doesn’t believe that concerned with the costs of toothpaste in recent memory. I thank all my col- either an incumbent opposing reform and yogurt. We aren’t selling those leagues for their patience, a patience or a challenger supporting it will hon- commodities to the public. We are of- that has been tried by my own numer- estly work to repair this system once fering our integrity and our principles, ous faults far too often, as I beg their he or she has been elected under the and the means we use to market them indulgence again. Please accept my as- rules, or lack thereof, that govern it. should not cause the consumer to surance that no matter our various dif- They distrust both. They believe that doubt the value of the product. ferences on this issue, and my own whether we publicly advocate or oppose Some will argue that the first failings in arguing those differences, reform, we are all working either open- amendment of the Constitution renders my purpose is limited solely to enact- ly or deceitfully to prevent even the unlawful any restrictions on the right ing those reforms that we believe are slightest repair of a system they be- of anyone to raise unlimited amounts necessary to defend the government’s lieve is corrupt. of money for political campaigns. public trust, and not to seek a personal So they avoid investing too much Which drafter of the Constitution be- advantage at any colleague’s expense. hope in the possibility that we could lieved or anticipated that the first I sincerely hope that our debate, con- surprise them. And they accommodate amendment would be exercised in po- tentious though it will be, will also be their disappointment by basing their litical campaigns by the relatively few free of acrimony and rancor, and that pride in their country on their own pa- at the expense of the many?

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY March 19, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2435 We have restrictions now that have and that do not prevent us from Money that threatens to drown out been upheld by the courts; they have achieving our fundamental goal of sub- the voice of the average voter of aver- simply been circumvented by the rath- stantially reducing the influence of big age means; money that creates the ap- er recent exploitation of the so-called money on our political system. pearance that a wealthy few have a dis- soft money loophole. Teddy Roosevelt If we cannot agree on every aspect of proportionate say over public policy; signed a law banning corporate con- reform; if we have differences about and money that places extensive de- tributions. Harry Truman signed a law what constitutes genuine and nec- mands on the time of candidates—time banning contributions from labor essary reform, and we hold those dif- that they and the voters believe is bet- unions. In 1974, we enacted a law to ferences honestly—so be it. Let us try ter spent discussing and debating the limit contributions from individuals to come to terms with those differences issues of the day. and political action committees di- fairly. That is what the sponsors of this The McCain-Feingold legislation be- rectly to the candidates. Those laws legislation have tried to do, and we fore the Senate today is a good first were not found unconstitutional and welcome anyone’s help to improve start toward reform of a campaign sys- vacated by the courts. They were upon our efforts as long as that help is tem that is broken, plain and simple. I, judged lawful for the purpose of pre- sincere and intended to reach the com- for one, would like to have public fi- venting political corruption or the ap- mon goal of genuine campaign finance nancing of our Federal Campaigns. I pearance of corruption. reform. would like to see free or reduced-rate Those laws were rendered ineffectual I hope we will, for the moment, for- TV and radio time for candidates dur- not unlawful by the ingenuity of politi- get our partisan imperatives and take ing the peak of the campaign season. I cians determined to get around them a risk for our country. Perhaps that is would like for any negative ad to dis- who used an allowance in the law that a hopelessly naı¨ve aspiration. It need play the face and voice of the candidate placed no restrictions on what once not be. I think the good men and on whose behalf that ad is aired. was intended essentially to be a build- women I am privileged to serve with The McCain-Feingold legislation is ing fund for the State parties. That are perfectly capable of surprising a not as comprehensive as some of us fund has run to the billions of dollars, skeptical public, and maybe ourselves, would prefer. But it does address two of and I haven’t noticed the buildings by taking on this challenge to the the most pressing deficiencies in our that serve as our local and State party honor of the profession of which we are system of campaign finance: Undis- headquarters becoming quite that mag- willing and proud members. closed soft money contributions, and nificent. Real campaign finance reform will sham issue ads. Ah, say the opponents, if politicians not cure all public cynicism about I have consistently supported this will always find a way of circum- modern politics. Nor will it completely legislation. Today I call on my col- venting campaign finance laws, what is free politics from influence peddling or leagues, and President Bush, to work the point of passing new laws? Do I be- the appearance of it. But I believe it with us to restore accountability to lieve that any law will prove effective will cause many Americans who are at our system of campaign finance and over time? No, I do not. Were we to present quite disaffected from the confidence in our system of representa- pass this legislation today, I am sure machinations of politics to begin to see tive democracy. that at some time in the future, hope- that their elected officials value their Let me be absolutely clear on one es- fully many years from now, we will reputations more than their incum- sential point. Unlike previous debates, need to address some new circumven- bency. And maybe that recognition this time we have an opportunity to tion. So what. So we have to debate will cause them to exercise their fran- pass meaningful campaign finance re- this matter again. Is that such a bur- chise more faithfully, to identify more form. den on us or our successors that we closely with political parties, to raise We can reclaim our system of financ- should simply be indifferent to the their expectations for the work we do. ing campaigns by cutting off the flow abundant evidence of at least the ap- Maybe it will even encourage more of of unregulated and unlimited soft- pearance of corruption and to the them to seek public office, not for the money. We must end it, and not just public’s ever growing alienation from privileges bestowed upon election win- mend it. the Government of this great Nation, ners, but for the honor of serving a Like many of my colleagues on both problems that this system has engen- great Nation. sides of the aisle, I feel strongly about I yield the floor. dered? I hope not, Madam President. I Mr. DODD. Madam President, how the need for reform, and I am frus- hope not. much time remains of the original re- trated at this body’s continued inabil- The supporters of this legislation quest? ity to move forward with legislation to have had differences about what con- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifty address this problem. stitutes the ideal reform, but we have minutes remain under the original re- Time and again we have seen subordinated those differences to the quest. thoughtful, appropriate and, I must common good, in the hope that we Mr. DODD. My colleague from Wis- emphasize, bipartisan efforts to stop might enact those basic reforms that consin, I believe, yielded time to the the spiraling money chase that afflicts Members of both parties could agree Senator from Arizona. Of the 30 min- our political system, only to see a mi- on. It is not perfect reform. There is no utes that were yielded to the Senator nority of the Senate block further con- perfect reform. It could be improved, from Wisconsin, 15 minutes remain. sideration of the issue. and we hope it will be during this de- The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is It is almost as if the opponents of re- bate. We have tried to exclude any pro- correct. form are heeding the humorous advice vision that could be viewed as placing Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield my time to of Mark Twain, who once said, ‘‘Do not one party or the other at a disadvan- the Senator from Connecticut and then put off until tomorrow what you can tage. Our intention is to pass the best, ask if I could speak after him. put off until the day after tomorrow.’’ most balanced, most important re- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- It is now long past the day after to- forms we can. All we ask of our col- ator from Connecticut. morrow, and we simply cannot afford leagues is that they approach this de- Mr. DODD. Madam President, today to wait any longer to do something bate with the same purpose in mind. the Senate begins debate on a defining about the tidal wave of money that is I beg my colleagues not to propose issue in American politics—the ques- drowning our system of government amendments intended only to kill this tion of whether unlimited, unregulated and eroding the public’s confidence in legislation or to seize on any change in contributions to political campaigns the integrity of our democracy. this legislation that serves our basic are forwarding democracy or under- With that said, I strongly support S. goal as an excuse to withdraw your mining it. 27, known as the McCain-Feingold leg- support. The sponsors want to have In this Senator’s mind, the answer to islation. Why do I support it? Because votes on all relevant issues involved in that question is quite clear: no democ- it is ‘‘real’’ reform, not ‘‘sham’’ reform. campaign finance reform and will sup- racy can thrive—if indeed survive—if it And I congratulate my two colleagues port amendments that strengthen the is awash in massive quantities of for their persistence and tenacity in bipartisan majority in favor of reform money: pursuing it.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S2436 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 19, 2001 This bill accomplishes critically im- I welcome this debate and look for- every year. I have been through two re- portant goals. It closes the most seri- ward to amendments offered to both election cycles, and it has gotten ous loopholes in our current campaign improve the McCain-Feingold legisla- worse. In 1998, Nevada was a State with finance system. The bill shuts down tion and restore the integrity of the fewer than 2 million people—about a the system of unlimited, unregulated, manner in which we finance elections. million and a half people. In that race, and undisclosed soft money; bans di- This debate is one of the most signifi- my good friend JOHN ENSIGN and I rect or indirect contributions from cant and important ones we will have, spent over $20 million—$4 million with foreign nationals; requires disclosure of not only in this session of Congress but our campaign money and $6 million electioneering communications mas- at any time in recent memory. I wel- issue advocacy ads by the State Repub- querading as issue ads; and prohibits come the debate and look forward to lican Party and the Republican Party— fund-raising by Federal officials on the arguments. a State as small as Nevada, $20 million. Federal property. How much time have we consumed of And that doesn’t count the inde- There are those of my colleagues who that 30 minutes? pendent expenditures that were made. would argue that when it comes to po- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- In Nevada, probably $23 million was litical campaigns, money is speech and ator has consumed 7 minutes. spent in the race between Senator REID speech should be unlimited. Mr. DODD. I will withhold my time. and Senator ENSIGN. Neither spent Let me be clear—I cannot agree more Does the Senator want 7 minutes? more money than the other. We both that political speech should be unlim- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- spent a lot of money. The independent ited. The free flow of information and ator has consumed 7 minutes. expenditures were run against JOHN ideas is the hallmark of a democracy. Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time re- ENSIGN and were run against me. But to equate speech with money is not mains? I say to my friend from Wisconsin, I only a false equation, it is also a dan- The PRESIDING OFFICER. There am depending on him to try to work gerous one to our democracy. are 43 minutes of time. through all this. I think I understand When that speech and those ideas are Mr. DODD. I yielded 30 minutes to the law, what is being done. He has paid for overwhelmingly by a few the Senator from Wisconsin and yield- been a master at this. I admire and ap- wealthy individuals or groups or for- ed time to the Senator from Arizona. I preciate very much what he has done. I eign nationals or anonymous groups or am told the Senator from Arizona used have said to my staff and to my by undisclosed contributors, the speech about 15 minutes of that. I pre- friends, it can’t be any worse than is neither free nor democratic. It is en- sumed—— what it is now. We need to change the cumbered by the unknown special in- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six min- law. How in the world can you spend in terests who have paid for it. And it utes. the State of Nevada more than $23 mil- minimizes or excludes the speech of Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I lion? People don’t like to acknowledge those who lack substantial resources to will yield back my time to the Senator it, but, of course, we are involved in counter it. from Nevada. raising the soft money, going to people This special interest speech—paid for The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- and asking them for these huge with unlimited, undisclosed soft ator from Nevada is recognized. amounts of money. money—creates, at a minimum, the ap- Mr. REID. Madam President, in 1986 I So I commend and applaud my friend pearance of undue influence, if not an was elected to the Senate. I can re- from Wisconsin. I admire his tenacity, implied quid pro quo by the contrib- member during the last week or 2, his courage, and I admire his ability to utor. maybe 3 weeks of that campaign, I persevere through big obstacles. But Does anyone seriously believe that woke up one morning to learn that all also he should recognize that we as corporations and associations con- over the State of Nevada there were Democrats have stuck with him tribute millions of dollars in soft signs placed by my opponent—4-by-8 through thick and thin. I was here money just because they are good citi- signs. I thought, how foolish for him to when Senator BYRD—I think we hold zens and want to encourage free be spending these dollars on this— the record for attempts to invoke clo- speech? Let us be serious. money for signs. It had to cost tens of ture: seven times on campaign finance. It cannot be argued that such special When Senator BYRD was leader, he interest soft money contributions were thousands of dollars to put those signs all over Nevada. tried to do that. I also say I am glad to made to promote political speech and see some Republicans coming aboard better public policy without any expec- Little did I realize this was the be- ginning, from my perspective, of the now. Previously, it was basically Sen- tation of consideration in return. ator MCCAIN alone on campaign finance That expectation of special consider- loosening of campaign laws, because I learned that if you looked at these reform; now there are others. ation, or an unspoken quid pro quo, is I know there is a lot of talk about, do signs, they were paid for by the State the very appearance of undue influence we really need campaign finance re- Republican Party—thousands and that the Supreme Court has repeatedly form. I want this record to pronounce thousands of dollars spent by the State upheld as a compelling reason for lim- to everyone within the sound of my Republican Party which benefited my iting campaign contributions. voice, things cannot be worse than opponent. Had my opponent had to pay Unlimited contributions simply do what they are now. We need to get for those out of the money he raised, not equate to free speech. Although the back to the way it used to be, where he could not have afforded it. final statistics on the total amount of you had to raise money from individ- I filed a complaint with the Federal money contributed in the 2000 election uals and they would give you money Election Commission, and many cycle is not yet complete, we do know unsolicited. This present system is not the overall estimate for expenditures months later they were saying it was working, in my opinion, and it should on federal elections in the 1999–2000 OK. That was confirmed sometime be changed. election cycle is between $2.4 and $2.5 later by the U.S. Supreme Court, say- Mr. DODD. How much time remains? billion. That is a conservative total. ing there is, in effect, unlimited money The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- Let me put that in perspective for that can be spent by State parties. ator from Connecticut has 2 minutes of my colleagues. The average expendi- As we know, these issue advocacy ads the original 30. tures necessary for a winning Senate all over the country have become part Mr. DODD. I yield to the Senator candidate increased from $609,000 in of the way it is done in America today. from Wisconsin. 1976 to over $7 million in the 1999–2000 That is how campaigns are run. Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, in election cycle. At that amount, the av- The State of Nevada then was a very the beginning, when nobody jumped for erage Senate candidate would have to small State, with about a million peo- the ball, I was happy to commence my raise the equivalent of $3,000 per day, ple. I got up on the Senate floor in 1987 talk. But it is music to my ears to hear seven days a week, for the entire six- and talked about what happened to me leaders such as Senators DODD and year Senate term. and how this must not take place in REID come out here in the beginning of It is past time to restore sanity, and the future. I could not believe we would the debate and talk about the impor- accountability, to our system of fi- not change the law, and we have not tance of this issue. They have been nancing elections. changed the law. It has gotten worse with us every step of the way.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY March 19, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2437 As Senator REID has indicated, I am We must be careful not to abridge the Political parties encourage participa- extremely grateful for the kind of sup- rights of Americans to participate in tion. They promote participation. They port we have had. This is when we need our political system and have their are about participation. They educate it, more than any other time. This is a voices heard. Political parties, individ- the public. They ensure the viability of great way to begin. I will give my uals, and organizations that represent all in the system. Their activities are longer statement later. It is better to millions of Americans all have rights open, accountable, and disclosed. get into the process. guaranteed by the first amendment to Have there been abuses? Oh, yes, Mr. DODD. Madam President, I com- the Constitution. These rights guar- there have been abuses. By the way, mend RUSS FEINGOLD and JOHN antee that they can express themselves abuses in the political system did not MCCAIN. This has been a long battle, politically and participate in the elec- just begin with so-called soft money or going back years now. Nobody is claim- toral process. non-Federal money. It is instructive ing perfection. We are sailing into un- Democracy is messy. We are going to for all of America to go back into the charted waters when we engage in the hear a number of examples of how mid-1800s and look at some of the Harp- reform of a campaign financing sys- messy and unfair democracy is over the er’s Weekly magazines. tem, but I underscore what Senator next 2 weeks. Our system is imperfect, Ask yourself the question: Is our po- REID of Nevada has said: A system that but our Government works because of litical system cleaner today, is it more has over $23 million spent to win the the rights of all people to participate open today, is it more honest today votes of a State with a million and a in this democracy. We should take than it was in the 1800s, early 1900s? half people is a system totally out of steps to encourage greater participa- Oh, yes, it is; absolutely it is. So there control. tion in the process. We should expand must be some frame of reference that These two Senators have taken the the ability of the American people to we come from with an educated debate lead. I think America appreciates what get involved. We must not weaken po- on campaign finance reform. they are trying to do. Our fervent hope litical parties or other important polit- Any reform that weakens the parties is that before this debate concludes, ei- ical institutions of our system. will weaken the system. It will lead to ther later this week or at the end of Over the next 2 weeks, we will need a less accountable system. It will lead next week, this body, for the first time to guard against taking actions that to a system less responsive to and ac- in more than a quarter century, will will have unintended consequences. cessible by the American people. Why do we want to ban soft money to have substantially reformed a political The answer to reforming our system is political parties, that funding which is process—not made it perfect. We not to shut people out or diminish the now accountable and reportable? This should not hold that out as a possi- abilities of our institutions and indi- ban would weaken the parties and put bility, but we can certainly make it viduals to participate in the process. more money and control in the hands better than it presently is. We must also guard against impugn- of wealthy individuals and independent Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President, ing each other’s motives on the floor of the Senate. No Senator has the high groups who are accountable to no one. I assure my colleagues on the other If any one of us in America wishes to moral ground over any other Senator. side of this debate that we are not find out who is running a television or There are and will be differences on going to be too restrictive about time. a radio spot for a candidate or against campaign finance reform. Let us de- There are more speakers on the other a candidate, you cannot now find that bate these differences without assign- side, which is often the case in this de- information. Why is that? Because it is ing sinister motives to our opponents. bate. I want to make sure Senator not disclosable. I know that is difficult HAGEL gets the time he needs. I will The Nation and the world will be peek- for many in this country to believe but take the time I need. Unless someone ing in through their television windows that is the case. else in our general orbit here on this to witness this Senate debate. Will When you take power away from one subject comes, we will try to accommo- they see dignity, respect for others’ group, it will expand power for another date people on the other side. I know opinions, honest discourse, and ele- group. I do not believe, as well, that Senator COCHRAN is looking for an op- vated debate? I believe so. Our country our problems lie with candidates for portunity to speak. I hope we can ac- deserves it, and we owe it to our fellow public office and their campaigns. commodate him out of my time. citizens. Their campaigns are fully open to the Having said that, Madam President, This is a historic moment for the public. All dollars raised and expended how much does the Senator from Ne- Senate to rise above the shrill political are disclosed. The voters can hold them braska desire? rhetoric of our time. How do we best responsible and should and must hold Mr. HAGEL. I would like 15 minutes. change our campaign finance system? candidates accountable. Mr. MCCONNELL. I yield 15 minutes For me, the core of campaign finance Have we had bad players in the sys- to the Senator from Nebraska. reform must begin with accountability, tem? Do we have bad players now in The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- openness, and disclosure. These are the the system? The American public will ator from Nebraska is recognized. essential components of reform. make that judgment. Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, the I start from a fundamental premise Recent years have been ripe with ac- Senate is about to engage in an open that the problem in the system is not counts of those who dance on the pin and full debate on campaign finance re- the political party; the problem is not head of technicality and who skirt the form. It is time for this debate. the candidate’s campaign; the problem law because there is no controlling My friends, JOHN MCCAIN and RUSS is the unaccountable, unlimited out- legal authority, but I do not know how FEINGOLD, deserve much credit for get- side moneys and influence that flows you legislate ethical behavior. Of ting the Senate to this point. They into the system where there is either course, if it was just a matter of laws have been passionate in their efforts to little or no disclosure. That is the core and regulations, then we would have no reform the system. If the Senate passes of the issue we will debate beginning crime in America. Why? Because we a campaign finance reform bill—and I today. have laws against murder, we have believe we can—it will be largely due The political parties are and have laws against robbery, we have laws to their efforts and leadership. been a vital component for our system, against everything. If it was that sim- We have an opportunity to achieve especially for a challenger to take on a ple—just pass another law—the world something relevant and meaningful. well-financed, entrenched incumbent. would be just fine. My hope, my goal, for the outcome of Who else is there to support that chal- We cannot allow our outrage at the these 2 weeks is to get a bipartisan bill lenger, be that challenger a Democrat morally questionable actions of a few approved by the Senate that brings re- or a Republican, unless the challenger lead us to tamp down the system so form to the system, is constitutional, is self-financed? It is the party who ac- tightly that we shut out the involve- and that President Bush will sign. tivates the base and gets out the vote ment of the overwhelming majority. Whatever we do, we must look to ex- and helps give that challenger a forum What sense does that make? pand, not constrict, opportunities for to get his or her message out. That is The more money that is pushed out- people to participate in our democratic good. That is helpful. That is impor- side the reportable system of can- process. tant to democracy. didates and political parties, the less

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S2438 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 19, 2001 control candidates will have over their the grassroots participation. In the Mr. M4CCONNELL. HOW MUCH TIME RE- own campaigns. Voters can hold can- process, that very vitality is the core MAINS? didates responsible for their conduct. of representative government. Why cut The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. They cannot hold outside groups and that off, that accountable disclosure of CORZINE). The Senator from Kentucky wealthy individuals accountable. money, to make the system more a controls 43 minutes. I believe the greatest threat to our part of every citizen’s opportunity to Mr. MCCONNELL. I thank the distin- political system today is those who op- participate? guished Senator from Nebraska for erate outside the bounds of openness As originally provided for in the Fed- outlining the alternative he will be of- and accountability, not those who op- eral Election Campaign Act of 1974, fering some time during the course of erate inside the bounds of account- soft money, non-Federal money, in this debate. There is no question this is ability and reportability and disclo- fact, can be used by political parties a constitutional amendment. There is sure. for various activities over the course of no question the changes it seeks to In recent years, we have seen an ex- an electoral process. I hear some talk achieve are constitutional. It is very plosion of multimillion-dollar adver- that this is a new phenomenon. If this thoughtful. I congratulate him for his tising buys by outside organizations. is new, why, since 1974, has the Federal fine statement. These groups and wealthy individuals Election Commission had 7 pages of I congratulate the Senator from Ari- come into an election, spend unlimited regulations as to how to use soft zona. We are all in the business of look- sums of money, and leave without any- money? It isn’t new. These are legiti- ing at public opinion. We know the one knowing who they are or how much mate, worthy, and important functions American people are interested in the they spent or why. They can have a of the political parties and should not energy crisis; they are interested in major impact on the outcome of any be inhibited by a total ban on soft education; they are interested in tax election—any election—especially in money. I do believe we need to tighten relief. They are not particularly inter- small States. the definition on the uses of soft ested in campaign finance reform. I Do they have a right to participate? money. This should be part of any re- have often said it ranks with static Of course they have a right to partici- form bill we pass, and we can do that cling as one of the great concerns pate, but their actions must be dis- and should. among the American people. Through closed. Today’s hard money contribution the sheer tenacity of the senior Sen- In the fall of 1999, I introduced a bi- limits are worth less than one-third of ator from Arizona, we are here today partisan bill to reform our campaign fi- their value when the 1974 act was beginning a debate over the next 2 nance system. I reintroduced that leg- passed. This funding goes directly to weeks on a subject of very little inter- islation this year with several Demo- candidates’ campaigns and political est to the American people. I give him cratic and Republican colleagues. I am parties and is the most accountable credit for his tenacity and aggressive- pleased to report that more and more method of political financing. Every ness in pushing this item forward on of my colleagues have come on as co- dollar contributed, every dollar spent, the floor of the Senate early in this sponsors to this legislation in the last is fully reported to the Federal Elec- new administration. couple of days. tion Commission. Everybody knows I like the tone of the discussion I The components of our legislation who is making that contribution. The have heard so far. I have noticed there will genuinely improve the way Fed- individual limit of $1,000 in 1974 equates hasn’t been any discussion about cor- eral campaigns are financed. We in- to $3,300 today. Our bill raises this ruption. We had that discussion a year crease disclosure requirements for can- limit to $3,000 and indexes it for infla- and a half ago and there has not been didates, parties, independent groups, tion. By doing this, we ensure individ- a single bit of proof offered. I like the and individuals. The current system uals have the same ability to partici- restraint I sense in the Chamber today. provides no disclosure for the activities pate as they were granted in the Hopefully we will not have any unsub- of outside groups or individuals. We en- groundbreaking 1974 legislation. stantiated charges of corruption. Hope- sure that the name of the individual, Furthermore, we believe our cam- fully any Senator who makes such a the organization, its officers, address- paign finance reform proposals would charge will prove it. The absence of un- es, phone numbers, and the amount of all pass constitutional muster. This is substantiated charges of corruption, it money spent are all made public imme- a legitimate concern—whether, in fact, seems to me, is also a step in the right diately. we pass a bill that will withstand ap- direction in having a civil debate, and Our legislation limits soft money propriate constitutional scrutiny and lowering our voices and pursuing this contributions to political parties to protect the rights of the first amend- discussion in the way the President $60,000 per year. That is far below the ment. would like for us to pursue it with unlimited millions—unlimited mil- I believe the constitutional issues are lower voices and in a civil manner. lions—that are now pouring into the as critical as any we will debate over The self-styled and media-pro- system with no accountability, no dis- the next 2 weeks. The Constitution is nounced reformers are captives of a closure. This is a significant limit. the foundational document of our Na- Catch-22 that is titled ‘‘campaign fi- The Wall Street Journal reported tion. The rights guaranteed within nance reform.’’ By the way, my favor- Friday that two-thirds of all the soft that document cannot be dismissed be- ite definition of ‘‘special interest’’ is a money contributions in the last elec- cause of political expediency, regard- group against what I am trying to do. tion cycle came from those who gave less of how noble the motive of the re- I love those groups that are for what I more than the $120,000 limit for a 2- form effort. Our system is imperfect. am trying to do. That is a group of out- year cycle, which is part of our bill. Representative government is imper- standing Americans trying to achieve a Two-thirds of the soft money contribu- fect, but certainly we can expect a worthwhile purpose. To truly achieve tors in the last cycle would have been higher standard from our political their professed goals, reduction of spe- subject to this cap. I say to those who leaders than we have seen in the past. cial interests means foreclosing all op- question the cap, whether it is rel- Personal accountability is the core of portunities for participation in poli- evant, important, or whether it does political accountability. tics. Some of our Democratic allies anything, I think the Wall Street Jour- Congress has a genuine opportunity have actually done that. I remember 10 nal numbers address that issue. We to work with President Bush to achieve years or so ago when we thought the limit soft money but do not ban it so real reform. The President supports Japanese had done everything right. political parties are not disadvantaged campaign finance reform. I look for- We were afraid they were buying up all by wealthy individuals and inde- ward to working with all my colleagues of the American property and there pendent organizations. This is particu- during this debate to get a constitu- was a great fear that the Japanese larly important because it is at the tional, bipartisan campaign finance re- somehow had gotten the better of us in State level of our politics, State party form bill passed, one that the President world competition. In Japan, they have organizations that have the responsi- will sign, that will genuinely reform been concerned about the influence of bility of getting out the vote, of orga- our system. That would be an achieve- money and politics and they have nizing the vote, the registration drives, ment of which we all would be proud. squeezed it all the way out. In Japan,

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY March 19, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2439 where they are unimpeded, unfettered Since that time, those advocating re- had on this issue provided only two fea- by anything such as the First Amend- form have been in retreat in one form tures: A party soft money ban and ment we have, the Japanese Govern- or another. Having first waved the what we would have to charitably call ment limits the number of days you white flag on these previously non- a bogus Beck provision which actually can campaign, the number of speeches negotiable candidate spending limits, eviscerates current worker protections you can give, the types of places you we stand here today with a very dif- rather than codifies them as the can speak, the number of handbills and ferent kind of bill and, I must say, a McCain-Feingold subtitle purports. bumper stickers you can print, and the brighter outlook than 8 years ago at So the last time we had a vote on number of megaphones you can buy— the outset of the last big floor engage- this issue in the Senate, a cloture vote, one. Each candidate is entitled to one ment, when we had lots and lots of was on a party soft money ban only, megaphone. amendments. with a bogus Beck provision. What we This was passed in order to deal with Eight years ago, campaign spending have before us now is a beefed-up money in politics. They wanted to get limits were on the verge of enactment McCain-Feingold, again with the party it all out of politics, and they have. In and would have extinguished any soft money ban plus various efforts to the desire to get money out of politics, chance of sustained success of my restrict the voices of outside groups. it was designed to improve the image party in congressional elections. We One of the issues we are going to be of the politicians and the Parliament, Republicans have to spend millions dealing with here in the course of the so they squeezed all the money out of every election just to get a fair shake debate is the so-called nonseverability politics, got them down to one mega- and counter the liberal bias so preva- clause. It is in the President’s state- phone per candidate, and ‘‘no con- lent in the news and entertainment ment of principles. Why is it there? It fidence’’ in the legislators has risen to media. is there because we have an obligation 70 percent and voter turnout has con- So candidate spending limits mer- not to pass laws that are clearly un- tinued to decline. cifully are off the table. That means constitutional. That is just one example. There are our direct campaigns are not on the I hear that some of the proponents of others of our democratic allies around hook, and we rejoice in that. this year’s version of McCain-Feingold the world who have been into this issue The PAC and bundling bans were jet- oppose a nonseverability clause, and I much further than we have gone, at tisoned from McCain-Feingold as well, really find that mystifying. If they are least so far, and they have all had the and I must say I am happy about that. so confident that the bill is constitu- same results: Squeeze the money out of I don’t think there is anything wrong tional, what is wrong with a nonsever- politics, quiet all the voices, the cyni- with people banding together in order ability clause to guarantee that the cism continues to rise, the turnout to pool their resources and support bill either rises or falls together? They continues to go down; and the reason candidates of their choice. That is as should have had a nonseverability for that of course is that cynicism and constitutional as apple pie and ought clause back in 1974. What happened turnout are not related to this issue at not to be restricted. then was legislation passed that had A few months later, in 1998, the citi- all; they are related to whether or not spending limits for campaigns and con- zens group restrictions were altered there is a belief that the legislators are tribution limits for individuals. The tackling the real challenges con- and a new—and, I would argue, also un- spending limits got struck down, the fronting the country. constitutional—bright line was drawn contribution limits got upheld, were The original recipe of McCain-Fein- by the Snowe-Jeffords provision where not indexed, and we have today a situa- gold, back in 1995 and 1997, tried to do an unconstitutionally vague line had tion in which we are left with $1,000 a lot of what I have just described they been in the original McCain-Feingold. contribution limits set at a time when have done in Japan: It had candidate But that did not get anywhere either, a Mustang cost $2,700 and candidates, spending limits; it had a ban on PACs— inviting vehement opposition from eliminate them; it had a bundling ban; citizens groups who would be affected, particularly in big States, who were it had a party soft money ban and an and disdained and ridiculed by con- not fortunate enough to be wealthy, all-encompassing restriction on citi- stitutional experts who would litigate have to spend—well, there is not zens groups who engaged in issue advo- if it were ever enacted, such restric- enough time. There is not enough time. cacy and independent expenditures. In tions already having been struck down If you are running in California and other words, the entire universe of po- in Federal court over 20 times. you do not have the advantage of being litical participation—with, of course, Let me just take a moment on this. already well known or extraordinarily the glaring exception of the media, None of us really likes the degree to rich, 2 years is not long enough to pool where political activism is conven- which outside groups get involved in together enough resources at $1,000 a iently carved out of the existing cam- our campaigns. We don’t like it. We contributor to be competitive. paign finance law under which we oper- would like to control these campaigns. One of the single biggest problems we ate today, as well as on page 15 of the But under the First Amendment, the have is the failure to index the hard current McCain-Feingold bill. The campaign is not ours to control, and be money contribution limit back in the media we always sort of carve out of it ever so irritating when some group 1970s. Why do you think parties are re- these restrictions because the presump- who hates us comes in and starts talk- lying more on soft money? Because tion, I guess, is they have a greater ing about us in proximity to an elec- there isn’t enough hard money. Nobody right to the First Amendment than any tion, that doesn’t mean we can legis- capped the cost of the media at the 1974 of us. late it out of existence through our level. I hear that we may have an In 1997, McCain-Feingold sponsors votes in this Chamber. amendment to deal with the question capitulated on the crown jewel of cam- It irritates us, but there are a lot of of availability of media. I think that is paign reformers, and that was spending things you have to endure in public a good idea. I look forward to taking a limits on campaigns themselves. Thus, life, from media criticism to outside look at the details of it. those of us who approached this issue issue groups who irritate us. But just We ought to be dealing with the real as the Supreme Court does, from a con- because it irritates us doesn’t mean problem here. The real problem is not stitutional perspective, considered that there is any constitutional basis for that there is too much money in poli- a battle won. Candidate spending lim- eliminating it. In fact, the courts over tics; there is too little money in poli- its were gone. It was the belief—cer- 20 times since Buckley—over 20 times tics—particularly hard money—all of tainly my belief—that members of my since Buckley—have struck down var- which is limited and disclosed and it is party would be strenuously disadvan- ious efforts by State and local govern- given directly to parties and can- taged by spending limits, so we were ments to hamper, inhibit, make it didates to expressly advocate the elec- happy they were gone. But prior to more difficult for outside groups to tion or defeat of a candidate. Yet no- that, we had been told time and time criticize us in proximity to an election. body on the so-called ‘‘reform side’’ is again there could be no reform without So the chances of that being upheld are trying to deal with the single biggest spending limits. But candidate spend- slim to none. problem that we have. I hope during ing limits are gone. I am glad about In 1999, McCain-Feingold was peeled the course of this debate that problem that, and we consider that a victory. back even further, and the last vote we will be taken care of.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S2440 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 19, 2001 The only way to get at the core of know what I think about that. But I rious person who knows anything this problem, if Senators believe the think it is important to get the record about the First Amendment who be- influence of money and politics is so straight about non-Federal money. lieves that we could do that. pernicious, is to change the First The average soft money contribution The proposal before us is designed to Amendment. to the Republican Senatorial Com- inhibit the ability of the political par- You have to go right to the core of mittee last cycle was $520. That is less ties and would have no impact whatso- the problem. The junior Senator from than one-tenth of 1 percent of the ever on outside groups, nor should it. South Carolina, Mr. FRITZ HOLLINGS, money that the Republican Senatorial They are entitled in this free society will offer that amendment at some Committee raised. to have their say. point as he has periodically over the If you look at the Republican Na- Mr. President, I have a series of years. He deserves a lot of credit for tional Committee and the Republican newspaper editorials and columns from understanding the nub of the problem. Senatorial Committee, the largest con- columnist George Will that I want to The nub of the problem is you can’t do tribution either of us got during the have printed in the RECORD. He has most of these things as long as the course of the year was $250,000. Admit- been particularly active in writing First Amendment remains as it is. tedly, that is a very large contribution, about this subject. I ask unanimous So Senator HOLLINGS, at some point, but any one of those $250,000 contribu- consent to have them all printed seri- I think under the consent agreement, tions would have represented less than atim in the RECORD. I will add to the will probably at the end of the debate one-half of 1 percent of the total money record in the next few days additional offer a constitutional amendment so raised by either the Republican Sen- articles on this subject. the Federal and all 50 State govern- atorial Committee or the Republican There being no objection, the mate- ments can have the unfettered latitude National Committee. rial was ordered to be printed in the to regulate, restrict, and even prohibit You can make a case, as Senator RECORD, as follows: any expenditures ‘‘by, in support of, or HAGEL has made and will make again [From Newsweek, Mar. 19, 2001] in opposition to a candidate for public when he offers his substitute, that it JAMES MADISON REMEMBERED office.’’ It would carve and etch out of ought to be capped. But I think you MADISONIAN DOCTRINE TODAY HAS ITS OPPO- the First Amendment, for the first can’t make a case that it ought to be SITE—CALL IT MC CAINISM, AN ANTIPLURALIST POPULISM time since the founding of our country eliminated. Why should the Republican (By George F. Will) and the passage of the Bill of Rights, National Committee or the Democratic National Committee have to finance There is no monument to James Madison giving to the government at the Fed- in Washington, There is a tall, austere eral and State level the ability to con- their efforts on behalf of mayoral can- monument to the tall (6′2’’), austere man for trol political speech in this country. It didates in Omaha, NE, with Federal whom the city is named, a man of Roman is worth noting that would also apply dollars? This is a Federal system. virtues and eloquent reticence. There is a to the media. Under McCain-Feingold, the Repub- Greek-revival memorial to Madison’s boon One of the world’s largest defense lican Governors’ Association would be companion, the tall (6’2’’) elegant, eloquent contractors, such as General Electric, obliterated, eliminated, gone; the Jefferson, who is to subsequent generations could even be prohibited from owning Democratic Governors’ Association, the most charismatic of the Founders. But there is no monument to the smallest (5′4″) America’s No. 1 television station such gone. Why? Because they don’t operate but subtlest of the Founders, without whose as NBC, and a news anchor, such as with Federal money. mind Jefferson’s Declaration and Washing- Tom Brokaw, could even be prohibited We have national political parties. ton’s generalship could not have resulted in from mentioning a candidate’s name We already have a scarcity of Federal this republic. within 60 days of an election. This is a hard dollars even to do the job for our So this Friday, as an insufficiently grate- serious proposal. This will be offered Federal candidates. And under this pro- ful nation gives scant notice to the 250th an- once again on the floor of the Senate. posal with that same sort of finite niversary of Madison’s birth, pause to con- sider what he wrought, such as the Constitu- Barring such a wholesale repeal of source of Federal hard dollars, the tion, and the first 10 amendments, called the constitutional freedom, a lot of what great national party committees would Bill of Rights. Pretty good work, that, but we are going to be doing in the next 2 have to operate on behalf of Federal not more impressive than Madison’s think- weeks will probably fall well short of candidates and everybody else out of ing that was the Constitution’s necessary the constitutional mark. But I hope the same pool of resources. Regret- precursor. He became the Father of the Con- that Senators will take their respon- fully, the bill does not take the money stitution only because he was the founder of sibilities seriously and not just vote for out of politics. It takes the parties out modern democratic thought. of politics. In what way is that a step Before Madison produced his revolution in anything, hoping the courts will at democratic theory, there had been a pessi- some point save us from ourselves. in the right direction? mistic consensus among political philoso- A good deal of this is not in question. Yesterday, the Washington Post had phers: If democracy were to be possible, it Virtually the exact language of the so- a big article that included soft money would be only in small societies akin to called Snowe-Jeffords language de- contributions to the national political Pericles’ Athens or Rousseau’s Geneva— signed to make it more difficult for parties. It was pretty significant—the ‘‘face to face’’ societies sufficiently small outside groups to criticize any of us in suggestion being that if we pass and homogeneous to avoid the supposed proximity to an election has been McCain-Feingold that money wouldn’t threats to freedom—‘‘factions.’’ In turning struck down within the last year and a be spent. this notion upside down—that is what a revo- It would be spent all right. It just lution does—Madison taught the world a new half. catechism of popular government: That is pretty clear evidence that wouldn’t be given to the parties. What is the worst result of politics? Tyr- this particular language is not con- Each of those interests who care anny. To what form of tyranny is democracy stitutional. about what we are doing here, who be- prey? Tyranny of the majority. How can that As we go through these amendments, lieve that it may have an impact on be avoided? By preventing the existence of if they are clearly Federal court cases their business or their interest, cannot majorities that are homogenous, and there- on point, I hope Members of the Senate be constitutionally restricted from fore stable, durable and potentially tyran- will not ignore that. We swore to up- speaking. Maybe some court some- nical. How can that be prevented? By culti- vating factions, so that majorities will be hold the Constitution. I know some- where would let us completely fed- unstable and short-lived coalitions of mi- times it is hard to figure out what that eralize the national parties and com- norities. Cultivation of factions is a function means in the context of a given vote. pletely eliminate their ability to oper- of an ‘‘extensive’’ republic. But on some of these issues, it is not ate in State and local races with Fed- Which brings us to what can be called that unclear. There will be a decision eral dollars. Maybe some court would Madison’s sociology of freedom, explained in on point. let us do that. But no Federal court in his contributions to the most penetrating I want to make another point about America is going to let us quiet the and influential newspaper columns ever voices of all these interests that have a penned—the Federalist Papers, to which non-Federal money. Alexander Hamilton and John Jay also con- Senator HAGEL was talking about his perfect right to go out and engage in tributed. proposal to cap but not completely issue advocacy up to and including the In Federalist 10 Madison wrote that ‘‘the eliminate non-Federal money. I do not day of the election. There isn’t any se- extent’’ of the nation would help provide ‘‘a

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY March 19, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2441 republican remedy for the diseases most in- Memorial Building. Perhaps that would suf- Des Moines preparing to appear on ABC’s cident to republican government.’’ He said: fice as a monument to Madison. Or maybe ‘‘This Week.’’ One of those who was to ques- ‘‘Extend the sphere, and you take in a great- his monument is our constitutional govern- tion him (this columnist), not wanting to er variety of parties and interests; you make ment, which proves the possibility of liberty ambush him with unfamiliar material, and it less probable that a majority of the whole under law in an extensive—a continental— wanting from him a considered judgment, will have a common motive to invade the republic. took the unusual step of telling Bush he rights of other citizens.’’ Because ‘‘the most would be asked if he agreed with a particular common and durable source of factions’’ is [From the Washington Post, Mar. 4, 2001] proposition from an opinion written by Jus- ‘‘the various and unequal distribution of ... LET US HOPE NOT tice Clarence Thomas. The proposition, property,’’ the ‘‘first object of government’’ (By George F. Will) given to Bush on a 3-by-5 card, was: is ‘‘protection of different and unequal fac- Disquieting rumors persist that some of ‘‘There is no constitutionally significant ulties of acquiring property.’’ President Bush’s advisers are eager to sign a distinction between campaign contributions The maelstrom of interestedness that is campaign finance ‘‘reform’’ bill, or at least and expenditures. Both forms of speech are characteristic of Madisonian democracy to avoid vetoing one. Bush should beware of central to the First Amendment.’’ often is not a pretty spectacle. However, what Edmund Burke called ‘‘the irresistible Asked if he agreed that there is something Madison knew better than to judge politics operation of feeble councils.’’ ‘‘inherently hostile to the First Amend- by esthetic standards. He saw reality stead- And he should be aware of the Colorado ment’’ in limiting participation in politics ily and saw it whole, and in Federalist 51 he case argued before the Supreme Court last by means of contributions by individuals said people could trace ‘‘through the whole Wednesday. If the court affirms the judg- (Bush favors banning ‘‘collective speech’’ by system of human affairs’’ the ‘‘policy of sup- ment of two lower courts in that case, the corporations, or by unions without members’ plying by opposite and rival interests, the McCain-Feingold bill is patently unconstitu- prior written consent), he briskly replied: ‘‘I defect of better motives.’’ tional. agree.’’ And asked if he thinks a president Madison’s 250th birthday comes at a mel- Although a plain statement of the salient has a duty to make an independent judgment ancholy moment. A banal and middle-headed fact seems preposterous, the unvarnished about the constitutionality of bills and to populism—call it McCainism—is fueling an truth is that McCain-Feingold’s premise is: veto those he considers unconstitutional, he assault this month on Madison’s First There is something inherently corrupt about replied: ‘‘I do.’’ Amendment freedoms of speech and associa- the relationship between political parties This puts Bush on a collision course with tion. In the name of political hygiene, advo- and their candidates. Thus the bill would ban much of the political class and most of the cates of ‘‘campaign-finance reform’’ are wag- ‘‘soft money’’ contributions to parties—un- media. It may become the first disruption of ing war against the Madisonian pluralism of regulated money that can be spent for party- his serene relations with them, but there American politics. building, voter turnout, issue advocacy and eventually must be a first, and the stake— Madisonian doctrine considers factions in- other purposes, but not to ‘‘directly influ- the First Amendment—is worth a fight. evitable and potentially healthy and useful. ence’’ the election of candidates for federal Bush has served himself and the country McCainism stigmatizes factions as ‘‘special offices. well by his congeniality efforts, but he will interests’’ whose rights to associate and Last week, a quarter of a century after the serve neither by continuing them until it speak politically for their interests should Buckley v. Valeo ruling, which struck down costs him respect. It will cost him that if he be strictly limited and closely regulated by much of the 1974 campaign finance law, the signs McCain-Feingold. government. Madison’s First Amendment court for the first time heard arguments Genius, said Bismarck, involves knowing says, ‘‘Congress shall make no law . . . about whether it is constitutional for the when to stop. He had in mind waging war, abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the government to limit a party’s direct expend- but the same is true of waging niceness. right of the people . . . to petition the gov- itures—‘‘hard dollars’’—for its candidates. In ernment for a redress of grievances.’’ Buckley, the court held that limits on polit- [From the Washington Post, Mar. 8, 2001] McCainism advocates speech rationing by ical money—contributions and expendi- SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT SOFT MONEY the multiplication of government-imposed tures—implicate ‘‘the most fundamental (By George F. Will) limits on the right of individuals and groups First Amendment activities,’’ and therefore to spend money for the dissemination of po- government bears a heavy burden of dem- In ‘‘Murder in the Cathedral,’’ T.S. Eliot, a litical speech. onstrating a compelling need to limit those better poet than moral philosopher, has a McCainism says money ‘‘taints’’ politics. activities. The only such justification the character say, Madisonian theory asks: What would politics court considers sufficient is the need to pre- The last temptation is the greatest trea- consist of if it were ‘‘untainted’’ by the vig- vent corruption or the appearance thereof. son: orous, unfettered participation of factions on Well. In 1986 the Colorado Republic Party To do the right thing for the wrong reason. whose interests government impinges? ran ads criticizing a Democratic congress- Actually, in Washington it is good enough McCainism aims to crimp the activities of man who was considering running for the when people do the right thing for any rea- political parties by banning contributions of Senate. It did this before the Republican son. So it is gratifying, if not notably noble, ‘‘soft money’’ (used for party building, not Senate candidate had been chosen. Neverthe- that some Democrats, having recalibrated for particular candidates’ campaigns or for less, the Federal Election Commission their self-interest in the light of last year’s expressly advocating the election of defeat of charged that this expenditure violated fed- elections, are rethinking their enthusiasm specific candidates). eral limits on party expenditures for can- for eviscerating the First Amendment in the The Founders did not anticipate the neces- didates. Ten years later the U.S. Supreme name of campaign finance reform. sity of political parties. However, Madison Court ruled against the FEC, saying the ads Prior to the last election cycle, they fa- quickly came to think that parties could were ‘‘independent expenditures’’ and thus vored banning ‘‘soft’’ money—the money moderate factions by channeling and dis- not subject to the ‘‘hard dollar’’ limits. contributed to political parties for uses ciplining them. Campaign-finance reformers The Supreme Court remanded the case for other than for particular federal candidates, are always unpleasantly surprised by the un- the lower courts to consider whether those and not used expressly to advocate the elec- intended consequences of their reforms. Were ‘‘hard dollar’’ limits themselves are con- tion or defeat of a candidate. However, hav- they to succeed in banning soft money, they stitutional at all. In response, the district ing done well in the 1999–2000 soft-money would be startled by an utterly predictable court and the 10th Circuit have both said sweepstakes, and lagging behind Republicans result of the hydraulics of political money: they are not. Last Wednesday the FEC asked in hard dollars—conditions to political par- Money banned from the parties would flow the Supreme Court to say they are. But how ties that are limited but can be spent for instead to other—often wilder—factions. can it without saying preposterously, that particular candidates—Democrats are having Then the reformers, who cannot see a free- there is a substantial risk of parties cor- second thoughts. dom without calling it a ‘‘loophole’’ that rupting their own candidates by supporting Those Democrats whose controlling prin- needs closing, would try to extend govern- them? ciple is the pursuit of short-term party ad- ment regulation of political speech to the As the district court said on remand: ‘‘The vantage will have third thoughts if con- speech of those factions. Madison, wise about FEC seeks to broaden the definition of cor- vinced that their party’s success at raising the untidiness of freedom, would respond by ruption to the point that it intersects with soft money was contingent on control of the reminding the reformers of his reform—the the very framework of representative gov- presidency. But some Bush advisers may First Amendment. ernment.’’ begin favoring a ban on soft money if many Madison undertook the thankless task of The FEC is a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies Democrats become wary of a ban. Tactical explaining the implications for democracy of have a metabolic urge to maximize their considerations always dominate when the the unflattering fact that men are not an- missions. The FEC’s mission is to regulate political class writes laws limiting commu- gels, and posterity has not thanked him with political discourse. A president’s primary nication about—and competition against— the sort of adulation bestowed upon Jeffer- mission, stated in his oath of office, is dif- itself. son. However, in 1981 the Library of Con- ferent—to defend the Constitution. Bush un- In 1897 Nebraska, Tennessee, Missouri and gress, which began with Jefferson’s donation derstands the conflict between his duty and Florida banned corporate contributions be- of his library, needed a new building and the FEC’s urge. cause, in the 1896 presidential race, such con- named it after the most supple intellect Around 7 a.m., Jan. 23, 2000, the day before tributions helped William McKinley defeat among the Founders—the James Madison the Iowa caucuses, candidate Bush was in the man who carried those states, William

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S2442 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 19, 2001 Jennings Bryan. In 1974 Congress enacted will measure just how much jeopardy the quired to file reports with the commission if spending limits (declared unconstitutional First Amendment, and hence political free- the total value of your expenditures exceeds by the Supreme Court in 1976) for House dom, faces. Recent evidence is ominous. $250 during 1998.’’ If his activity were not races of $75,000 (about $200,000 in today’s dol- In 1997, 38 senators voted to amend the truly independent, his ‘‘expenditures’’ would lars), far below what challengers must spend First Amendment to empower government to have to be reported as an in-kind contribu- to threaten an incumbent. The Senate lim- impose ‘‘reasonable’’ restrictions on political tion to Johnson’s opponent. Smith ignored its, also declared unconstitutional, would speech. Dick Gephardt has said, ‘‘What we the commission, which, perhaps too busy po- have protected incumbents. The limits start- have is two important values in direct con- licing speech elsewhere, let him get away ed at a base of $250,000 and varied with a flict: freedom of speech and our desire for with free speech. state’s population, and included not just the healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy.’’ Today Internet pornography is protected candidate’s direct spending but any spending Bill Bradley has proposed suppressing issue from regulation, but not Internet political ‘‘relative to a clearly identified candidate.’’ advocacy ads of independent groups by im- speech. And campaign finance ‘‘reformers’ Arguments for more regulation of political posing a 100 percent tax on such ads. John aspire to much, much more regulation be- speech are fueled by hyperbole about sup- McCain has said he wishes he could constitu- cause, they say, there is ‘‘too much money in posed ‘‘torrents’’ of money pouring into poli- tionally ban negative ads—ads critical of politics.’’ tics. Such hyperbole probably has been heard politicians. Actually, too much money that could fund ever since George Washington, at age 25, The basis of political-speech regulation is political discourse is spent on complying first ran for the Virginia House of Burgesses the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act. with the act’s speech regulations. To cover in 1757, spending 39 pounds for 160 gallons of Bradley Smith, a member of the Federal compliance costs, the Bush and Gore cam- rum and other beverages for the 391 eligible Election Commission and author of ‘‘Unfree paigns combined raised more than $15 mil- voters—more than a quart of drink, at a cost Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Re- lion. And Bradley Smith notes that because of (in today’s currency) $2, per voter. form,’’ calls the act ‘‘one of the most radical of the law’s ambiguities and the commis- However, since the Voting Rights Act laws ever passed in the United States.’’ Be- sion’s vast discretion, litigation has become (1965) and the 26th Amendment (1971) greatly cause of it, for the first time Americans were a campaign weapon: Candidates file charges expanded the electorate, spending per eligi- required to register with the government be- to embarrass opponents and force them to ble voter in congressional races, in today’s fore spending money to disseminate criti- expend resources fending off the speech pol- cism of its officeholders. dollars, has hovered in a range from approxi- icy. Consider this legacy of ‘‘reforms’’ during Liberals eager for more regulation of polit- mately $2.50 to $3.50 per eligible voter, inch- this month’s debate about adding to them. ical speech should note the pedigree of their ing up slightly in the highly competitive project. The act’s first enforcement action [From the Washington Post, Mar. 18, 2001] elections of 1994 and 1996 and reaching ap- came in 1972, when some citizens organized proximately $4 in the competitive elections as the National Committee for Impeachment SKIRTING WHAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT SAYS of 1998—a bit more than the cost of one video paid $17,850 to run a New York Times ad (By George F. Will) rental. criticizing President Nixon. His Justice De- With this week’s beginning of Senate de- If spending in the two-year 1999–2000 cycle partment got a court to enjoin the com- for all candidates for all offices—federal, bate on campaign finance reform, we will mittee from further spending to disseminate reach the most pivotal moment in the his- state and local—reached the ‘‘obscene’’ (as its beliefs. Justice said the committee had critics call it) total of $3 billion, that was $15 tory of American freedom since the civil not properly registered with the government 1 per eligible voter, And $3 billion—$2 billion rights revolution 3 ⁄2 decades ago. The debate and the committee’s activities might ‘‘af- concerns John McCain’s plan to broaden gov- less than Americans spend annually on Hal- fect’’ the 1972 election, so it was barred from loween snacks—is five-one-hundredths of one ernment limitations on political spending in spending more than $1,000 to communicate order to intensify government supervision of percent of GDP. its opinions. After the expense of reaching a So writes Bradley Smith in ‘‘Unfree political speech, which depends on that federal appellate court, the committee de- spending. Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Re- feated the FEC, but only because the com- form’’ (Princeton University Press), which McCain’s attempt to expand government mittee had not engaged in ‘‘express advo- abridgement of the First Amendment’s core surely will be this year’s most important cacy’’ by explicitly urging people to vote for book on governance, Smith, now serving on concern comes in the context of rapidly mul- or against a specific candidate. tiplying rationales for vitiating First the Federal Election Commission, warns In 1976 some citizens formed the Central that if reformers succeed in getting the First Amendment protection of political speech. Long Island Tax Reform Immediately Com- In recent years law school journals have fea- Amendment thought of as a mere ‘‘loophole’’ mittee, which spent $135 to distribute the in a comprehensive regime of speech ration- tured many professors’ theories about why voting record of a congressman who dis- the amendment—‘‘Congress shall make no ing, they will have legitimized perpetual tin- pleased them. Two years later this dissemi- kering with the regulation of political law . . . abridging the freedom of speech’’— nation of truthful information brought a suit should not be read as a limit on government. speech for partisan advantage after every from the Federal Election Commission’s Rather, they argue, the amendment empow- election cycle has been analyzed. speech police, who said the committee’s ers—indeed, in today’s world it requires— It is arguable whether, or how much, the speech was illegal because the committee government to regulate, limit and even First Amendment should protect obscenity, had not fulfilled all the registering and re- ‘‘enhance‘’ political speech. pornography, this or that ‘‘expressive activ- porting the campaign act requires of those Consider a symptomatic new book, ‘‘Re- ity’’ (e.g., topless dancing, flag burning), who engage in independent expenditure sup- public.com,’’ by University of Chicago law ‘‘fighting words’’ or commercial speech. porting or opposing a candidate. The com- professor Cass Sunstein, whose ingenuity de- However, no serious person disputes that the mittee won in a federal appellate court, but serves better employment. He vigorously at- amendment’s core concerns is political only because it had not engaged in ‘‘express tacks a nonexistent problem, to which he speech. And the Supreme Court says, incon- advocacy.’’ trovertibly, that in modern society, political In 1998, with impeachment approaching, proposes a solution that is only, but very, speech depends on political spending. Leo Smith, a Connecticut voter, designed a useful as an illustration of the hostility that As to whether limits on political spending Web site urging support for Clinton and de- a portion of the professoriate has toward the abridge freedom of political speech, consider feat of Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.) When plain text of the First Amendment. the Supreme Court’s analogy: Would the con- the campaign of Johnson’s opponent con- The supposed problem that Sunstein wants stitutional right to travel be abridged if gov- tacted Smith, worried that his site put him government to address is a maldistribution ernment limited everyone to spending only and their campaign in violation of the act, of information and opinion. He begins with a enough for one tank of gasoline? Or would he sought a commission advisory opinion. truism, that a heterogeneous society needs the First Amendment right of free exercise Although Smith neither received nor ex- the glue of a certain level of common experi- of religion be abridged if government limited pended money to create this particular Web ences. Then he postulates a problem. It is the right to spend money for church con- site, the Commission said the law’s defini- that the very richness of today’s information struction or for proselytizing? tion of a political expenditure includes a gift and opinion environment—the Internet, The First Amendment—freedom—is the of ‘‘something of value,’’ and the commission cable, etc.—allows people to design a person- right reason for opposing ‘‘reforms’’ designed noted that his site was ‘‘administered and alized menu of communications, deciding to regulate, and diminish, political dis- maintained’’ by his personal computer, what they want to encounter and what they course. But if only tactical considerations which cost money. And that the ‘‘domain want to filter out of ‘‘a communications uni- can cause Democrats to do the right thing, named Web site’’ was registered in 1996 for verse of their own choosing.’’ the wrong reason will be welcome. $100 for two years and for $35 a year there- Sunstein says unplanned, unanticipated, after. And ‘‘costs associated with the cre- even—perhaps especially—unwanted encoun- [From the Washington Post, Mar. 11, 2001] ation and maintaining’’ of the site are con- ters are ‘‘central to democracy.’’ They help sidered an expenditure because the site uses us understand one another and prevent so- FENDING OFF THE SPEECH POLICE the words that bring on the speech police—it cial fragmentation and the extremism that [By George F. Will) ‘‘expressly advocates’’ the election of one ferments in closed cohorts of the like-mind- The coming debate on campaign fiance candidate and the defeat of another. ed hearing only ‘‘louder echoes of their own ‘‘reforms’’ that would vastly expand govern- The commission advised Smith that if his voices.’’ Sunstein worries especially that the ment regulation of political communication site really was independent, he would be ‘‘re- Internet, by bestowing on individuals the

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY March 19, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2443 power to customize what they encounter, en- than they have ever been in my life- I say to my colleagues, that is not a ables people to bypass ‘‘general interest time. They may have been stronger in pretty picture. That is not a pretty pic- intermediaries’’ such as newspapers and the previous century—the 19th cen- ture. Remember, as I conclude my re- magazines. Not so long ago, intellectuals worried that tury—but they are now stronger than marks here for the moment, that this mass media where homogenizing American they have ever been and more useful bill before us at the beginning of this culture into uniform blandness. Now for services provided to candidates up debate targets political parties. It pur- Sunstein worries about new technologies al- and down the Federal scale than ever. ports to do a few other things, but no lowing people to ‘‘wall themselves off’’ from What would life be like without a serious constitutional scholars believe differences of opinion, forming isolated en- strong two-party system? Surely even that that can be done or, if we did, it claves. What makes Sunstein’s book pertinent to the parties’ severest critics would would be upheld in court. campaign finance reformers’ current as- agree that our politics would be poorer So make no mistake about it, this saults on the First Amendment is not the from any further weakening of the targets the political parties. Of what plausibility of his diagnosis—who in ca- party system. We have only to look at value is it, in our American political cophonous contemporary America feels in- who and what gains as parties decline system, to weaken the parties, the one sufficiently exposed to differences? But note in influence. The first big gainers: Spe- entity out there that will always sup- the audacity of his prescription. He would cial interest groups and PACs. Their port challengers, no matter what? have government use various measures— money, labels, and organizational Boy, I tell you, there are some advan- from ‘‘must carry’’ requirements for broad- tages to incumbency. PACs tend to like casters to mandatory links connecting Web power can serve as a substitute for par- sites to others promoting different views—to ties. Yet instead of fealty to national you. Individual contributors tend to manage ‘‘the scarce commodity’’ of the interest or a broad coalition party like you. You get more coverage. On public’s attention. Government, he thinks, platform, the candidate’s loyalties whom can a challenger depend? Either should actively ‘‘promote exposure to mate- would be pledged to narrow special in- his own pocketbook, if he is lucky rials that people would not have chosen in terest agendas. enough to have a lot of money, or the advance.’’ Bear in mind what he is talking political party, the one entity there to Now, never mind the many practical prob- about here. go to bat for a challenger in American lems implicit in Sunstein’s theory, such as When a PAC contributes to a party, how government will decide which views are political competition. insufficiently noticed, and how government that money then becomes part of the So I welcome the debate. This is will ‘‘trigger’’ (Sunstein’s word) public inter- broad party appeal. But a PAC, oper- going to be an interesting debate. None est in them. But mind this: ating only on its own, has a very nar- of us has any real idea how it is going Sunstein is an ardent campaign finance re- row concern. Who else gains? Wealthy to end, which makes this a good deal former for the same reason he recommends candidates and celebrity candidates different from the discussions we have government management of the information gain. Their financial resources or their had on this issue in recent years. We system. He thinks the First Amendment fame can provide name identification are going to have a lot of fine amend- mandates this. He does not read the amend- ments as a ‘‘shall not’’ stipulation that pro- or, for that matter, simply replace ments. The first amendment will be of- scribes government interference with indi- party affiliation as a voting cue. Al- fered by Senator DOMENICI of New Mex- vidual rights. Rather, he reads it as a man- ready, at least a third of the Senate ico. It will be laid down at 3:15. date for active government management of seats are filled by millionaires. And I yield the floor. the public’s ‘‘attention.’’ the number of inexperienced but suc- Mr. DODD addressed the Chair. To Sunstein, and to many similar aca- cessful candidates drawn from the en- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- demic advocates of speech-management tertainment and sports worlds seems to ator from Connecticut. through campaign finance reform, what is Mr. DODD. I see my colleague from important about the First Amendment is not grow each year. its text but the ‘‘values’’ they say the So again, as you reduce the influence Mississippi here. amendment represents. They say those val- of parties, who benefits? Special inter- How much time does the distin- ues—vigorous debate; deliberative democ- ests and PACs, wealthy candidates, ce- guished Senator need? Five minutes? racy; political heterodoxy—require that the lebrity candidates. Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 5 min- amendment’s text be ignored as an anachro- Who else gains? Why, incumbents, of utes would be ample. nism that modern life (the Internet, the course. The value of incumbency in- Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to the costs of campaigning in the age of broad- creases where party labels are absent distinguished Senator from Mississippi. casting, etc.) has rendered inimical to the or less important since the free expo- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- amendment’s values. ator from Mississippi is recognized. Politicians who, in the name of campaign sure incumbents receive raises their finance reform, favor increased government name identification level. There would Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, first of supervision of political communication are also be extra value for candidates en- all, I commend the principal sponsors not motivated by such recondite reasoning. dorsed by incumbents or those who ran of this bill, the distinguished Senator They simply want to tilt the system even on slates with incumbents. from Arizona, Mr. MCCAIN, and the dis- more toward the protection of incumbents, Who else benefits as the parties de- tinguished Senator from Wisconsin, or of their ideological interests, or of their cline in influence? The news media, Mr. FEINGOLD, for their leadership and ability to control their campaigns by con- particularly television news, gains. for their perseverance. trolling the ability of others to intervene in Party affiliation is one of the most This day has been a long time com- the political discourse. However, campaign finance reformers de- powerful checks on the news media, ing, but the time has finally come for pend on academic theories about why it is not only because the voting cue of the campaign finance reform. I am pleased acceptable to act as though the First party label is in itself a countervailing to be a cosponsor of this bill as it was Amendment does not mean what it says. force but also because the perceptual reintroduced at the beginning of this Mr. MCCONNELL. Let me just wrap screen erected by party identification Congress in January. I am convinced it it up for the time being by imagining filters media commentary. is time for the Senate to take action to for a moment the world envisioned by Who else gains? Why, political con- reform the way Federal election cam- this legislation before us. That is a sultants gain. The independent entre- paigns are financed which are, in ef- world where political parties are at- preneurs of the new campaign tech- fect, overwhelmingly dominated by the tacked by their own, beaten down, nologies—such as polling, television huge amounts of unregulated and un- stripped of their constitutional rights, advertising, and direct mail—secure disclosed money being spent by organi- and ultimately left as shells of their more influence in any system when the zations, unions, corporations, and former selves. parties decline. Already they have be- wealthy individuals to influence the In his book ‘‘The Party’s Just come, along with some large PACs, the outcome of Federal election cam- Begun,’’ University of Virginia polit- main institutional rivals of the parties, paigns. ical science professor Larry Sabato luring candidates away from their It is time to ensure that those who do writes a section entitled ‘‘A World party moorings and using the cam- try to influence the outcome of Federal Without Parties’’ where he imagines a paign technologies to supplant parties elections will have to report their ex- world with weak and feeble parties. as the intermediary between can- penditures so the general public will The national parties today are stronger didates and volunteers. know who is trying to influence the

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S2444 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 19, 2001 outcome of political campaigns and The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- I am sorry the Senator from Ken- how they are spending their money to ator from Wisconsin. tucky does not want us to talk about do so. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I it, but the Court says we can’t do a bill I also commend the Senate leaders, again thank the Senator from Con- about it unless we do talk about it. So Mr. LOTT and Mr. DASCHLE, for sched- necticut. I am extremely pleased to we are going to talk about it. We are uling the debate on this bill so the Sen- come to the floor today to begin the going to talk about corruption, but, ate has an opportunity to work its will. debate on the McCain-Feingold-Coch- more importantly, what is much more Amendments can be offered by any ran bill. Of course, the Senator from obvious and much more relevant is the Senator, with ample time for debate Arizona has been the original inspira- appearance of corruption. It is what it and consideration of any suggestions tion on this issue and the person who does to our Government and our sys- for changing or improving this legisla- was able to make this issue and this tem when people think there may be tion. bill, in particular, something of na- corruption even if it may not exist. This bill, S. 27, in my view, strikes tional attention and something that Can we finally say, together, as legis- the right balance that we are trying to actually was important in the discus- lators, as representatives of the people, accomplish. I may support some of the sions in the Presidential debates last that soft money isn’t worth that risk, amendments that are offered. As a year. I have greatly enjoyed these 6 that it isn’t worth risking the appear- matter of fact, I am hopeful that I will years of working with JOHN MCCAIN on ance of corruption to keep this big soft be able to offer an amendment of my this issue. money system? That is the test we are own to strengthen the disclosure re- Let me also say, if I could have about to take. This debate will test quirements. I think it will improve the picked one Senator from the other side whether we can pull back from the soft bill as it now stands. I think the public to sort of put us over the top, to money status quo to which we have be- has a right to know clearly who is change the dynamic of this, somebody come so accustomed over the past few spending the money that affects the whom I have always respected, al- years. This debate will ask whether we outcome of Federal elections and how though we have rarely agreed on the think this is really how our democracy they are spending it. issues, that person is Senator THAD is supposed to be. We all see the ads. We are over- COCHRAN of Mississippi. His credibility The public has already answered that whelmed by the total number of tele- and the respect of the Members of this question. The vast majority of Ameri- vision ads and other mailings that are body for him are so profound that when cans are outraged by the soft money sent out during a political campaign he became a major sponsor of this bill, system. They look at us and wonder these days in House races, in Senate it made it possible for us to have this why year after year, Congress after races, and even the Presidential elec- debate. It is because he joined us, and Congress, we let the soft money system tion this past year. Voters have to be I am grateful. chip away at our integrity. Day by day, confused. Who is running the ads? It This debate has been a long time with every vote we cast, people wonder says ‘‘The Good Government Com- coming. It is our first truly open de- was it the money. They doubt us, and mittee,’’ but who is that? Or it says bate on campaign finance reform in we all know that. We see it every day. something else that sounds really good, many years. We are no longer limited We open up the newspaper and read an- as though they are on the side of right to a few days of speeches or parliamen- other story about how a powerful in- and justice and right thinking. So they tary wrangling and a cloture vote or dustry pushed through this bill or a put the ad up that suggests or insinu- two. Instead, we are going to have an union used a contribution to win this ates that one or the other of the can- open amending process, a vigorous de- provision or a wealthy individual got didates isn’t on the right track, either bate, and, in the end, I think we can special treatment on an amendment. It on one subject or just generally speak- pass a bill for which this body and the is getting to the point where it is dif- ing, it isn’t good for the State or the country can be proud. ficult to debate any issue, any issue at district or the country, or suggests We have a rare opportunity before us. all where these questions are not that there may be something in the We also face a great test. The oppor- raised. background of the candidate that is tunity is clear. In the next few weeks Our parties raise unlimited money suspicious, that needs to be looked at we can take a major step toward clos- with one hand, and we cast our votes very carefully. The insinuation, the ing the loopholes that have made a with the other. And we dare the public misleading tone, the negative aspect of mockery of our campaign finance laws. to doubt us every time we miss an op- political campaigns is fueled by the We have the power to close these loop- portunity to fix this system such as the huge amounts, the juggernaut, an al- holes, and we have the duty to close one before us today. We cannot afford most imperceptible amount of influ- them. The American people will be to keep taking this risk with the ence being brought to bear on these watching this floor over the coming public’s trust. The public’s patience is campaigns by who knows what source, days and weeks. They want to know not limitless, and it should not be. We who knows who is behind the spending. whether we can finally do what is have a moment here, a rare moment, to I am hopeful we will work hard to get right. Can we finally close the door on regain the public’s trust. I know it a bill reported out and passed by the the soft money system that leaves us won’t be easy. Real change never is. Senate. We have a wonderful oppor- so vulnerable to the appearance of cor- But the time is right and the will of tunity to do so. The time to act is now. ruption. the people is behind this reform. The Senator from Kentucky was Some of the raising and spending of the All eyes are on this Senate. Either happy that so far in the debate the money, I am prepared to suggest, looks we rise to the occasion and meet the word ‘‘corruption’’ had not been men- more like money laundering operations test before us or we let the American tioned. I am sorry, but the choice of than aboveboard political campaigns people down again. Either we finally the word ‘‘corruption’’ is not my that would reflect credit on the polit- ban soft money in the next few weeks choice. It is the standard that the U.S. ical system of our country. That needs or we let them conclude that we are so Supreme Court has said we have to to be changed. This is the vehicle to addicted to this system, so tainted by deal with if we are going to legislate in change it. corruption or at least the appearance I am hopeful the Senate will work its this area. It is not JOHN MCCAIN’S of corruption that, once again, we can- will and pass this legislation. word. It is not my word. It is the word not change. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- of the Court. The Court said, in Nixon As my colleagues know, the center- ator from Connecticut. v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC: piece of this bill is the ban on soft Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much Buckley demonstrates that the dangers of money. In this regard, let me espe- time remains? large, corrupt contributions and the sus- cially thank my colleague, the Senator picion that large contributions are corrupt from Maine, Ms. COLLINS, for her tire- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- are neither novel nor implausible. The opin- ator from Connecticut has 30 minutes. ion noted that the deeply disturbing exam- less effort in working with me to meet Mr. DODD. I yield 25 minutes to the ples surfacing after the 1972 election dem- with individual Senators to persuade Senator from Wisconsin, coauthor of onstrate that the problem of corruption is them to join us on the bill and with the bill. not an illusory one. some significant success. As she and I

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY March 19, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2445 know, the rise of soft money has been actually nobody paid any attention to ten—or hoped to get—for the person I was so recent and so rapid that one has to it in 1995. talking to. Most large contributors under- sort of take a minute and look at how Then, as we all know, came the 1996 stand only two things: what you can do for rapid it has been. election and the enormous explosion of them and what you can do to them. When I came to the Senate in 1992, I I always left that room feeling like a cheap soft money fueled by the parties’ deci- prostitute who’d had a busy day. wasn’t even sure what soft money was, sion to use the money on phony issue or at least I didn’t know everything ads supporting their Presidential can- These are Senator MILLER’s words. that could be done with it. After a didates. As you can see from the chart, Those are powerful words, and they are tough race against a very well-financed the total soft money fundraising sky- hard to stomach. I deeply admire the incumbent who spent twice as much as rocketed as a result of that judgment. Senator from Georgia for many rea- I did, I was mostly concerned when I When the parties had raised $262 mil- sons, but especially for being willing to came here with the difficulties of peo- lion in soft money in 1996, that was ap- write what we all know to be true. ple running for office who were not propriately considered an incredible Many colleagues have told me pri- wealthy. I am still concerned about sum. And it was. There were 219 people vately they are uncomfortable with that and still think we need to address who gave $200,000 or more in soft this system. One Senator told me here it, and we should get on to it after we money in that cycle, 1996. on the floor that he felt like taking a do this. But today, if you can believe it, only shower after he had made a call for a My commitment to campaign finance 4 years later, 1996 looks like a small- $250,000 contribution. reform was forged from that experi- time operation compared to the 2000 We have Senators who can’t sleep; we ence. Since I came to this distin- cycle. I think they are still counting have Senators who feel they have to guished institution, soft money has ex- from the year 2000. But I believe we take a shower after doing fundraising ploded, with far-reaching consequences know now that the parties raised $487.5 calls. We have a pretty bizarre system. for our elections and the functioning of million in soft money in the year 2000. This system cheapens all of us. The the Congress. That dwarfs the amount raised in 1992, people in this body are good people; I As the chart I have shows, soft and it comes close to doubling the know that. They care deeply for this money first arrived on the scene of our amount raised in 1996. The Wall Street country. We have to get rid of this soft national elections in the 1980 elections Journal reported the other day—and I money system before it drives the good after a 1978 FEC ruling opened the door say this in response to the comments people away from public service and for parties to accept contributions of the Senator from Kentucky about drives the public even further away from corporations and unions who are the average soft money contribution from its elected leaders. barred from contributing to Federal being $500—that nearly two-thirds of Senator MILLER also wrote in his op- elections. The ruling intended these do- that gigantic total I showed you of ed that while he supports McCain-Fein- nations to be used for what the FEC nearly $500 million was given by just gold, he thinks it is not enough, that it termed ‘‘party building,’’ meaning pur- 800 donors who gave at least $120,000 is only a step in the right direction. I poses that are unrelated to influencing each. That is a far cry from an average agree. After we pass this bill, I hope we Federal elections. The best available of $500—800 donors, giving an average will do more, and I look forward to estimate is that the parties raised of $120,000 each. That is what was the working with the Senator from Georgia under $20 million in soft money in the core of the last election. and others on broader reform. 1980 cycle, and it didn’t change much in This chart shows the huge growth of Senator MILLER’s words are brutally 1984. The loophole remained pretty the megadonors over time. It is expo- honest. I think when we are honest much dormant. nential. A select group of wealthy peo- with ourselves about what our system In 1988, soft money nearly doubled ple, unions, and corporations whom the has become, real change can’t be far when both parties began raising parties have come to depend on for behind. Money should not define this $100,000 contributions for both the Bush these huge sums of money is who is democracy, and it doesn’t have to. We and the Dukakis campaigns, an dominating this fundraising. don’t have to pick up the paper and amount that was unheard of prior to That brings us right back to the item read headlines such as ‘‘Influence Mar- 1988. By the 1992 election, the year I we have to talk about—even though ket: Industries that Backed Bush Are was elected to this body, soft money some don’t want us to talk about it— Now Seeking Return On Investment.’’ fundraising by the major parties had and that is the perception of corrup- That headline ran in the March 6 Wall doubled yet again, rising to $86 million. tion. People are uncomfortable with Street Journal. I think we all know Of course, the $86 million raised in 1992 the parties and, by extension, all of us, what that means, and so does everyone was a lot of money. It was nearly as relying on a concentrated group of else. much as the $110 million that the two wealthy donors for a significant part of The assumption that we can be Presidential candidates were given in our fundraising. The American people bought, or that the President of the 1992 in public financing from the U.S. are troubled by that, and so are many United States can be bought, has com- Treasury. There was growing concern of us. pletely permeated our culture. The about how the money was spent. Recently, our colleague, Senator lead of this article reads: Despite the FEC’s decision that soft MILLER from Georgia, wrote an opinion For the businesses that invested more money could be used for activities such piece in the Washington Post on his money than ever before in George W. Bush’s as ‘‘get out the vote’’ and voter reg- deep misgivings about the current costly campaign for the Presidency, the re- istration campaigns without violating fundraising system. He wrote that he turns have already begun. the Federal election law’s prohibition doesn’t sleep as easy as he used to This is a new administration. It is a on corporate and union contributions when campaigns weren’t defined by new start. And then you have to read in connection with Federal elections, how money can be raised and spent. that, which is quite an accusation. But the parties sent much of their soft I would like to read a passage from it is one that people don’t hesitate to money to be spent in States where the Senator MILLER’s op-ed, where he de- make these days. Whether we are Dem- Presidential election between George scribes what fundraising is like today: ocrat or Republican, we should all be Bush and Bill Clinton was close or I locked myself in a room with an aide, a saddened by such an accusation, per- where there were key contested Senate telephone, and a list of potential contribu- haps angry at it, but we can’t ignore it races. Still, even in 1992, soft money tors. The aide would get the ‘‘mark’’ on the or just blame the media for it. was far from the central issue in our phone, then hand me a card with the spouse’s There is an appearance problem here, debate over campaign finance reform name, the contributor’s main interest, and a Mr. President. No one can deny that. in 1993 and 1994. And then in 1995, when reminder to ‘‘appear chatty.’’ I’d remind the But the newspapers didn’t create it; we agribusinessman that I was on the Agri- Senator MCCAIN and I first introduced did. I am reminded what the great Sen- culture Committee; I’d remind the banker I the McCain-Feingold bill, our bill in- was on the Banking Committee. ator Robert La Follette, from my home cluded a ban on soft money, but it And then I’d make a plaintive plea for soft State of Wisconsin, said in response to wasn’t even close to being the most money—that armpit of today’s fundraising. those who argued that the press of his controversial provision of our bill, and I’d always mention some local project I got- day, the early 1900s, was spreading

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S2446 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 19, 2001 hysteria about the power of the rail- bying on a tower-siting bill, and rail- sion, originally crafted by Senator roads over the Congress. He said: road interests lobbying on a transpor- SNOWE and Senator JEFFORDS, treats It does not lie in the power of any or all of tation appropriations bill. I have corporations and unions fairly and the magazines of the country or of the press, talked about contributions sur- equally. I want to be clear here. Snowe- great as it is, to destroy, without justifica- rounding the Financial Services Mod- Jeffords does not prohibit any election tion, the confidence of the people in the ernization Act, nuclear waste policy, ad, nor does it place limits on spending American Congress. It rests solely with the the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, by outside organizations. But it will United States Senate to fix and maintain its and the ergonomics issue. I have also give the public crucial information own reputation for fidelity to the public trust. It will be judged by the record. It can Called the Bankroll on the Patients’ about the election activities of inde- not repose in security upon its exalted posi- Bill of Rights—twice, the Africa trade pendent groups and it will prevent cor- tion and the glorious heritage of its tradi- bill—twice, the oil royalties amend- porate and union treasury money from tions. It is worse than folly to feel, or to pro- ment to the fiscal year 2000 Interior ap- being spent to influence elections. fess to feel, indifferent with respect to public propriations bill—twice, and I have Under the bill, labor unions and for- judgment. If public confidence is wanting in Called the Bankroll on three tax bills, Congress, it is not of hasty growth, it is not profit corporations would be prohibited and four separate times on the bank- from spending their treasury funds on the product of ‘‘jaundiced journalism.’’ It is ruptcy reform legislation that we just the result of years of disappointment and de- radio or TV ads that refer to a clearly feat. passed. identified candidate and appear within People give soft money to influence Mr. President, I think Senator La 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a gen- the outcome of these issues, plain and eral election. 501(c)(4) non-profit cor- Follette had it right. It is not the simple. And as long as we allow soft media or the public’s fault if what goes porations can make electioneering money to exist, we risk damaging our communications only as long as they on here looks corrupt. It is our fault. credibility when we make the decisions We have to do something about it. In use only individual contributions. Dis- about the issues that the people elected closure is significantly increased for the next 2 weeks, we have a golden op- us to make. They sent us here to wres- portunity to do something about it. these (c)(4) advocacy groups, and across tle with some very tough issues. They the board for anyone who spends over Here’s another recent example of the have vested us with the power to make public’s distrust of our work: ‘‘Tougher $10,000 in a calendar year on these decisions that have a profound impact kinds of ads. Bankruptcy Laws—Compliments of on their lives. That’s a responsibility MBNA?’’ That headline appeared in that we take very seriously. But today, I’m sure Senators SNOWE and JEF- Business Week magazine on February when we weigh the pros and cons of FORDS will describe this provision of 26th. The article goes on to say, legislation, many people think we also the bill in greater detail as we go for- ‘‘MBNA is about to hit pay dirt. New weigh the size of the contributions we ward, and we will have a spirited de- bankruptcy legislation is on a fast got from interests on both sides of the bate about whether it should be track. Judiciary panels in the House issues. And when those contributions strengthened or even removed from the and Senate have held perfunctory hear- can be a million dollars, or even more, bill altogether. Let me just say that I ings, and a bill could be on the House it seems obvious to most people that believe the Snowe-Jeffords provisions and Senate floors as early as late Feb- we would reward our biggest donors. is a fair compromise and the right bal- ruary.’’ Again, the implication is clear. That is the assumption people make, ance. It fairly balances legitimate first It is widely assumed that the credit and we let them make it. Every time amendment concerns with the goal of card issuers called the shots on the we have had the chance to close the enforcing the law that prohibits unions substance of the bankruptcy bill that soft money loophole, this body has fal- and corporations from spending money we passed last Thursday. Isn’t it trou- tered. If we can’t pass this bill, history in connection with Federal elections. bling that people are so quick to as- will remember that this Senate faced a In this bill, we also codify the Beck sume the worst about the work we do great test, and we failed. That the peo- decision and strengthen the foreign here on this floor? I think it’s a real ple accused us of corruption, and in our money ban. The bill strengthens cur- crisis of confidence in our system. And failure to pass a real reform bill, we rent law to make it clear that it is un- that’s why we are taking up this bill— confirmed their worst fear. lawful to raise or solicit campaign con- because we have to repair some of that The bill before us today offers a dif- tributions on Federal property, includ- public trust. Our reputation is on the ferent path. If we can support the mod- ing the White House and the United line. We aren’t going to get a pass from est reforms in this bill, we can show States Congress. We also bar Federal the American people on this one, and the public that we understand that the candidates from converting campaign we don’t deserve one. current system doesn’t do our democ- funds for personal use, such as a mort- The appearance of corruption is racy justice. This is just a modest bill. gage payment or country club member- rampant in our system, and it touches It is not sweeping. It is not comprehen- ship. virtually every issue that comes before sive reform. It only seeks to address I recognize that some of our col- us. that’s why I have Called the Bank- the biggest loopholes in our system. roll on this floor 30 times in less than The soft money ban is the center- leagues are concerned about the coordi- two years. Because I think it’s impor- piece of this bill. Our legislation shuts nation provision, which specifies cir- tant for us to acknowledge that mil- down the soft money system, prohib- cumstances in which activities by out- lions of dollars are given in an attempt iting all soft money contributions to side groups or parties will be consid- to influence what we do. Because that’s the national political parties from cor- ered coordinated with candidates. I why people give soft money, and I don’t porations, labor unions, and wealthy want to let our colleagues know that think anyone would even try to dispute individuals. State parties that are per- we are listening, and we are working that. I won’t detail every bankroll mitted under State law to accept these on a modification of that section of the here—because that would take all day. unregulated contributions would be bill. We will offer an amendment dur- But let me just review some of the prohibited from spending them on ac- ing this debate that I hope will satisfy issues they addressed, to show how far tivities relating to Federal elections. most of the concerns that have been reaching this problem really is. And Federal candidates and office- raised. I have Called the Bankroll on mining holders would be prohibited from rais- Throughout this process, we have on public lands, the gun show loophole, ing soft money under our bill. That’s a welcomed the input and suggestions of the defense industry’s support of the very significant provision because the our colleagues, and we will continue to Super Hornet and the F–22, the Y2 K fact that we in the Congress are doing do so throughout this debate. Over the Liability Act, the Passengers’ Bill of the asking is what gives this system an next two weeks, every Member of the Rights, MFN for China, PNTR for air of extortion, as well as bribery. Senate will have an opportunity to China, and the tobacco industry. I have McCain-Feingold-Cochran also ad- contribute to this debate, and I hope talked about agriculture interests lob- dresses the issue ad loophole, which each of us will. There are 100 experts on bying on an agriculture appropriations corporations and unions use to skirt campaign finance law in this body. bill, telecommunications interest lob- the federal election law. This provi- We’ve all lived under this system. We

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY March 19, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2447 know how campaigns work. The suc- Mrs. BOXER. How much time do you founders would turn in their graves cess of this reform depends on a vig- have? thinking about that one. We are all orous and informed debate, and I think Mr. DODD. There are 13 minutes re- supposed to be equal. We are all sup- we will have it. maining. Why not take 6 of it. posed to have free speech. Why should Mr. President, I’m sure most of my Mrs. BOXER. That would be great. one of us have more free speech than colleagues are aware of the serious po- Mr. President, I wish to start out by another? litical crisis underway as we speak in thanking Senators MCCAIN and FEIN- I think the Buckley case ought to be the nation of India. Journalists posing GOLD for their hard work on this very reheard, but that is a debate for an- as arms dealers shot videos with hidden important piece of legislation. I know other day, and in 6 minutes I could cameras on which politicians and de- it is hard to challenge the status quo. never go into all its nuances. fense officials were seen accepting cash I commend them both for their courage There are three proposals essentially and favors in return for defense con- and their commitment to this cause. before us. One is the McCain-Feingold tracts. Those pictures have caused a My own commitment goes back to my bill which I support, one is the Hagel huge scandal. The Indian Defense Min- early days as a candidate for political bill which I do not support, and one out ister has resigned, and we don’t know office 25 years ago. I have supported there is a vague proposal by President yet now great the repercussions will such efforts to change our campaign fi- Bush which, to me, is a total sham, and be. nance system whenever I have gotten I will explain why I think that way. One thing that struck me as I read the opportunity. I thank my friends for I truly think CHUCK HAGEL is trying the news reports of these events was getting us this opportunity. It wasn’t hard to come up with an alternative. I two of the people caught on tape were easy to do it. They worked hard and do not agree with it because I think it party leaders, including the leader of they got it. opens the floodgates of hard money and the ruling party, the BJP, Mr. Bangaru When I ran for the Senate, I became does not do enough to cap soft money. Laxman. Let me read from an AP story even more of a rabid supporter of cam- I know he is trying hard to put some- of March 16: paign finance reform, as I learned I had thing forward that he thinks will hold Laxman denied that the journalists identi- to raise $12 million at that time in 1992. up. fied themselves to him as defense contrac- After my second run for the Senate, I want to talk a minute about the tors or discussed weapons sales. He said they in which I had to raise $20 million, I be- President’s approach. First, he wants were presented as businessmen and that ac- cepting money for the party is not illegal in came so supportive of campaign fi- to punish working people by making India. nance reform that I am truly ready to them sign off before a dollar can be I am not going to say that what is clamp down on this obscene situation. used by a union. I always thought this happening in India is the same as the Yes, if there are some unforeseen con- was a free society. People join unions system we have in the United States, sequences, I am willing to take a look freely, and if they do not like their and I’m certainly not going to com- at how to fix it, but today we must sup- union leadership, they can vote them ment on the guilt or innocence of any port this change regarding soft money. out. party leader or political official in that I want to give my colleagues some The President knows what he is sovereign country. But the government figures. For someone from California doing. He is after working men and of India is hanging by a thread based who does not have independent wealth, women in this country. Just look at his on possibly corrupt payments of a few in order to raise $12 million—and that tax cut. He does not do anything to thousand dollars by people posing as is an old number; it is probably going help them. They are in the dog house, defense contractors. We have literally to be up to $30 million the next time— so he is going to hurt working men and hundreds of millions of dollars flowing just $12 million, I would have to raise women by this so-called Paycheck Pro- to our political parties from business $10,000 a day 7 days a week for 6 years. tection Act that makes no sense. This and labor interests of all kinds. And What a way to be a Senator when you idea of having the shareholders check our defense, like Mr. Laxman’s is, ‘‘it’s are consistently worried about how you off every time somebody wants to legal.’’ We have a system of legalized are going to raise this money. make a contribution is just absolutely bribery, a system of legalized extor- I say to my friends, RUSS FEINGOLD unworkable. Then he puts a little ca- tion, in this country. But legal or not, and JOHN MCCAIN, that I liked their veat in there that puts the entire issue like the videotaped payments in India, other versions better than this one be- at risk because we think it will be this system looks awful. cause they went further; they did struck down by the courts. It is a cyn- The eyes of the Nation are on this more. They included an incentive to ical ploy. Chamber. This group of 100 Senators lower the amount of money we could How much time do I have, Mr. Presi- can prove to the public that we are the spend. I liked it better. They allowed dent? Senate that the people want us to be. you to get lower prices for TV and The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- But the public’s patience is wearing mailings. ator has 30 seconds. very thin. We cannot pick up the phone This version is not my favorite one, Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my to raise soft money with one hand, and but it is the only game in town that friend if I can have an additional cast our votes with the other for much does something about clamping down minute in addition to the 30 seconds. longer. The harm to the reputation of on the soft money abuses. Therefore, I Mr. DODD. I yield 1 additional the Congress is simply too great. If we will be supporting it. minute. fail to pass real reform, we choose soft I want to talk a minute about the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- money over the public trust. That’s a broadcast industry. What a situation. ator from California. risk we cannot afford to take. We have When I ran the last time, to get a 30- Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there is a rare opportunity before us, and a second spot on prime time, it cost a tie-in between what we do here and great test. Let us seize the opportunity $50,000 to get one ‘‘Barbara Boxer for the large contributions that come into for reform, and meet the test before us Senate’’ spot on TV. I always thought this arena. Let’s look at the President. with a firm commitment to restoring we owned the airwaves. Isn’t there a The President likes things as they the public’s faith in us and the work we way we can do better than this? In are. He gets these big unregulated con- do. The public doubts whether we can other words, the people of the country tributions. So what has he done? He do it, Mr. President, but I believe that should be able to get our message, but has only been in office a couple of we can, and I believe that we must. why should it cost these obscene months: International gag rule, a pay- I yield the floor. amounts of money? back to the far right that gave him a Mr. DODD. How much time remains The fact is, the Court, as my friend, lot of money; repeal of the ergonomics on the Senator from Connecticut. Senator MCCONNELL, has said so often, workplace protection rule, a payback The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has equated money and speech. I re- against working men and women; are 13 minutes remaining. spectfully disagree. It means someone bankruptcy reform aimed at helping Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Sen- with wealth has more free speech than banks and credit card companies, a ator from California requests how I do because they can spend their own payback; plans to open up the Alaska much time? money. That is not right. I think our wildlife refuge for drilling, a payback

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S2448 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 19, 2001 to the oil companies; reversal of his Truth No. 2: The Supreme Court has arrival of Senator DOMENICI. I am campaign pledge on CO2, carbon diox- upheld the legality and constitu- happy to dole out some of my time. ide emissions, a payback to the coal in- tionality of those contribution limits Mr. DODD. This has been helpful. I dustry; tax cuts aimed at the richest in a number of cases, including Buck- commend my colleagues from Arizona people—those are the only ones who ley v. Valeo and Nixon v. Missouri Gov- and Wisconsin, and my colleague from make out on this one; they walk away ernment Shrink PAC. In those cases, Michigan, who always gives an elo- and smile all the way to the bank—a the Supreme Court held that limits on quent statement, along with HARRY payback to his contributors. contributions do not violate free REID and the Senator from Mississippi. His campaign finance position is a speech. I commend Senator HAGEL and Senator payback to all those folks. I hope we Truth No. 3: The soft money loophole MCCONNELL for expressing their points will support McCain-Feingold. I think has effectively destroyed those con- of view on one of the most significant it is worthy of passage. tribution limits. The loophole is huge. debates we are apt to have in this Con- I thank the Chair, and I thank Sen- Since you cannot give more than a lim- gress; that is, over the very issue of ator DODD for the time. ited amount to a candidate, give all how we raise the necessary dollars to Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am happy you want to his or her party and, of campaign for the very offices which we to yield 3 minutes—5 minutes, what- course, the party turns around and hold and which we seek reelection to ever my colleague from Michigan—— spends that money helping the can- not only here but in the other body. It has been fascinating to note over Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 5 minutes didate win election. Soft money has the last 25 years that we have had pub- if the Senator has it. blown the lid off the contribution lim- lic financing for Presidential races; Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to my its of our campaign finance system. As every single candidate, both Democrat colleague from Michigan. many commentators, colleagues, and The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- and Republican, going back to the late constituents have said, practically ator from Michigan. 1970s, has supported and used public fi- Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I speaking, there are no limits. nancing, along with the limits imposed The truth is, the public is offended by commend Senators MCCAIN and FEIN- as a result of accepting public dollars this spectacle of huge contributions, GOLD for bringing us to this point, to to campaign for the Presidency of the and well they should be, and we should this moment of truth. I also commend United States. We are not yet debating be, too. our leadership, both the majority lead- a public financing mechanism for races Just one reason why we should not er and the Democratic leader and the in the House and the Senate. Depend- enjoy the spectacle—and the public chairman and ranking member of the ing on the outcome of this debate, at certainly does not—is that in order to Rules Committee, for helping to orga- some future date that may be the case. get these large contributions, access to nize a time period which will allow us I have supported public financing in us is openly and blatantly sold. We sell to have a free-wheeling and open de- the past and believe it is the way we lunch or dinner with ‘‘the committee bate. can end up without any constitutional This is finally the moment of truth chairman of your choice’’ for $100,000. question of limiting the amount of dol- on campaign finance reform. The next This is a bipartisan problem. Both par- lars that come into campaigns and few weeks will help us determine ties do it. other restrictions we may believe ap- whether we recapture the faith which From an RNC, 1997 annual gala: For propriate on how we conduct our ef- is at the heart of our democracy or $100,000, you get a luncheon with the forts to seek Federal office in this whether we let it again slip from our Senate and House leadership and the country. grasp. Republican House and Senate com- The bottom line is clear. Whether Decades have transpired since our mittee chairmen of your choice. you agree with public financing or not, predecessors enacted the current cam- We sell access to insiders meetings, the point articulated by the Senator paign finance laws. It was not easy. It strategy sessions, participation in con- from Wisconsin, the Senator from Ari- took a scandal of momentous propor- gressional advisory groups, or trade zona, and others is that this system is tions—the financial irregularities asso- missions. The open solicitation of cam- broken. It is a failed system. When you ciated with the 1972 Presidential cam- paign contributions in exchange for ac- have to spend the hours we do every paign—to bring Congress to action, but cess to people with the power to affect day for 6 years conducting a Senate act it did. the life or livelihood of the person campaign—and I don’t envy candidates Now it is our moment of truth, our being solicited creates an appearance from New York, California, Florida, moment to decide whether we rescue of impropriety and a misuse of power. Texas, Illinois, where the cost of seek- the law which our predecessors had the From the Democratic National Com- ing a Senate seat in those States has good sense and courage to enact, or mittee, for $100,000, you get a meeting moved to $15-, $20-, $30 million—when whether the moment is drowned in a with the President, you go on a trade you must raise, as the Senator from sea of excuses. mission with leadership as they travel California pointed out, $10,000 a day, 7 Let’s begin with some basic truths. abroad to examine current and devel- days a week, 52 weeks a year for 6 years Truth No. 1: There are contribution oping political and economic issues, in order to compete for the Senate seat limits embodied in our law, meaningful and a whole lot of other benefits—large in that State, and if someone turns limits, and if the law were followed and contributions in exchange for access. around and says there is not enough interpreted as originally intended, we The moment of truth is now. We money in politics, I wonder on what would not be here today. Let’s look at must not let this moment pass without planet they are living. If you have to those limits in the system which we doing what we believe is right and nec- raise $10,000 a day, plus being a Senator put in place 25 years ago. essary to restore public confidence in to represent your State, go to your Individuals are not supposed to give ways in which campaigns are financed committee hearings, meet constitu- more than $1,000 to a candidate per and run. ency groups, answer the phone, send election, $5,000 to a political action I thank both Senators MCCAIN and out the mail, the system is not broken? committee, $20,000 a year to a national FEINGOLD for their extraordinary cour- The system is not flawed? This is in- party committee, $25,000 total in any 1 age, their determination, their grit. I credible. year for all contributions combined. thank also our leadership and the It has been said by the authors of the Corporations and unions are prohib- chairman and ranking member of the bill, it is not a perfect proposal. I re- ited from contributing anything to a Rules Committee for helping to sched- gret it is not the earlier McCain-Fein- candidate except through carefully pre- ule this debate in a way in which I gold proposal. There is some uneven- scribed political action committees. think we can resolve this festering ness in the bill in applying provisions The limit of a corporate or union PAC problem. where this is applicable to some groups contribution is $5,000 per candidate. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. and organizations and not others. I am Presidential campaigns are supposed SNOWE). The Senator from Kentucky told that is the political reality. I am to be financed just with public funds. has 13 minutes. not comfortable with that as a reason Those are the laws on the books Mr. MCCONNELL. There are other why we don’t have a level playing field today. speakers on the other side awaiting the for all groups.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY March 19, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2449 This is the one chance we will have Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President, issues and make decisions are still to do something about this system. It I yield the floor. prevalent. This is unvarnished, direct is the one chance remaining to try to Mr. DODD addressed the Chair. democracy. It contrasts sharply with make meaningful changes in the law. If The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- the increasing ability of people with it is not perfect, if there are unin- ator from Kentucky controls the time more money to speak longer and louder tended consequences, we can come until 3:15. in federal elections. Maine’s tradition back and arrange or correct that. But Mr. MCCONNELL. Senator DOMENICI of town meetings and equal participa- we shouldn’t not do anything and leave is here and ready to go forward. I be- tion rejects the notion that wealth dic- the system as it presently is con- lieve everybody on the floor has al- tates political discourse. Maine citi- structed. ready spoken at least once. zens feel strongly about reforming our It is hard enough to get people to Mr. FEINGOLD. I point out to the federal campaign laws, as do I. vote today, to participate, to support Senator from Kentucky, the Senator Soft money has become the conduit those who seek public office. I am not from Maine has arrived. I believe she through which wealthy individuals, going to suggest that automatically we has a brief opening statement for the labor unions and corporations have in are going to have some great conver- remainder of the time, if that is ac- many ways seized control of our polit- sion on the road to Damascus where all ceptable to the Senator from Ken- ical process. The problem with soft of a sudden the mass of the American tucky. money was evident during the 1997 voting public will collectively say, hal- Mr. MCCONNELL. If the Senator hearings by the Senate Committee on lelujah, the system has been cleaned up from Maine can do it in 5 minutes. I Governmental Affairs, chaired by my and we can now all engage in the sup- don’t want to delay Senator DOMENICI’s good friend, Senator THOMPSON. During port of our candidates because McCain- amendment. The Senator can do it into those investigations, we heard from Feingold is adopted. That is naive. his amendment, into the discussion on one individual who gave $325,000 to the But I do believe the American public his amendment. She can also make an Democratic National Committee in will respond favorably if this Senate in opening statement, if she so desires. order to secure a picture with the these next 2 weeks adopts the McCain- Mr. DOMENICI. Why don’t colleagues President of the United States. We also Feingold legislation and says: While we just decide how much time she needs. I heard from the infamous Roger Tamraz haven’t dramatically changed the sys- am willing for her to do that now. In who testified that the $300,000 he spent tem, we have improved it dramatically. fact, I have somebody out there who to gain access to the White House was That is my hope. needs me for 5 minutes. not enough and that, next time, he The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- Mr. MCCONNELL. I yield to the Sen- would spend $600,000. And we heard of ator from Kentucky. ator from Maine my remaining 5 min- individuals, such as Chinese million- Mr. MCCONNELL. Senator DOMENICI utes. aire Ted Sioeng, who orchestrated is here. He will be recognized at 3:15 to The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- nearly $600,000 in political contribu- lay down the first amendment. ator from Maine. tions during the 1996 election cycle. I conclude the opening comments by Ms. COLLINS. I thank my colleagues Sieong, we later discovered, was a self- saying, as I said before, McCain-Fein- for their cooperation. described agent of the Chinese govern- gold will not take money out of poli- Madam President, I am delighted we ment who made his fortune manufac- tics; it will take the parties out of poli- are beginning the debate on the Bipar- turing a popular brand of cigarettes in tics. tisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001, and China. Having said that at the beginning of of the campaign finance reform efforts According to the Congressional Re- 2 weeks of a wild ride, it will be easier that have been led for many years by search Service, soft money donations to predict who will win the NCAA tour- my good friends, Senators MCCAIN and nearly doubled in the 2000 presidential nament than how the bill will come out FEINGOLD. I am proud to be an original election cycle, from $262 million in 1996 after 2 weeks of amendments. I think co-sponsor of their bill, which takes to $488 million in 2000. Other estimates there is one prediction I can make fair- several critical steps toward reform of set the figures even higher. At the ly confidently. I think there will be an our campaign finance system. same time, regulated, hard money do- effort, hopefully not supported by a I have long supported campaign fi- nations increased a little more than 10- majority but an effort to water down nance reform. When I was running for percent. anything that might offend the AFL– the Senate in 1996, I promised to advo- In short, soft money is a growing CIO. I predict by the end of this debate cate reform, and I kept that promise by wave that threatens to swamp our there will be no paycheck protection, becoming an early cosponsor of campaign finance system. Each elec- watered down restriction on coordina- McCain-Feingold during my first year tion cycle, the wave gains momentum tion and issue advocacy as it applies to in the Senate. and size. Just two presidential elec- the AFL-CIO, and no disclosure of the The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act tions ago, soft money contributions to- union ground game. So it is about the of 2001 goes a long way toward fixing a taled $86 million, or one-sixth of the only prediction I will confidently broken system. First and foremost, the amount raised in the latest cycle. The make, that before we are finished with bill closes the most glaring loophole in Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 this debate, the opposition to the AFL- our campaign finance laws by banning has served our country well. But those CIO will have been taken care of by the the unlimited, unregulated contribu- seeking ways to influence our elections watering down and massaging of lan- tions known as ‘‘soft money.’’ Second, have found loopholes that have over- guage to the point where they sign off the bill regulates and limits the cam- whelmed the rule themselves. I there- on it. paign advertisements masquerading as fore applaud the bipartisan efforts of I hope that will not be the case be- issue ads that corporations and labor Senators MCCAIN and FEINGOLD and cause last year they spent considerably organizations often run in the weeks pledge my continued support through- more on the election than either of the leading up to an election. And third, out the long process ahead. I know we two political parties. I repeat, they the bill prohibits foreign nationals are in for a spirited debate and believe spent more on the election last year from contributing soft money in con- that, ultimately, the will of the major- than either one of the two great polit- nection with federal, state, or local ity of Americans will prevail. They ical parties. elections. want reform. It is time we heed their Mr. MCCAIN. Will the Senator yield? My home State of Maine has a deep message. Mr. MCCONNELL. Let me finish my commitment to preserving the integ- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- point and I will be happy to yield. rity of the electoral system and ensur- ator from New Mexico. I hope by the time we get to the end ing that all Mainers have an equal po- AMENDMENT NO. 112 of the debate, they will still think they litical voice. Mainers have backed Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I are impacted. I yield to my friend from their commitment to an open political believe it is in order now for me to send Arizona for a question. process in both word and deed. In many an amendment to the desk, and I do so Mr. MCCAIN. I will bring it up at an- regions of Maine, town meetings in on behalf of myself and Senator EN- other time. which all citizens are invited to debate SIGN.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S2450 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 19, 2001 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ‘‘(iii) In the case of an election in which a full debate on this issue. If you will for- clerk will report the amendment. candidate declares an intention to expend, or give me, those who are involved in the The bill clerk read as follows: expends, personal funds in an amount equal underlying debate, I choose to depart to or greater than $1,000,000— from the subject matter that has been The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. DOMEN- ‘‘(I) the limit under subsection (a)(1)(A) ICI] for himself and Mr. ENSIGN, proposes an shall be 5 times the applicable amount; debated for the last 2 hours and con- amendment numbered 112. ‘‘(II) the limits under subsection (a)(2)(A) centrate on just one new phenomenon Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I with respect to a contribution from a State that is occurring in elections in the ask unanimous consent the reading of or national committee of a political party, United States that I think has to be the amendment be dispensed with. (d), and (h) shall not apply. righted, and that has to do with the The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without ‘‘(3) ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE.—In this para- growing number of men and women objection, it is so ordered. graph, an eligible candidate is a candidate who run for the Senate and pay for who is not required to file a declaration their own campaigns with large The amendment is as follows: under paragraph (1) or amended declaration (Purpose: To increase contribution limits in under paragraph (5). amounts of money. response to candidate’s use of personal ‘‘(4) INAPPLICABILITY OF INCREASED LIM- We have been talking about large wealth and limit time to use contributions ITS.—If the increased limitations under para- amounts of money coming from all dif- to repay personal loans to campaigns) graph (2) are in effect for a convention or a ferent sources. Some think that is On page 37, between lines 14 and 15, insert primary election, as a result of an individual changing the election campaigns for the following: candidate, and such individual candidate is the better; some think it is changing SEC. 305. USE OF PERSONAL WEALTH FOR CAM- not a candidate in any subsequent election them for the worse. But I think one PAIGN PURPOSES. in such campaign, including the general elec- thing we ought to seriously worry Section 315 of the Federal Election Cam- tion, the provisions of paragraph (2) shall no longer apply to eligible candidates in such about and wonder about is a man or paign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended woman who chooses to run for the Sen- by adding at the end the following: subsequent elections. ate and says: I want to use my con- ‘‘(i) USE OF PERSONAL WEALTH.— ‘‘(5) AMENDED DECLARATION.— ‘‘(1) REQUIRED DECLARATION.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any candidate who— stitutional rights to spend $5 million, ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 15 days ‘‘(i) declares under paragraph (1) that the $10 million, $20 million, $30 million, $40 after the date a candidate for the office of candidate does not intend to expend personal million, $50 million of my own money— Senator is required to file a declaration of funds in an aggregate amount in excess of his or her own money—to get elected. candidacy under Federal law, the candidate the limit described in paragraph (1)(A); and That is OK, says the Supreme Court. shall file with the Commission a declaration ‘‘(ii) subsequently does expend personal Far be it for the Senator from New stating whether or not the candidate intends funds in excess of such limit or intends to ex- pend personal funds in excess of such limits, Mexico to think I know how to change to expend personal funds in connection with that. I do not. I am not sure, if I knew the candidate’s election for office, in an ag- such candidate shall notify and file an gregate amount equal to or greater than amended declaration with the Commission how, that I would want to. But what I $500,000. and shall notify all other candidates for such do know is, whoever chooses to do that ‘‘(B) PERSONAL FUNDS.—In this subsection, office within 24 hours after changing such has a huge, unfair opportunity over the term ‘personal funds’ means— declaration or exceeding such limits, which- their opponent. ‘‘(i) funds of the candidate (including funds ever first occurs, by sending such notice by Why do I say that? Because, you un- derived from any asset of the candidate) or certified mail, return receipt requested. derstand, and everybody listening funds from obligations incurred by the can- ‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION.—After the candidate files a declaration under para- should understand, that when you run didate in connection with the candidate’s for the Senate, you cannot go collect campaign; and graph (1)(A) or an amended declaration under ‘‘(ii) funds of the candidate’s spouse, a subparagraph (A), the candidate shall file an $10,000 and $20,000, and $40,000 contribu- child, stepchild, parent, grandparent, broth- additional notification with the Commission tions. er, sister, half-brother, or half-sister of the and all other candidates for such office each Let’s start off looking at a candidate candidate and the spouse of any such person, time expenditures from personal funds are who is going to spend $10 million or $20 and a child, stepchild, parent, grandparent, made in an aggregate amount in excess of— million or $30 million of his or her own brother, half-brother, sister, or half-sister of ‘‘(i) $750,000; and money, and then look at their oppo- the candidate’s spouse and the spouse of such ‘‘(ii) $1,000,000. nent. Under current election laws, that person. ‘‘(6) ENFORCEMENT.—The Commission shall take such action as it deems necessary under opponent can raise money from indi- ‘‘(C) FORM OF STATEMENT.—The statement viduals—rich, or moderately rich, or required by this subsection shall be in such the enforcement provisions of this Act to as- form, and shall contain such information, as sure compliance with the provisions of this ordinary citizens who are not very the Commission may, by regulation, require. subsection.’’. rich—but they are limited to $1,000 per ‘‘(2) INCREASE IN LIMITS.— SEC. 306. USE OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO REPAY election. ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any PERSONAL LOANS. The occupant of the chair just went other provision of law, in any election in (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 315 of the Federal through an election. She knows what I which a candidate for the office of Senator Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a), am talking about—$1,000 per contrib- declares an intention to expend more per- as amended by section 305, is amended by adding at the end the following: utor in the primary and the general sonal funds than the limit described in para- election. Think of that for a moment. graph (1)(A), expends personal funds in ex- ‘‘(j) LIMITATION ON REPAYMENT OF PERSONAL cess of such limit, or fails to file the declara- LOANS.—Any candidate who incurs personal That used to be the primary way to tion required by this subsection, the in- loans in connection with the candidate’s raise money for a Senate candidate to creased contribution limits under subpara- campaign for election shall not repay (di- run his or her own campaign. Just graph (B) shall apply to other eligible can- rectly or indirectly), to the extent such think of what a Senator has to do, to didates in the same election. loans exceed $250,000, such loans from any raise $5 million that way. contributions made to such candidate or any ‘‘(B) LIMIT AMOUNTS.—The increased limits Also, there is no way you can do it authorized committee of such candidate under this subparagraph are the following: with $1,000 or $2,000 contributions. You ‘‘(i) In the case of an election in which a after the date of such election.’’. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment would have to have a breakfast, a candidate declares an intention to expend, or lunch, and a dinner every day with expends, personal funds in an amount equal made by subsection (a) shall apply with re- to or greater than $500,000 but not more than spect to loans made or incurred after the $1,000 contributors, with 10, or 15, or 20 $749,999, the limits under paragraphs (1)(A) date of enactment of this Act. at each event, and do it for about 1 and (2)(A) of subsection (a) shall be 3 times Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I year to be able to raise $5 million. the applicable limit. ask for the yeas and nays on the Is it fair, even though it is constitu- ‘‘(ii) In the case of an election in which a Domenici amendment. tionally authorized, for a wealthy candidate declares an intention to expend, or The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a American to put up whatever amount expends, personal funds in an amount equal sufficient second? they want? We have seen it in large to or greater than $750,000 but not more than There is a sufficient second. scale go from over $45 million down to $999,999— ‘‘(I) the limits under paragraphs (1)(A) and The yeas and nays are ordered. $5 million, or $6 million, or $7 million, (2)(A) of subsection (a) shall be 5 times the Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, and we have seen a very large number applicable limits; and for those interested in campaign re- of successes from those who do that. ‘‘(II) the limits under subsection (h) shall form, obviously this is a rare oppor- I regret to say I am not sure I would not apply. tunity for the United States to see a do that for a Senate seat if I had a lot

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY March 19, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2451 of resources. I have been here a long after you are elected, you go have a lot Mr. MCCONNELL. The Senator has time. I am not sure it is worth $20 mil- of fundraisers as an elected Senator, raised an extraordinarily important lion, in any event. Maybe when I first and you pay yourself back. Frankly, I issue with regard to the dilemma that started, I would have been very excited don’t think you ought to do that. If a modestly well-off candidate faces about it. I still love it, but I just won- you are going to spend $5 million and when running against someone of ex- der if I would put up $20 million, or $30 go out there and robustly tell every- traordinary wealth. I think he has million, or $40 million to beat my oppo- body you are spending $5 million of come up with an amendment to bring nent who couldn’t come close to rais- your own money, or $10 million of your some justice to that situation. ing the money. own money—I guess we have had some- I am also curious if the Senator has Let’s get down to what I am trying to body spend $40 million of their own thought about another value: That do. What I am trying to do is leave money—you shouldn’t get elected and there will be one or more amendments that alone. I can’t change that. What I go out and have fundraisers to collect dealing with that 26-year-old hard can say is that somebody who intends the money back once you have won the money contribution limit of $2,700. to do that has to publicly disclose it at seat, which you essentially won by put- Imagine the unknown candidate run- various intervals in the campaign. ting in such a huge amount of your ning in a State such as California Then we start to raise the caps for the own money. against somebody who is either well nonmillionaire candidate so that they This limits candidates who incur per- known or well off. The Senator sug- have more latitude to raise money to sonal loans in connection with their gested it would be difficult to compete compete with the person who is going campaign in excess of $250,000. They against such a person in New Mexico or to contribute millions of their own can do $250,000 and then reimburse Kentucky. I ask my friend whether he money. themselves with fundraisers. But any- thinks there would be any chance in Essentially, in that context, it is an thing more than that, they cannot the world of a candidate running equalizer amendment; it is a fair play repay it by going out and having fund- against a millionaire in a big State amendment; it is a ‘‘let’s be consid- raisers once they are elected with their such as California. erate of a candidate who isn’t rich’’ own money. Mr. DOMENICI. Frankly, it seems to amendment—whatever you choose to I don’t think the details are very im- me we have seen some evidence of that, call it. portant to this amount. I think if Sen- for there was a race out there—I am I want to describe what I choose to ators see what I see, they are going to not using names of who did this but do in this amendment. want to adopt this amendment. This there was a very huge amount of First of all, the person who intends whole debate is about what people per- money spent by a candidate. The can- to spend large amounts of their own ceive as too much money being put didate didn’t happen to win. But essen- money—I want to say it again: Senator into campaigns at one level or another. tially the opposition had a terrible DOMENICI from New Mexico is not try- I am not sure I know what that is in time raising money to compete. It just ing to stop that. I am fully aware that terms of party participation. I am lis- turned out that there was something I couldn’t even if I wanted to. I do not tening to the debate. I am compli- else happening in that election. know if I would if I could. But the U.S. menting Senator MCCAIN and others Given the money that people in Cali- Supreme Court said that is a freedom who are working on the bill and those fornia have who made these large for- of speech issue with the person who can who are coming up with other amend- tunes, if one of them chooses to go in either borrow large amounts of money ments. But I think the amendment I and put up really a big portion of their or who wants to spend large amounts of have also addresses a growing issue own money, an opponent at $1,000 per money. that should be of great concern, wheth- individual and per election and $5,000 in What I say is they must declare the er it is a Republican, a Democrat, or a PAC money—essentially the major intent to spend more than a half mil- third-party candidate. ways of raising money—I don’t see how lion dollars within 15 days of being re- If you are going to run for the Sen- they can compete. quired to file a declaration of can- ate, and if you are going to put huge Mr. MCCONNELL. Would the Senator didacy. amount of your own money into the from New Mexico agree, then, that fail- Over $500,000—let’s do that one first. campaign, it is patently unfair that ure to index the so-called hard money Fifteen days, if you are going to spend your opponent would be limited to contribution limit back in the mid $500,000—over $500,000—opponents, indi- fundraising levels that are 26 years old 1970s has completely distorted the viduals and PACs are increased three- without a change, which is $1,000 per process across the board? fold. If it is $500,000 of your own money, primary and $1,000 per general from Mr. DOMENICI. No question about it. then that $1,000 contribution turns to your friends who want to help you. Mr. MCCONNELL. And it is one of $3,000 for the opponent. The PACs go Just think for a moment. If you are the single biggest problems we should from 5 to 15. so fortunate to have somebody run try to remedy during this debate? If you go beyond the $500,000, and you against you with $20 million of their Mr. DOMENICI. There is no doubt in are going to spend $750,000, then every- own money, just think of what is ahead my mind that we ought to try to fix thing is increased by five times. Those of you—to go out and raise the money that. I, as one Senator, saw this issue are the caps that currently operate. In- you need to run a fair campaign that I am addressing arising in 1987. So stead of $1,000, it will be $5,000 per elec- against $20 million and raise it $1,000 at I introduced a bill that we called the tion, and the same on the PACs. a time per election and a $5,000 limita- wealthy candidate bill. Frankly, we did If you are going to do $1 million, then tion on PACs. It is patently wrong and not have a debate that looked like it direct party contribution limits or unfair. was going to bring reform. So I just party coordinated expenditures limits If it is constitutional to fix it—and I kept introducing it every 2 years. One are eliminated, as well as you elimi- believe this may be constitutional be- time, Senator Dole offered something nate the cap on individual contribu- cause, as a matter of fact, we are deny- very much similar. But the underlying tions, and the cap stays at five times. ing no rights to the wealthy if they bill never did proceed beyond the de- It stays at five times at the highest want to put in their money. But to the bate stage. category, but then the party contribu- person who runs against them, we say I want everybody to understand. I tions and party coordinated expendi- we want to give you a chance to stay in want to repeat, just in very simple tures which have caps on them are the playing field by raising limits on terms, that I do not know whether a eliminated. how you can raise money and from very wealthy candidate will be a great It has one other feature. I don’t real- whom. Senator, a good Senator, or not so good ly mean it for anybody in the past; I I note my friend from Kentucky Senator. I do not know that. I am not just want it to apply in the future. But wanting to be recognized. trying to say because you have $10 mil- you see, there is another practice that Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, will lion or $40 million to spend on your has come into play that I don’t think is the Senator yield for a question? campaign, you should not run and use fair. That is, you use your own money Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to your own money—not at all. Nor am I or you lend yourself money. Then, yield. suggesting that if you spend a huge

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S2452 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 19, 2001 amount—$40 million—and win that you and people who can run by getting sup- itol belongs to the people. And then the were the better or the lesser candidate. port from millionaires or from large fi- Government belongs to the people. And I am merely saying, we established nancial interests, be it individual con- then people have more confidence in rules limiting what the opponent can tributions to them or contributions to the political process. And people think spend. These are statutory rules that the party. they can be more involved. And little are 26 years old, coming out of Water- This is meant to be a proposal where people, who do not have all the money, gate, that say what the opponent to the word for the people in the country feel more important. And they are that wealthy candidate can spend. It is is that the Senate, in the first amend- more important. in that regard that I speak. If, in fact, ment that we are going to consider, has This amendment is not a great step the wealthy candidate wants to dis- taken a giant step forward in reform by forward. This is one big, huge, gigantic close, as prescribed in this statute, putting more money into politics. I do leap backward. that he is going to spend this money— not think that is what people want to I yield the floor. and, of course, there are statute law hear. And they are right. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who penalties if they do not comply with With all due respect, I think what my yields time? the law—if they do that, then it would colleague from New Mexico has done is Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President, seem to me you ought to amend the 26- make an argument for public financ- I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from year-old limitations, which are under ing. That is what this is about. If you Utah. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- attack here as being too low anyway. want to deal with the problem of mil- ator from Utah is recognized for 10 There are a number of amendments in lionaires or people who have a lot of money using their own money to win minutes. the bill saying that number is too low. Mr. REID. Madam President, if the elections or, as you see it, to help con- Now, believe it or not, as of right Senator will yield for a brief state- tribute to their winning, the way to now, those low numbers apply even to ment? an opponent of somebody who will de- solve the problem is not by taking the Mr. BENNETT. Sure. clare under this statute that they are limits off of hard money contributions. Mr. REID. On our side, whatever going to spend $1 million of their own By the way, there is going to be more time remains on behalf of Senator and more of that done. Again, less than money as prescribed in this law. DASCHLE, I give that allotment of time 1 percent of the population contributes So with that, I do not know if we to Senator FEINGOLD. He can allot the have any formal opposition on the $200 or more; and even less of the ‘‘less time on this amendment. floor. If we do, I certainly would be than 1 percent’’ contribute $1,000 be- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- willing to exchange views with them. cause people do not have that money. ator from Utah is recognized for 10 But from my standpoint, I think we People do not go to $500,000 barbecues minutes. ought to adopt this amendment before and all the rest. They have their own Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Madam the day is out and have done one piece barbecues with their neighbors. People President. of laudable work on the first day. make $100 contributions to charities. I appreciate the opportunity to com- Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the They do not make these kinds of con- ment on this amendment. I believe I Chair. tributions. have some personal experience which I The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. COL- What this amendment has done is will share with the Senate. It has to do LINS). Who yields time? simply added to the problem by saying not with a general election but with a Mr. WELLSTONE. I need 5 minutes. now what we are going to have, primary. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. through this amendment, is yet even That is an issue that sometimes we The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- more money put into politics by the forget because there are many States ator from Wisconsin. very top of the population, be it where the primary is the ultimate elec- Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I wealthy people of financial interests on tion—States that are overwhelmingly yield such time as the Senator from whom all of us are going to be more de- Democratic, such as the State of Mas- Minnesota needs. pendent. So now what we are going to sachusetts, and States that are over- Mr. WELLSTONE. I need no more have—and this is supposed to be the whelmingly Republican, quite frankly, than 10 minutes. first amendment for reform: The people such as the State of Utah. Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 10 minutes to who have their own resources, million- The real contest in 1992, when I ran the Senator from Minnesota. aires, versus people who have access to for the Senate, was the primary, which The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- millionaires and large financial inter- I won by about 10,000 votes, compared ator from Minnesota. ests. That is not the only choice. to the general election, which I won by Mr. WELLSTONE. Actually, I would If we are serious about this, I will 180,000 votes. Percentage-wise, I won love to make a more general presen- tell you how you can get around it. the primary 51.5 to 48.5. I always add tation about money and politics, but, I There are some great Senators who are the half to make it sound as if it was a say to my good friend from New Mex- independently wealthy. We all agree better victory than just 51–49. I won ico, I want to just start out with a few that is not the point we are making. the general election by a 16-point gap. rather jarring statistics. And maybe there are some others who So the primary was the big issue. I Do you know how many U.S. citizens are not so great. That isn’t the point. had to spend my own money in that contribute more than $200 to a race The point is, if you want to deal with primary race. I remember a conversa- today? Four out of every 10,000. That is this problem, then you have a clean tion with the then-chairman of the .037 percent. Do you know how many money, clean election proposal; you Senatorial campaign committee, Mr. Americans give contributions of $1,000 have public financing. People agree on GRAMM of Texas, who warned me with or more? It is .011 percent. So it seems that. And then the public owns the the following story about the perils of to me that what we have is a system elections. spending your own money. He talked where people think if you pay, you If someone says they do not want to about the two fellows in Texas—I don’t play; if you don’t pay, you don’t play. be bound by spending limits, they do remember their names so I will call My colleague comes on the floor with not want to take part in clean money, them Joe and Bill—who both put their an amendment that says the way to clean elections, then you know the way own money into the race. At the end, deal with the problem of people being it works. The Presiding Officer knows. on election night, when Joe had won, millionaires—by the way, I don’t take She is from Maine. Then there is addi- Bill said to him: Joe, if I had known this amendment personally; it will not tional money that can go to candidates you were going to spend $4 million of damage me at all—but my colleague to make up for the advantage that your own money, I would never have comes out here with a proposal that those who are spending their own re- gotten in the race, to which Joe said: says the way to deal with the problem sources have to make it a level playing Bill, if I had known I was going to of millionaires financing their own field. But the race still belongs to the spend $4 million of my own money, I candidates is to basically take the lim- public. It still belongs to the people. would never have gotten into the race. its off of contributions, so that we now And then the people who get elected You get caught up in these things have a contest between millionaires belong to the people. And then the Cap- and the money starts coming. And if

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY March 19, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2453 you have it, you just keep saying, well, money. Assume I went into that race The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- another $100,000, another flight of ads, having to raise the money $1,000 at a ator from Tennessee is recognized for another mailing, and that will put us time. Assume I went into that race 12 minutes. over the top. Then you look back and having to go around and plead with Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I say: I shouldn’t have done it. I spent people to help me. It is very clear I regret I didn’t get to the floor in time too much money. would not have raised $100,000. It is to discuss this a bit with the sponsor of In our primary race, my opponent, a very clear I would not have been able the amendment, Senator DOMENICI. He man of considerable means, spent, we to buy a single television ad. All of the is, as we all know, one of the more now know, after all of the tallying up money I could have raised would have thoughtful Members of this body. Any- has been done, $6.2 million in the State been eaten up in fundraising costs. The thing he offers I take very seriously. of Utah in the primary. I know there only way I was able to compete against He is clearly addressing an issue we are some States where $6.2 million does a self-funded candidate and, indeed, have talked about a lot and which con- not seem to be a lot. That happened to win was the fact that I had my own cerns a lot of us, concerning a cam- be more than was spent that same year funds so that there was no cap on my paign where one individual can put in a in the Republican primary in Cali- spending. tremendous amount of his own per- fornia in total, of all of the candidates. I found that spending $6.2 million in sonal money and the other candidate It worked out, in terms of the number Utah in a primary can become a self- does not have that kind of wealth and of votes—I know the Senator from Ken- defeating kind of activity. He ran out is bound by the hard money limits we tucky likes to talk about the cost per of places to spend it. He was buying ads have. vote—to about $40 a vote that he spent: on the Saturday morning cartoons be- As I understand the amendment, the 150,000 votes, roughly, $6 million, about cause there weren’t any other places to well-off candidate would still be bound $40 a vote. He actually spent 6.2 but he buy ads. That caused him, frankly, by the hard money limits. If that is the fundraised $200,000. The other $6 mil- some problems, as people laughed a lit- case, my concern is whether or not we lion was out of his own pocket. tle bit at that. are not getting into a constitutional In order to win that primary, I spent The fundamental point that the Sen- difficulty. The Supreme Court has said, around $2 million. I wasn’t as success- ator from New Mexico has made is that of course, that an individual, if they ful as my opponent. I couldn’t raise if I were limited to the standard kind have a great deal of money, can put as $200,000 because everybody was sure my of fundraising activity, I would not much of that money as they want into opponent was going to win. The only have been able to compete with that their own campaign. It is a matter of amount of money I got was from mem- candidate, as he exercised his constitu- free speech. If that is the case, then I bers of my family, a few very close tional right to spend his own money. I wonder whether or not it would be friends who felt sorry for me, and a would have been denied the right to ex- looked upon as disadvantaging that couple of others who came across be- press myself unless, as it turned out, I wealthy candidate if we gave some cause they decided they believed in me. had significant personal funds of my rights to the other candidate that we I spent about $2 million or one-third own. did not give him. I offer a real-life example of how im- the amount my opponent spent. In other words, if his hard money The point of this, with respect to the portant it is, when you are dealing limits were still restrained, and the with a candidate with virtually unlim- amendment of the Senator from New hard money limits of the opponent ited funds, for the opposition to have Mexico, comes from a conversation I were lifted, that would not be equal something other than the traditional had with the candidate for Governor, treatment under the law, it seems to $1,000-per-head contribution. I repeat: as we were talking about that primary me. Clearly, the wealthy candidate If I had lived under the circumstance race and the way it was beginning to would still probably wind up with more with only $1,000 per head, there is no turn. As it started out, as you might money; he would have his own. But I way I could have competed in that pri- imagine, with my opponent spending $6 don’t think that is the issue. If, in fact, mary, and I would not be in the Senate million of his own money, it was as- the wealthy candidate has a right today. There may be many who would sumed he was going to win. Everybody under the first amendment to do that, applaud that possibility that I not be that kind of wipes the slate clean. Con- thought I was wasting my time; every- here. body thought I was crazy. Then it I think the Senator from New Mexico stitutionally, you can’t consider that, began to turn. It began to shift. You has come up with the right solution. If it doesn’t seem to me. We have to ask could feel it. you are going to deal with somebody ourselves whether or not raising the Those of us who have been in cam- who has unlimited funds out of his own hard money limits for one candidate paigns know how that goes. You are personal pocket, you have to release and not the other is valid under the out on the hustings. You just get a feel his opponent from the restrictions of 14th amendment equal protection law. for the way people are beginning to the present circumstance. That is what I would also wonder whether or not, think. This other candidate who was the amendment of the Senator from from the standpoint of a contributor, if out on the hustings, too, running for New Mexico would do. That is why I in- I wanted to contribute to a wealthy governor, said: It is beginning to shift. tend to support it. I have lived through candidate under those circumstances, It is beginning to turn. It is beginning that experience. I know how difficult it under this amendment, if passed, I to come your way, and it looks as if is for the underdog to raise money would be limited to, let’s say $1,000. If you are going to make a race out of it. under the present system when the I wanted to contribute to his opponent, Indeed, you might even win. Then he outcome is assumed to be predeter- the limits would go up incrementally, made the key point that is appropriate mined and how much a difference can as I understand it, to say $5,000, or to the amendment of the Senator from be made if the underdog is released whatever. What about my rights as a New Mexico. He said: Of course, you from those requirements and given an donor? Should I be restrained from con- are the only candidate who could have opportunity to express himself. tributing more to one candidate than done this. You are the only candidate I had an opponent who outspent me another because he has exercised his who could have caused this coronation three to one, but because I had suffi- constitutional rights? I certainly have not to happen. cient money to get my message out, I not had an opportunity to study this, I don’t think he was talking about was able to defeat him. I think we and I am not suggesting that I have the my political skills, although I have a ought to give that same opportunity to answer to my own question. But I do big enough ego to assume that I have every other opponent who has a mes- wonder—and I see Senator DOMENICI is some. He was talking about the fact sage, faced with that kind of challenge on the floor—I say to my friend, if we that I could fund my campaign in a on the other side. are keeping the hard money limits on style to compete against this self-fund- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- the wealthy candidate, whether or not ed candidate who was funding his cam- ator from Wisconsin. we have an equal protection problem. paign. Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I I would think the answer to that Assume that I went into that race yield the Senator from Tennessee 12 problem and a way to avoid the con- without having $2 million of my own minutes. stitutional dilemma would be to raise

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S2454 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 19, 2001 the hard money limits for all can- that even though we do nothing here to Mr. MCCAIN. Who yields time? didates. The wealthy candidates cer- diminish the constitutional rights of Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator tainly would still have the advantage, the wealthy candidate, but keeping the from Utah yield me time? but in terms of the hard money limits hard money limits on him while raising The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- they would be equalized. the hard money limits for his chal- ator from New Mexico controls the I think Senator DOMENICI is abso- lenger, we are not dealing equally with time. lutely correct when he talks about the regard to the hard money limits. Obvi- Mr. DOMENICI. I have time on my limits that we placed on candidates in ously, the dollars are different. The own amendment. 1974 being very outdated—a $1,000 con- dollars will undoubtedly be outweighed The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- tribution today is worth about $3,300, in favor of the wealthy candidate. But ator from New Mexico is recognized. with inflation. We have hamstrung our in terms of equal treatment, that con- Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator candidates and forced more and more cerns me. want to speak? I want to say a few money being spent in outside ads and, As I said, it also concerns me from words to my friend. in my opinion, become more and more the standpoint of the donor. Does a Madam President, I believe we can reliant upon soft money. It looks to me donor have a right to give as much to cite some cases which indicate that the as though we could go a long way to- one candidate as another? Should they concern of the Senator of Tennessee ward solving the disadvantage, which have a right to give as much to the about one candidate having different the Senator from New Mexico has wealthy candidate as they give to the limitations under public financing, rightfully pointed out, that a candidate other? Is there an equal protection con- that they have been done differently without the wealth has by lifting the cern there? That, I must say, concerns and they have not been held unconsti- hard money limits on that candidate. me. tutional. I ask the Senator to think It would not have as much significance I think we would be better served— one more time with me. if you lifted them on the wealthy can- and I plan to offer, if no one else does, If you look at the effect on individual didate, perhaps. But you would have an amendment that would raise the campaigns for the Senate, and if the the equality and thereby possibly avoid hard dollar limits for everybody. I Senator from Tennessee is disconcerted an equal protection problem that we think the answer to a candidate’s prob- about the existing laws, then I ask him might have under the amendment. lem—any candidate’s problem—espe- whether he would not be a bit dis- Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator per- cially a challenger, is to get to that concerted about the growing number of mit me to answer? threshold. Not that he is going to be candidates who spend huge amounts of Mr. THOMPSON. I am happy to. outspent necessarily because most of their own money and the opposition is Mr. DOMENICI. I know my friend, the time a challenger is going to be Senator WELLSTONE, was on the floor, limited to the meager rationing—that outspent, but to raise the limits so is 26 years old—of $1,000 per person per and I didn’t get to hear his entire that a challenger can get to the thresh- statement. But if you were informed by election and $5,000 for a political action old of credibility as a candidate. committee. either his speech or something else you Someone mentioned the State of If that is not something that con- read that I take the limits off, I do not. California. There are other big States cerns us in terms of large amounts of As a matter of fact, based on a sched- where nowadays a $1,000 individual money being put into the system and, ule of how much the wealthy candidate limit on a candidate makes it so it is more specifically, that has a very good is going to spend, we raise the caps for virtually hard not only to run but to chance of electing a Senator—the other the nonwealthy candidates to 2 times, 3 recruit a candidate to even try to run things we are not quite sure of—we are times, and the highest they get is 5 under those circumstances. times, or the most you could raise is What we need to do, I think, is to worried about some of the abuses of $5,000 in individual contributions, and 5 raise the limits for all candidates from which Senator MCCAIN is speaking hav- times 5, or $25,000, in PACs. $1,000 to $3,000 on the individual limit ing an impact on the public trust and Frankly, I don’t think there is an side. It still would not be keeping up those kinds of generic things. equal protection problem either be- with inflation. My concern has never I am getting concerned that this Sen- cause the Senator from New Mexico is been the concern the Senator from ate, which I dearly love—a while ago, I not saying in any respect that the Minnesota has expressed, when he said wondered out loud whether it was wealthy candidate is limited in terms what is bad is that we are putting more worth $20 million which somebody of how much they can spend. They ex- money in the system—I don’t think it wants to pay for a seat, but I did that ercise their privilege and their right, is for me to say how much money be- jokingly. which the courts have said they have. I longs in the system or how much It seems to me one could conclude tried to see if there was a way to limit should be spent in a general sense. that there will be 25 Senators in this something because we have seen as What concerns me is large amounts of place who will have spent their own much as $40 million or more spent in a money going to individual candidates money to be elected in the next decade, campaign. Since everybody is worried or on behalf of individual candidates. in 15 years, and you would have ren- about excessive money in campaigns, I We should not be nickel and diming dered the opposition to those can- feel very sorry for a candidate who has these individual contributions—the dif- didates. They do not have a chance. to raise from his or her friends $1,000, ference between $1,000 and $3,000—when Maybe I do not have the big-State fig- and we raise it to 2 and then 5—$5,000— our real concern ought to be the hun- ures, but they would not have a chance while a candidate exercising his rights dreds of thousands that are coming in in the State of Tennessee or my State. can spend 5, 10, 20, and still have ex- in soft money. So I make the sugges- If somebody comes up with $15 million, actly the same rights in terms of the tion as one who thinks we ought to get you cannot raise the money. caps, unless we raise them. If we don’t rid of soft money. If we would raise the I hope the Senator will look at it. raise them for the nonwealthy can- hard money limits so that we would This is at least one way to say we do didate, they are going to be stuck at not unnaturally constrain the ability not like that. $1,000 and $2,000 per election, while the of a candidate to reach the threshold of Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I wealthy candidate can contribute as credibility to run a decent race, he say to my friend, if I can interrupt. much as he wants. Where would there would not need the soft money. Mr. DOMENICI. Sure. be an equal protection clause? He would not need the benefit of the Mr. THOMPSON. Not only do I share Mr. THOMPSON. Essentially, as a independent expenditures where all the the Senator’s concern, I will go the former lawyer—I am not pretending to money seems to be going nowadays. I Senator one better. I say not only raise be a constitutional specialist here. I am certainly in sympathy with the de- the hard money limits for the non- haven’t had a chance to certainly re- sired results of the Senator from New wealthy candidate, but go ahead and search this. By the time we finish this Mexico. He is pointing out a problem raise it for the wealthy candidate, too. discussion, perhaps others will have that many of us have faced from time He may not use it. That might make it had time to weigh in on it. to time. I simply wonder out loud easier constitutionally. I understood the Senator’s amend- whether or not there might be a better I am in total agreement and sym- ment, I think, correctly. My concern is way of addressing this. pathy with what the Senator from New

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY March 19, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2455 Mexico is saying. I am trying to figure For example, when I first ran for the country have spiraled out of control. out a way that will get us there that Wisconsin State Senate, under our There is a strong sense that elections will stand the scrutiny. State’s public financing, if somebody are no longer in the hands of individual Mr. DOMENICI. I thank Senator spent too much money either from Americans. As the old saying goes, per- THOMPSON very much. somebody else or their own, the State ception becomes nine-tenths of reality, Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the Senator would provide some form of public fi- and the reality is we have a system in from Arizona 2 minutes. nancing benefit for someone who would need of overhaul. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- limit their overall spending. Soft money totals doubled since the ator from Arizona. What Senator MCCAIN and I tried to 1998 elections, with a total of over $1 Mr. MCCAIN. Madam President, Sen- do in our original bill was say, for ex- billion in soft money for the 2000 elec- ator SNOWE, who has been a vital part ample, if a wealthy person agreed not tions. In fact, in 1980, when soft money of this effort with respect to probably to spend too much of their own money really came into being, Republicans the most controversial section of our but somebody else did, the people who and Democrats combined raised an es- legislation, is waiting to speak. I will constrained themselves would get the timated $19 million, according to Colby be brief. benefit of free television time or re- College political science professor An- I appreciate very much what the Sen- duced cost for their television time. thony Corrado. Two decades later, that ator from New Mexico is trying to do. Those are very different ways to en- total had ballooned to more than $487 All of us are aggravated and sometimes courage this kind of activity and this million. This is money that is skirting astounded when we hear of $70 million kind of restraint than actually having around the edges of Federal campaign being spent in a Senate race. unlimited contributions in response. finance law, and I support the soft The way I read it from the handout it I agree with the Senator from Ari- money ban contained in the McCain- says: zona that this is not the way to go, as Feingold legislation. If the candidate exceeds $1 million in per- well intentioned as it is. sonal expenditures, the direct party con- I yield 30 minutes of our time to the The fact is, this is money that was tribution limits and party coordinated ex- distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. never intended to help Federal can- penditure limits are eliminated. SNOWE. didates for office. It was intended to It does not say capped; it says The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- help build the strength of parties, ‘‘eliminated.’’ If that is incorrect, I ator from Maine is recognized for 30 which is a goal I support. But what we suggest the Senator from New Mexico minutes. have seen is a veritable flood of money fix that. If that is true, then a million- Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair. I being given without limits that is very aire can spend $1 million and imme- thank Senator FEINGOLD for yielding much influencing our Federal elec- diately the other person can raise $50 me this time. tions. What the public sees is a system million in coordinated and direct party I rise today in support of the McCain- by which access and influence is gained expenditures. Feingold legislation to reform our sys- through the size of a check, not the Finally, in all due respect for the tem of campaign financing in America. weight of an argument. Senator from New Mexico, this is a First, I applaud the sponsors of this At the same time we address the soft meat-ax approach to a problem that re- legislation, Senators MCCAIN and FEIN- money issue, I also think it is critical quires a scalpel. The State of Wyoming GOLD, for their courage and their re- that we address the ever burgeoning in the year 2000 had a voting-age popu- markable commitment to the cause of segment of electioneering popularly lation of 358,000. The State of Cali- campaign finance reform. Their deter- known as sham issue advertising. We fornia had a voting-age population of mination on this issue has been noth- do so in a way carefully constructed as 24,873,000. ing short of extraordinary, if not leg- to pass constitutional muster. I am Madam President, $1 million in Wyo- endary, and it can truly be said that we speaking of advertisements influencing ming, in all due respect to my friends would not be here today debating this the Federal elections in this country from Wyoming, probably buys every issue if it were not for their leadership. but get off scot-free when it comes to television station in Wyoming; $1 mil- Both have gone to the mat time and any degree of disclosure or any degree lion in California is a drop in the time again for this cause, and I com- of prohibitions normally associated ocean. This does not get at really the mend them for bringing us to this day. with campaigning. different aspects of a small State or a We have certainly tried to start down Let there be no mistake. The record big State. If I had $1 million, I could the road to reform on a number of oc- I intend to outline will show these ad- buy a lot of TV in New Mexico. I can- casions during my 6-year tenure in the vertisements constitute campaigning not buy very much in California. Senate. Unfortunately, those roads every bit as much as any advertise- In all due respect to a very good-in- proved to be procedural dead-ends. ments run by candidates themselves or tentioned and well- intentioned amend- I thank the leadership for scheduling any ad currently considered to be ex- ment in an area we need to address, in- this time and for committing to an press advocacy and therefore subject to cluding free television time for can- open process by which we can have real Federal election laws. didates, including raising hard money debate and, at the end, I hope real re- as a part of a total ban on soft money form. I thank my colleague from Vermont, and other ways we can attack this, I This could truly be our moment. This Senator JEFFORDS, for his tireless think this may be the wrong way to do could be a tremendous time that people work. It has been a privilege to work it. My time has expired. will point to in the future when we with him and champion the cause. I ex- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- turned the corner on this issue and press my appreciation to the sponsors ator from Wisconsin. made substantive changes that will of this bill for including this provision Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I make a real and positive difference in in the McCain-Feingold ban of soft agree with the Senator from Arizona. the way campaigns in this country are money. This is a critical component This amendment is obviously very well funded. and critical element of the overall intentioned. It tries to get at a prob- When one stops and thinks about it, problems we are confronting in mod- lem in the original McCain-Feingold it is remarkable that the last time ern-day elections. bill. We tried to address the issue of there were major changes to Federal I have spoken of the exploding phe- wealthy candidates being able to spend election law were amendments passed nomenon of the so-called issue adver- unlimited amounts while the others to the existing laws in 1979. In 1979, tising in elections. That phenomenon are constrained. disco was in the nightclubs, President continues unchecked and will continue The problem is, the Senator from Carter was in the White House, and unchecked if we turn a blind eye to re- New Mexico does have aspects of this some of the staff we have working in ality. I am talking about broadcast ad- that involve unlimited contributions in our offices were not even born yet. It vertisements that are influencing our response. That is not the same as some has been a long time in coming. Federal election, in the overwhelming of the other techniques we have talked There is little question that there is number of instances designed to influ- about in the past. a strong sense that campaigns in this ence our Federal elections, and yet no

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S2456 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 19, 2001 disclosure is required and there are kind of advertising 60 days before a magic words such as ‘‘vote for can- none of the funding source prohibitions general election and 30 days before pri- didate X’’ or ‘‘vote against candidate that for decades have been placed on mary. X’’ then we cannot impose disclosure other forms of campaigning. These are Second, it prohibits the use of union, requirements and we cannot place broadcast ads on television and on of corporation treasury money, to pay source restrictions on their spending. radio that masquerade as informa- for these ads, in keeping with long- Period. End of story. tional or educational but are really standing provisions of law. As the next I refute that mistaken notion. I want stealth advocacy ads for or against chart shows, corporations have been to say emphatically that such an inter- candidates. banned from directly participating in pretation of Buckley is not the end of They must be doing a very good job Federal elections since 1907. That is the story—far from it. You do not have because there are more and more of not a dramatic change in law. It has to take my word for it. As a Brennan them all the time. That is the trend. been that way for virtually a century. Center report from the year 2000 said: According to a 2001 report from the The same is true when it comes to We must recognize that, as a legal matter, Annenberg Public Policy Center, which labor unions’ direct participation in Congress is not foreclosed from adopting a has been studying this trend almost making political contributions to elec- definition of ‘‘electioneering’’ or ‘‘express since its inception—particularly since tions. They have been prohibited since advocacy’’ that goes beyond the ‘‘magic the 1996 election cycle which is where 1947. Both of these prohibitions have words’’ test [for or against] . . . as long as we saw a dramatic change and trans- been in law for a very long period of vagueness and overbreadth concerns are met, Congress is presumably free to draft new leg- formation toward this trend in elec- time. islation that is more effective in achieving tions—in the past three cycles we have The law said in 1947, when it came to its constitutionally valid goals. the Taft-Hartley Act, when it came to seen the spending on these issue ads go According to the Center’s scholars’ unions, it is unlawful for any national from $150 million in 1996 to $340 million letter of this month: in 1998 to $500 million in the year 2000 bank or any corporation organized by Congress has the power to enact a statute election. In a very short period of time the authority of any law of Congress to make contributions or expenditures in that defines electioneering in a more the spending for these issue ads that go nuanced manner, as long as its definition below the radar—in other words, they connection with any election to polit- adequately addresses the vagueness and don’t require the kind of disclosure, ical office. overbreadth concerns expressed by the court. That is what it comes down to. It is the kind of restrictions that other Certainly, this provision is not clear; it is common sense; it is con- forms of expenditures on advertise- vague. We draw a bright line. Anyone stitutional; it is not speech rationing ments require—has gone from $135 mil- will know that running ads more than but informational, information that lion in 1996 upwards of $500 million, $10,000 in a given year, mentioning a the public has the right to know. half a billion in the election of the year Federal candidate 30 days before a pri- Indeed, there is nothing in this provi- 2000. In a very short period of time we mary, 60 days before a general election, sion that bans any form of speech. We have seen a dramatic growth in the ex- and seen by that candidate’s elec- are saying if an organization or an in- penditures on these types of ads. torate, being aired in that candidate’s dividual spends more than $10,000 per As detailed by a 2001 report entitled district or State, will be covered by year on broadcast ads, you cannot use ‘‘Dictum Without Data: The Myth of this provision. Anyone not meeting union or corporation money. That is Issue Advocacy and Party Building,’’ any single one of those criteria will not the only ban on anything in this written by David Magleby at the Cen- be affected. amendment. If you do decide to engage ter for the Study of Elections and De- As to the issue of broadness or over- in that kind of advertising, you have to mocracy at Brigham Young University: breadth, again quoting the Brennan disclose who is bank rolling the ads if The broadcast advertising, used by labor Center letter: you donate more than $1,000. You have and then copied by business organizations in A restriction that covers regulable speech 1996, unleashed a new dimension of election- to disclose the identity of the organiza- tion and the donor. can be struck if it sweeps too broadly and eering . . . Permitting electioneering covers a substantial amount of constitu- through issue advocacy to continue is an We are not requiring every group to tionally protected speech as well. But under open invitation to individuals and groups to disclose entire membership lists, only the overbreadth doctrine, the provision will avoid disclosure requirements and contribu- the major sponsorships of these adver- be upheld unless its overbreadth is substan- tion limits. tisers because it tells us something tial. A challenger cannot topple a statute That is the essence of what we are about the message being sent. We de- simply by conjuring up a handful of applica- talking about. We are talking about veloped this approach in consultation tions that would yield unconstitutional re- disclosure. We are talking about sun- with noted congressional scholars and sults. light, not censorship. We are talking reformers such as Norm Ornstein of the The empirical evidence demonstrates about the public’s right to know. We American Enterprise Institute; Joshua that this provision and the criteria in- are talking about citizens making in- Rosenkrantz, director of the Brennan cluded in this amendment are not formed decisions about the quality and Center for Justice at NYU; and Daniel ‘‘substantially overbroad.’’ The fact of sources of the information they receive Ortiz, John Allan Love Professor of the matter is, we have a body of evi- from messages that are influencing Law at the University of Virginia dence on these kinds of ads that never their votes. School of Law. existed before, that there effectively is How does the Snowe-Jeffords provi- This provision is narrowly and care- no line between the express advocacy sion address this issue? It is simple and fully crafted and based on the precept and the sham issue ads in terms of straightforward. First, we require dis- that the Supreme Court has made clear voter perception. closures on groups and individuals run- that for constitutional purposes, cam- In other words, an ad that runs, that ning broadcast ads within 30 days of a paigning—make no mistake about says, ‘‘John Doe is dishonest and cor- primary, 60 days before a general elec- what these ads do; these are campaign rupt and un-American, call John Doe tion that mention the name of a Fed- ads; they are not issue advocacy ads— and tell him how you feel,’’ is seen eral candidate or show a likeness of a is different from other speech. It is every bit as much to be an ad designed Federal candidate. The disclosure built upon the bedrock of legal and to influence a Federal election as an ad threshold is $1,000 for each individual constitutional principles extending using the so-called magic words such donor for that organization that spon- current regulations cautiously and as, ‘‘Vote for John Doe.’’ sors such an ad that runs in that win- only in the areas in which the first As a legislative body, we are allowed dow, 60 days before a general election, amendment is at its lowest threshold. to devise a solution to this new prob- that mentions a Federal candidate. We will hear a lot of statements lem, and the Court will give it a fresh That $1,000 trigger is five times the throughout the next 2 weeks about the look. The truth is that 25 years ago the contribution amount that candidates Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Court issued a decision to try to cure a are required to disclose. We create a Buckley vs. Valeo, arguing if an ad is previous statute that was poorly and higher threshold, a $1,000 donation to not what is known as express advocacy, vaguely written, at a time that is now any organization that engages in this if it does not include the so-called over a quarter of a century ago. The

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY March 19, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2457 fact is, the Court has not had any new influence how they would vote in the so-called issue ad. So the only reason law from Congress to consider on cam- Presidential election, how would they they would have chosen this route over paign finance reform in the last 25 rank this ad? ads saying ‘‘vote for me’’ or ‘‘vote years in order to review the matters, in Guess what. The ads that they viewed against’’ is that they believed the order to review the kinds of trends that to be the most influential of all the ads nonmagic words—not using those have taken place that have reinter- run were the ones that were run by in- words—were more effective in getting preted law that was passed more than terest groups that mentioned a can- their campaign message across, which, 26 years ago. didate, that are supposedly issue ads, of course, is what all these organiza- So it is our prerogative, Madam even more than the ads that were run tions found out themselves. President, and, I would say, our obliga- by the candidates themselves. Furthermore, the report concluded, tion as a legislature, to try to craft so- In other words, candidates who ran as our experience demonstrates, that lutions to problems when it is in our their ads that obviously very clearly policy distinctions such as those drawn public interest. That is why we have were intended to speak for a candidate by the Court and the FEC can have no three branches of Government. We will on behalf of their issues projecting an basis in actual experience. Much of hear it may have a constitutional ques- image, projecting their positions on what falls under the Buckley definition tion. We have never hesitated when we certain issues—those were seen to be of issue advocacy is indistinguishable have deemed it to be in the public’s in- less influential than the ads run by to respondents from party and can- terest, government’s interest, our these interest groups that identified a didate communication. Yet issue advo- country’s interest, to pass legislation— candidate 60 days before election. cacy operates under very different and in fact in some cases even testing Furthermore, a remarkable 70 to 71 rules, which, of course, is to say no the courts. We did that on the line- percent scored the election issue advo- rules, and has negatively affected our item veto. It did not deter Members of cacy ads as a 7; 70 to 71 percent thought electoral process and candidate ac- the Senate or Members of the House they were more influential, and 83 per- countability. from voting for that legislation be- cent gave the ads a 6 or a 7. Remember We now have established how effec- cause there were some constitutional that 7 was the highest point, meaning tive these ads are in influencing our questions. they had the greatest impact, rein- elections and how irrelevant the The same is true for the flag-burning forcing the fact that these ads are seen ‘‘magic words’’ that were mentioned issue. Many of us are in support of that as an attempt to influence their vote in back in the Buckley v. Valeo decision constitutional amendment. There have the days before a campaign. by the Supreme Court in 1996 have be- What is even more interesting if you been some constitutional questions come. look at this chart, the election issues raised, but again that should not deter Let’s see how the Snowe-Jeffords pro- ad, the ones that opponents would have the legislative branch of Government vision dovetails with these ads at the us believe are strictly issue ads and are from moving forward on what it deems end of an election and further evidence not influencing elections because they and perceives to be in the Govern- as to what these ads are really doing do not contain express advocacy—these ment’s interests. and the role they are playing in our election issue ads were seen as more Again, as we look at some of the elections, and ever more so. clearly intended to be about the elec- analyses and interpretations that have The effectiveness of these kinds of tion or defeat of a particular candidate been done in recent studies on election ads is not lost on these sponsors. First than the candidate’s own ads. trends, let me again go back to how I think this is very illustrative of the of all, we know they have gone up from some of the experts are defining it. problem we are now facing with these $135 million in the 1996 election to $500 In the Magleby v. Brigham Young so-called issue ads but which really are million in the year 2000 election. But University study that was done this ads intended and designed to influence let’s look at the final months of the year, as they said as they defined the the outcome of an election, and they election in the year 2000 and TV spots uses of political money in campaigns come out from under the disclosures that mentioned candidates—all of the and elections: and restriction requirements under the ads we are talking about in the final 2 . . . neither the Supreme Court (back in Federal election laws. That is why they months of the election. Ninety-five their 1976 decision) nor the FEC had substan- percent of the television spots that tial data with which to create their rulings. come beneath the radar, because they are not required to be disclosed. aired 2 months before the election Dictum was created without data.... If re- mentioned the candidate’s name. spondents see election issue advocacy in the We do not know who finances these same way as candidate or party communica- ads. We don’t know the identity of Why would you suppose that an aver- tion— these organizations. All we know is age of 95 out of 100 ads were talking Both of which are considered ‘‘ex- that somebody is spending a whole lot about candidates in the final months of press advocacy’’ by definition— of money for these kinds of advertise- an election? Is that just a remarkable coincidence? Obviously. then the Buckley distinction is mistaken. ments. This report, appropriately entitled ‘‘Dic- So if you think about it, the ads that As you see from this next chart, tum without Data,’’ bills itself as ‘‘the first the candidates themselves were run- again, it talks about the final 2 months systemic test of the court’s assumption that ning, ads which were automatically of the last election and that 94 percent the magic words are a reasonable standard classified as express advocacy because of the televised issue spots made a case for what constitutes election-related activ- candidates were running them—they for or against a candidate. ity.’’ were obviously ads to run in favor of a Again, there is further proof of the Again, what is most telling about the candidate or against a candidate and to fact that all of those ads that were run next chart is the statistics that are get one’s votes—those ads were per- 2 months before an election—the 60-day represented: The degree to which these ceived as less clearly intended to influ- period that we address in this legisla- ads are intended to influence the vot- ence their votes than the so-called tion—were ads that were run by issue ers’ vote. We hear issue advocacy. No issue ads. So it is no wonder then that organizations that mention a can- one is denying that every group should the candidates themselves have taken didate—95 percent of them. Ninety-four have the right to issue their ads talk- to running ads without mentioning the percent of those ads were seen as mak- ing about their positions on a par- magic words ‘‘vote for or against.’’ ing a case for or against the candidate. ticular issue. But in this study—again, Again, the Brennan Center, in their So obviously they understand that it is another interesting phenomenon report on the 1998 elections, found that those ads do and will influence the out- of the current election trends—re- only 4 percent of candidate ads used come of an election because they iden- spondents were asked the degree to the magic words—4 percent. In other tify candidates 60 days before an elec- which these ads influenced their votes: words, 4 percent of the ads that were tion. Ninety-five percent of those ads On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 meaning run by candidates, sponsored by can- are mentioning a candidate by name. that the ad was not at all intended to didates, did not use those magic words Let’s get the content of these ads. I influence their vote—in this case it was ‘‘for’’ or ‘‘against.’’ guess it won’t come as a shock to all of in the Presidential election—and 7 Keep in mind that there is a legal us who are on the election cycle that 84 meaning the ad was clearly intended to benefit for the candidates who run the percent of these televised spots have an

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S2458 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 19, 2001 attack component. Eighty-four percent The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- I will get into a lot of this later be- have an attack component. Obviously, ator’s time has expired. cause I think this is an issue that bears they are also designed to influence the Mrs. SNOWE. I ask the Senator from repeating throughout the course of this outcome of a campaign because they Wisconsin for an additional 10 minutes. debate over the next 2 weeks, to re- are negative advertisements, and, in Mr. DODD. Madam President, how mind people we are not talking about fact, the interest groups in this last much time remains? those genuine issue ads that Buckley v. election cycle ran the most negative The PRESIDING OFFICER. There Valeo and the Supreme Court thought ads. They were informational ads; they are 38 minutes remaining. of 26 years ago. We are talking about a weren’t comparative ads. They weren’t Mr. DODD. On both sides? whole new phenomenon in America in comparing records, but they were fron- The PRESIDING OFFICER. There modern day politics of which every- tal attack ads. are 38 minutes remaining for the Sen- body is well aware. People have a right to do that. What ator from Connecticut and 60 minutes So let’s talk about the difference be- they shouldn’t have a right to do is to remaining for the Senator from New tween the two ads. We will call this the run these ads that are clearly cam- Mexico. electioneering ad. It does not say ‘‘vote paign ads and yet they do not have to Mr. DODD. How much more time? for’’ or ‘‘vote against’’—again, those disclose a dime; they don’t have to play Mrs. SNOWE. Not even 10; probably magic words. Back in the 1976 Supreme by any of the campaign finance rules about 5. Court decision, the Supreme Court whatsoever. To argue otherwise, frank- Mr. DODD. I know my colleague from said, as an example, you should use ly, I think flies in the face of logic. California seeks 15 minutes, and I pre- those words ‘‘vote for’’ or ‘‘vote This record clearly shows that the sume others may follow. Why don’t you against’’ to determine that these are Snowe-Jeffords provision embodied in take 10, and that will leave us plenty of truly political-type election ads. the McCain-Feingold legislation in fact time for the Senator from California. But look at new ads that have is not overly broad. But if all of that Why don’t we make it 7. In that way, cropped up, particularly in the last isn’t enough, let me tell you something we have a little more room. three election cycles, to show you the further about a report that was issued The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- difference. just last week that not only confirmed ator is recognized for an additional 7 First, we have the electioneering ad. what the track record already indi- minutes. This is what would be covered by the cates but provided additional proof of Mrs. SNOWE. I thank the Senator for Snowe-Jeffords provision in terms of the problems we are facing in this elec- yielding. disclosure. The announcer says: tion cycle. In this final report that was issued, We try to teach our children that honesty The report that was issued last week we now see an evaluation of the rela- matters. Unfortunately, though, Candidate X entitled ‘‘The Facts about Television tionship between TV ads and the con- just doesn’t get it. Candidate X urged her Advertising and the McCain-Feingold gressional agenda. I have been asked employer to buy politicians and judges with Bill,’’ written by Jonathan Krasno and the question: Well, what about a group money and jobs for their relatives. Candidate Kenneth Goldstein, studied issue adver- that wants to run an ad in that 60-day X advertises corruption . . . Call candidate period and we happen to be in session? X. Tell her government shouldn’t be for sale. tising in the 2000 election in the top 75 Tell her we’re better than that. Tell her hon- media markets. In it, they ask the It could affect their ability to be able esty does matter. to communicate. Again, it wouldn’t question: ‘‘Would the definition of elec- Now, can anyone say with a straight deny them that ability, but it would tioneering created by McCain-Feingold face that this ad isn’t a clear attack ad require disclosure when they mention a inadvertently capture many of those on a candidate? Shouldn’t we know candidate 60 days before an election. commercials that might be considered who is paying for this ad running 60 But what is interesting about this pure issue advocacy?’’ Because there is days before an election with $1,000 do- chart, and what it illustrates, is it a concern when you look at the Con- nors, when an organization is spending tracks the number of candidate ads stitution side of the question: What more than $10,000 in a campaign pe- that run as we get closer and closer to about a group that wants to advocate riod? the election. And it compares to the in behalf of their issue in that election Now, let’s look at the genuine issue number of issue ads that were run cycle of 60 days? ad, which is the difference, if we are Guess what. When they ran those ads throughout the year in the top 75 talking about a genuine issue ad, which by various focus groups, and identified media markets, and then the number of this provision would not apply to. those ads, only 1 percent of those ads votes going on in Congress. Again, let’s read it: were true issue advocacy ads; 99 per- Guess what. The ads that were run by cent were not. Ninety-nine percent of those so-called issue organizations This time of the year, the average person’s thoughts turn to the IRS. Now we all know those ads were not issue advocacy; tracked the ads that were run by can- one person can’t fight ’em. But a bunch of they were electioneering. Just 1 per- didates. The bottom line shows the average folks like us can eliminate the IRS cent of the total number of ads would votes in Congress. As you can see from with the new Fair Tax Plan, the only plan be captured by the Snowe-Jeffords pro- the chart, those ads run by those issue that’s fair to everybody . . . Some things are vision that would have been viewed to organizations were not done to track worth a good fight. Call to join us. be issue advocacy. In other words, just what was going on in Congress. What You could even say ‘‘call your Sen- 1 percent of what would be genuine they were doing was running ads to ator, call your representative,’’ or you issue ads appeared after Labor Day and track the candidate’s ads. could even provide your Representa- mentioned the Federal candidate. The As you can see by these two lines on tive’s phone number in the ad. If you other 99 percent were electioneering the chart: The ads of the issue organi- are not identifying the candidate, you ads. zations and the ads run by the can- will not come under the disclosure pro- As I mentioned earlier, the Supreme didates themselves during that period visions in this 60-day period. Court would not knock down anything of time are almost identical. It had That is the true distinction of the based on a few examples. We are talk- nothing to do with what we were doing type of ad we are attempting to force ing about thousands and thousands of in Congress. disclosure on, the ones in which they ads. We are not discussing a provision So, obviously, the intent of these ads, identify a candidate by name 60 days in this legislation that is overly broad beyond the fact that they mention a before an election. or vague. We are not talking about ads candidate in that 60-day window before I think the American people are enti- that are purely designed to convey an the general election, is designed to in- tled to know who is financing these issue. But what we are addressing here fluence the outcome of the election, ads. That is what this amendment gets and what we are saying is we are trying not concerned about what is taking to the heart of: whether or not we are to get at the disclosure of the 99 per- place in Congress. prepared to do that at this moment in cent of those ads that have identified a So again, I think it is pretty clear in time, in this Congress, and seeing the candidate, that run in that 60-day pe- terms of their intent, in terms of what extraordinary developments in our riod, that clearly are intended to influ- they are attempting to do, and what is elections and what has transpired to ence the outcome of an election. the focal point of these ads. see some of the monstrosities that

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY March 19, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2459 have evolved through our election Madam President, a while back, when the person who is going to put his or practices that have reached the point Senator Alan Simpson was a Member her own wealth into a race must say so in time when we are seeing $500 million of the Senate, and we had just con- up front. If the amount the candidate being spent on so-called issue ads, cluded a meeting of the Judiciary Sub- intends to spend is going to exceed sponsored by organizations or individ- committee on Immigration—it was a $500,000, then the opponent of the self- uals of which we do not know their Friday—I said to Senator Simpson: Are financing candidate can have the hard identity. you going home? money contribution caps raised three- I think the time has come to develop He said: Yes, I’m going home to Wyo- fold. If the wealthy candidate spends the approach that requires disclosure ming to campaign. between $500,000 and $1.0 million, then that meets and will withstand con- I said: Well, you have no notice to set the hard money contribution limits in- stitutional scrutiny, so that all Ameri- up an event. crease fivefold. Over $1.0 million, and cans will understand who is trying to And he said: Well, I just go to Cody, the new hard money limits stay in influence these elections. and I go and have lunch at the grill, place, and limits are lifted on direct We are not trying to get at those and I see everyone in Cody. So that is party contributions and coordinated groups that genuinely want to be able the way I campaign. expenditures. The Domenici amend- to convey their message through tele- It brought home to me how different ment doesn’t prohibit wealthy can- vision broadcasts or radio advertise- campaigns are across this great land. didates from spending their own money ments. What we are trying to do is to In California, a State with more people to run for the House or Senate, but it identify those groups of donors who are than 21 other States combined, you is an attempt to level the playing field trying to influence the outcome of an cannot just go home and, without mak- for their opponents if they do. election shortly before that election ing plans, go into the corner drugstore Increasingly, I see that only wealthy occurs. and campaign. candidates are going to run in some of Campaigns are, indeed, very costly. I I think the time has come to pass these big races unless we do something have been involved in four statewide this sweeping reform. Something along to level that playing field. I understand campaigns in the last decade. I have the way has certainly gone wrong. The Senator DEWINE may well put forward raised well over $50 million: $23 million McCain-Feingold legislation would cer- an amendment to modify the new caps in 1990, in a race for Governor; $8 mil- tainly make that difference. set forth in the Domenici amendment. lion in 1992, in my first race for the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- I would prefer to see the caps modified. Senate; and 2 years later, $14 million in ator’s time has expired. As I understand the procedure, at the Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. the 1994 election. My opponent in that end of the 3 hours of debate, there will The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- election spent $30 million of his per- ator from Wisconsin. sonal wealth in his attempt to defeat be a motion to table Domenici amend- Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, me. In this past race, just concluded, I ment. I certainly will vote not to table no State has contributed more to the raised $9 million. this amendment. It is important that cause of campaign finance reform than Now, whereas I support McCain-Fein- we try to level the playing field. the State of the last Speaker and the gold as it is, I must also comment that I also will mention one other amend- Presiding Officer. Not only has the the Domenici amendment we are now ment I will either make myself or sup- State of Maine come up with some of considering has a good deal to rec- port, if it is offered by others. That is the most innovative State-level initia- ommend in it. an amendment to increase the hard tives, but it has sent us two Senators Let me talk about my own experi- money cap per candidate per election. who have been the stalwarts in our ence, from the 1994 election I just men- In the early 1970s, nearly 30 years ago, group throughout our entire process. tioned. It was February. It was raining $1,000 was set as the hard money cap We are grateful to the State of Maine outside. I turned on the television to per election: $1,000 for the primary and for these two Senators being here and watch the Olympics, and what did I $1,000 for the general. That was really being such great advocates for this see? I saw a full spot—in February—by fine in those days. You could have a lot cause. my opponent—a minute spot in the of volunteer help. There was not an in- With that, I yield 15 minutes to the middle of the Olympics. My heart kind requirement. You could raise distinguished senior Senator from Cali- dropped into my heels, and I knew at money more easily. fornia, Mrs. FEINSTEIN. that instant that I was in for a gruel- Since that time, we have had some- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ing campaign. thing called inflation. Senator MCCAIN ator from California is recognized. In fact, my opponent was able to pointed this out the other day. Thirty Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair have what we call a maximum buy on years ago, a car cost $2,700. Now it and thank the distinguished author of television for all but 2 weeks of the re- costs $22,000. The cost of campaigning the bill. maining part of the year because he has risen even more dramatically. I can Madam President, I want to begin by was able, quite simply, to write a tell the Senate, television spots have thanking both Senators FEINGOLD and check to pay for that advertising. increased. The price of stamps has in- MCCAIN not only for this bill but also You don’t have to hire a certified creased. The price of campaign sta- for their many forays out in the coun- public accountant. You don’t have to tionery has increased. The price of di- tryside where I think they have really hire fundraisers. You don’t have to rect mail has increased. The price of brought home the cause of campaign spend tens of thousands of dollars on telemarketing has increased. Virtually spending reform to the American peo- computers and so on and so forth. It is every aspect of campaigning, from the ple. a very different campaign if a person salaries for consultants to the paper on I have had the privilege, as have you, has extraordinary private wealth. That which you write—all of it is much more of voting for this bill a number of is where the Domenici amendment be- expensive today. times. I will vote for it again. I will comes important in all of this because Frankly, we should increase the hard vote for it without amendments, and I it aims to level the playing field. money contribution cap, either to will probably vote for it with amend- In that 1994 campaign, I saw how im- $3,000 per election, which would keep ments. portant trying to level the playing pace with inflation, or at least to This bill addresses a significant prob- field is. The fundraising demands I $2,000. As I said, I can certainly vote lem, and that is soft money. By elimi- faced were extraordinary. I am a pretty for the McCain-Feingold bill as it is. nating soft money from federal cam- good fundraiser. As it turned out, I But if candidates are going to have any paigns, I think S. 27 cures the most simply couldn’t keep up with my oppo- chance to keep up with these inde- dastardly problem with the way cam- nent’s spending. I couldn’t keep up pendent campaigns, with these inde- paigns are currently conducted. I think with $30 million of personal wealth. I pendent interest groups that operate the amendment that Senator SNOWE could raise about $14.5 million. And to without contribution limits or disclo- and Senator JEFFORDS have added to do that, I had to put some of my own sure requirements, we should look at the campaign reform bill makes it an money into that race. raising the hard money contribution even better bill. So we have a good bill What Senator DOMENICI is trying to limit. At the appropriate time, I will before us. do with his amendment is to say that offer an amendment to do just that.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S2460 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 19, 2001 For my purposes right now, I indi- nent, no limits. They could do what- have increased. We were close to enact- cate my support for the Domenici ever they would like, just as they used ing comprehensive campaign finance amendment. to years ago, so long as they listed it. reform in 1994, and I am the most con- I ask unanimous consent that my Others have said, no, leave some limi- fident now since that time that we will time be charged to the sponsor of the tations. So we are in the process— enact this important legislation. amendment, Senator DOMENICI. I also mine having left some limitations—we I look forward to a full and open de- ask unanimous consent that Senator are in the process of working with bate on the issue of campaign finance JEFFORDS follow me. other Senators who would like to re- reform in the coming days, and believe The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there fine the Domenici amendment. I am at the end that the final bill should objection? willing to do that. have certain characteristics: Mr. DOMENICI. I didn’t hear the re- I thank the Senator from California. It must be comprehensive in nature; quest. I, too, hope if we have a motion to It must increase disclosure require- Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I asked unanimous table, we don’t table it, so if we want ments on sham issue ads; consent that the time I have used be to modify it to get a better product, we It must ban soft money; and charged to the Senator from New Mex- can, if that is what Senators would like It must help restore the public’s con- ico, along with any time I might have to do. fidence in our political system. remaining so that he might use it in I thank the Senator and yield the In order to accomplish these goals, support of the amendment and, if it is floor. we must come together to work for agreeable, that Senator Jeffords might The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- passage of meaningful campaign fi- follow me. ator from Wisconsin. nance reform. I am heartened by the The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I wide bipartisan group supporting our objection? yield 5 minutes to one of our strong legislation. We have members from the Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I supporters and cosponsors, the distin- right, left and middle in support of this was going to say the time should be guished Senator from Vermont. bill. That does not mean, though, that charged to me. I don’t object to that. I The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- we will stop working with our col- wonder if Senator JEFFORDS would let ator from Vermont is recognized for 5 leagues to craft additional ideas to ad- me have 3 minutes before he speaks to minutes. dress the problems with the current thank the Senator from California for Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I campaign finance system. My ultimate her support. thank the Senator from Wisconsin. goal is to create a comprehensive cam- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without I also thank the Senator from Cali- paign finance bill that will garner the objection, it is so ordered. The time fornia for her very astute comments, support of at least 60 Senators, and will be so charged. The Senator from especially relative to the amendment hopefully more. New Mexico. of my good friend, Senator PETE One of the most important aspects of Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I DOMENICI. I think that is an excellent any bill the Senate may pass, is that it say to the distinguished Senator from start. We are going to have a better must be comprehensive. If we fail to California, I greatly appreciate her bill. We have a great bill right now. address the problems facing our cam- comments. The amendment may be ne- I thank also Senators MCCAIN and paign finance system with a com- gotiable in terms of how we better bal- FEINGOLD for the tireless devotion they prehensive balanced package we will ance the playing field, but there is no have shown to this issue, ensuring the ultimately fail in our mission of re- question that she has hit the nail right Senate would be able to fully consider forming the system. Closing one loop- on the head. this very important legislation. I espe- hole, without addressing the others, One of the brand new problems of the cially thank my colleague, Senator will not do enough to correct the cur- last decade or so is the growing propen- SNOWE, for her work and for her very rent deficiencies, and may in fact cre- sity on the part of men and women— excellent presentation. I know she has ate new and unintended consequences. great people—who have decided to pay even more to say about the amendment We have all seen first-hand the prob- for their campaigns with their own on which she and I have worked so hard lems with the current state of the law money and use the privilege, the right for so many years. Hopefully, we will as it relates to sham issue advertise- that the Supreme Court has said they see a good result this year. ments. I have focused much time and have, that that money cannot be lim- I have heard some of my colleagues effort on developing a legislative solu- ited. So we have more and more can- question the importance the American tion on this topic with my colleague didates spending up to $5-, $10-, $20-, public places on passing campaign fi- Senator SNOWE, and was pleased that $30-, even $40 million-plus of their own nance reform legislation. Not only do I this solution was adopted by the Sen- money. That is fine with this Senator. think the American public believes ate during the 1998 debate on campaign I am not here trying to do anything this issue needs to be addressed by Con- finance reform. I was also proud to co- about that. The Supreme Court has gress, I believe the desire has only in- sponsor the comprehensive campaign spoken. creased following the controversy sur- finance bill Senators MCCAIN and FEIN- I have heard from a Senator saying rounding the pardoning of Marc Rich. GOLD introduced last Congress that in- she would support the Domenici Our current campaign finance system cluded this legislative solution. amendment based upon having experi- has left many Americans disillusioned I feel strongly that the legislation enced an opponent who contributed in with the political process and feeling the Senate must ultimately vote on in- multiples of $10 million for their cam- disconnected from their elected rep- clude some kind of changes to the cur- paign out of their own coffers, to which resentatives. rent law concerning sham issue adver- she had to respond under ancient laws This is an important factor in lead- tisements. We have crafted a reason- that limited her to $1,000 per contrib- ing people to opt to stay on the side- able, constitutional approach to this utor, per primary and per general, and lines rather than participate in the problem. Our provision will require dis- $5,000 per primary and general from a electoral process. Passing campaign fi- closure of certain information if you collection of people who call them- nance reform will help boost our dis- spend more than $10,000 in a year on selves a PAC. That kind of limitation turbingly low rate of voter turnout in electioneering communications which must have had her spending more than national elections. are run 30 days before a primary or 60 half her time raising money while her I was first elected to Congress fol- days before a general election. It also opponent didn’t win but the opponent lowing the Watergate scandal, right prohibits the direct or indirect use of had all of his time to run and had none around the time Congress last enacted union or corporate treasury monies to of the rigid rules and regulations that comprehensive reform of our campaign fund electioneering communications engulfed her campaign. Sooner or later, finance system. I have watched with run during these time periods. I will we have to fix that. growing dismay during my over twen- come to the floor at a later time to As I said, I wanted to fix it in a big ty-five years in Congress as the number more fully discuss our provision, in- way. My first draft of this amendment of troubling examples of problems in cluding the need for this provision, was to take everything off the oppo- our current campaign finance system why it is constitutional, and to address

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY March 19, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2461 some of the arguments our opponents which means anybody who offers 50 Mr. DURBIN. If I may respond, I continue to raise concerning these pro- cents more can knock our ad off the liken it to building a skyscraper a visions. air. So it becomes a bidding war. brick at a time. Here we have a I look forward to a full and open de- We find in every 2-year period of wealthy individual who decides his or bate on this important issue, and time, the cost of television is going up her idea of a fundraiser is pouring a pledge to continue working with my 20 percent. What does it mean? For a nice glass of wine, writing a personal colleagues to enact comprehensive candidate for reelection in the Senate, check for millions of dollars to his campaign finance reform into law this every 6 years the same amount of tele- campaign, and declaring success. year. vision that was bought 6 years before Meanwhile, mere mortals, other can- I yield the floor. will cost 60 percent more. That is the didates trying to be involved have to Mr. REID. Madam President, I sug- escalation of costs in campaigns. raise money phone call after phone gest the absence of a quorum. I am proud to be a cosponsor of call, letter after letter, small check The PRESIDING OFFICER. The McCain-Feingold. I think they are ad- after small check, all disclosed, all ac- clerk will call the roll. dressing a serious problem in our sys- counted, trying to build a skyscraper The assistant legislative clerk pro- tem, where we have this discrepancy of equal height to the person who has ceeded to call the roll. between soft money and hard money. written one check for millions of dol- Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask But at the root of the problem in lars to their campaign. unanimous consent that the order for American campaigns is the amendment I agree with the critics of this the quorum call be rescinded. offered by Senator DOMENICI which amendment who say isn’t it sad it has The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without goes after the self-funding, the very become competition for money. But as objection, it is so ordered. wealthy candidate, and the cost of long as Buckley v. Valeo says we can- Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of media. If we are going to have mean- not limit the amount being spent by an Senator DASCHLE, I extend 15 minutes ingful campaign finance reform, I individual from their own wealth on a to the Senator from Illinois. think we need to address both. I la- campaign, there is no other way to The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ment the fact that this has become a make certain we have a level playing VOINOVICH). The Senator from Illinois bidding war. I think Senator DOMENICI field and, I guess, fairness in the basic is recognized for 15 minutes. would agree with me on that. What else election campaigns. Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague. can we do with a Supreme Court deci- Senator DOMENICI is a proud Repub- Mr. President, I rise in support of the sion that allows individuals to spend lican. I am a proud Democrat. We both Domenici amendment. I want to salute literally millions of their own money view the system with alarm. If you do my colleague from New Mexico. I think while mere mortals running for office not deal with this phenomenon of peo- he is addressing a very serious concern are trying to keep up. ple who have this much money to put The Senator waives some of the limi- that all of us—not just Members of the into the campaign, how can you at- tations on the hard money we can Senate and candidates but every Amer- tract candidates from either political raise, but I ask the Senator if he will ican—should share. When the Supreme party to get interested? answer this question: The Senator Court decided over 25 years ago, in the It is bad enough that it is a pretty makes it clear in his amendment that case of Buckley v. Valeo, that we could hectic life. I enjoy it, and I am glad I all of the money we raise and spend not limit the amount of personal am in it. I am happy the people of Illi- must be accounted for, dollar for dol- wealth that a candidate could spend in nois gave me a chance. It is tough lar, as to source and how we are raising when there are these invasions of your a campaign, they said it was a tribute it, how we expend it. There is no mys- to free speech; that the wealthiest privacy. You give that up. That is one tery involved in this. Will the Senator of the first things to go, and people among us should be able to spend as agree with that statement? much money as they have or want to say: To reward you for running for of- Mr. DOMENICI. I agree 100 percent. I fice, we are going to personally let you spend to become candidates for public failed to mention that I have this in office. raise $1 million; won’t that be fun? the amendment. We take a lot of the You can walk along the streets of Sadly, our system of government, caps off so the nonwealthy candidate, your hometown and people race to the and certainly our system of political the mere mortal, can have a chance at other side of the street to avoid you be- campaigns, is geared so that those with raising significant money to run cause they are afraid you are going to the most money can overwhelm can- against a multimillionaire candidate. ask for another contribution. That is a didates of modest means. I think can- But we say if that candidate who had sad reality in this business. didates in America are now broken the caps raised so they can accommo- Sadder still is a person who is self- down into two categories. I call them date—if they have money left over funding and has so much money they M&Ms or megamillionaires and mere from their campaign, they have to re- do not even have to worry about this mortals. I happen to be in the second turn it to the people from whence they effort. category. If you are a mere mortal run- got it. In other words, they cannot Frankly, I am so worried this system ning for office nowadays, you spend raise more than they need and hold it cannot survive if only those people every waking moment on the telephone for another campaign. Whatever they serving in the House and Senate are trying to figure out ways to raise the use in that campaign, fine; what they those who are independently wealthy literally millions of dollars necessary don’t, they have to return. and do not have to go through the proc- for your election campaign. This is a The Senator from Illinois has just ess in any way whatsoever. reality. stated it as well as anyone. I have told Also, the Senator makes a good point In a State such as mine, Illinois, it some people I had this amendment, and about loans to the campaign because a will cost you $10 million to $15 million they said, ‘‘Why are you doing that? lot of people who are very wealthy do to be elected to the Senate. That is not Senators don’t have those caps on not give money to their campaign; an uncommon amount or an extraor- them, do they?’’ See, they don’t know they loan it and say they will be repaid dinarily large amount; that is reality. that for 26 years, since post-Watergate, later. It reflects the cost, primarily, of radio we have been limited—you in your Will the Senator be good enough to and television. I will be offering an campaign and the New Mexico Senator explain the provision he has on loan re- amendment during the course of the in his campaign—to $1,000 per each in- payment? debate with some colleagues that ad- dividual from wherever, your State or Mr. DOMENICI. I will be delighted. dresses the cost of television in par- my State. Then $1,000 in the primary You cannot have it both ways. You are ticular because we have this strange and general. That is all—$2,000. Along going to put up your own money and anomaly where we say the television comes a wealthy candidate and plunks say to the electorate: Don’t worry stations have to give candidates for of- down $10 million. I should have figured about special interests on this can- fice the lowest rate available on the it up and put on a chart how much didate’s part; I’m not bothering any- station. Yet, because of a few loopholes time it probably took to raise the body for any money; it’s my own. So in the law, they end up offering us equivalent of this $1,000 and $2,000 you spend $5 million or borrow $5 mil- what is known as preemptable time, bracket. lion.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S2462 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 19, 2001 Isn’t it interesting, for the most part, put on how you raise money will not behind them, and then if they want to you are not in office 1 month and you address the overarching concern about raise legitimate questions about where are interested in the special interests. the cost of campaigns. this money is coming from, what the Why? Because you want to pay the loan If we have the cost of television and real motivation is, that gets to the off. So now you are out raising money. radio going up as dramatically as we heart of the issue. You advocated: Nobody will touch me; have seen it—20 percent every 2 years— Time and again these groups come it is my own money; I am entitled to there is no way we can fashion a law to forward and get involved in campaigns. spend it; I am entitled to borrow it. hold down campaign spending that will They spend unlimited sums of money, That is all well and good, but my work. In a State as big and diverse as and we never know who they are or amendment says if that is the case, Illinois with 12 million people, a suc- from where they are coming. when you get elected, you cannot go cessful statewide candidate has to be If we are going to end these paper asking people to contribute money to on television. I cannot shake enough transfers and bring real transparency pay off your debt. That is a very simple hands and I cannot knock on enough and honesty to this process, not only and forthright proposal. doors in a State as large as mine. To should we support the McCain-Feingold Incidentally, it does not apply retro- raise money to make sure I have a basic legislation but we should deal actively. I am not trying to get any- chance to deliver the message is going with these issues as well. The self-fund- body. I am saying in the future you put to be a daunting task unless we deal ing wealthy candidates, the cost of the money up and you know it is not with how we raise money in campaigns media, and these groups that are mak- coming back after you get elected. or what television might cost. ing the independent expenditures, I That is what the Senator is talking I note the Senator from California think they should be subject to the about. spoke a few minutes ago about revela- same form of disclosure. I support this I think that is very fair. In fact, it tions that came to her during the amendment. I hope my colleagues in should be a condition to your putting course of her campaign. the Senate will join Senator DOMENICI up your own money, knowing right up There is one other aspect I wish to in adding it to the bill. front you are not going to get it back address before I yield the floor, and I yield the floor. Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from your constituents under fund- that is the independent expenditures, from New Mexico, Senator DOMENICI, raising events that you would hold and the groups that come on with ads to- has agreed the time of Senator DURBIN then ask them: How would you like me ward the end of the campaign that are will be charged to Senator DOMENICI to vote now that I am a Senator? not sponsored by candidates or polit- and not to this side, and I ask unani- That is what we are talking about. I ical parties. These are groups that mous consent for that. come out of nowhere with high sound- think you are absolutely right on that. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from New ing names and spend millions of dollars will be charged accordingly. Mexico is right on that point. It is a to defeat candidates or to elect can- Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 5 minutes to fiction sometimes. These loans are didates across America. the distinguished Senator from Ohio, In my campaign for the Senate a few made to a campaign and perhaps they Mr. DEWINE. will be paid back, but perhaps they will years ago, in the closing weekend of Mr. DEWINE. I thank my colleague not. Your language makes it clear the campaign, Saturday night I sat from New Mexico. there will not be any effort after the down and thought: I am finally going I rise this afternoon to congratulate election to raise money to repay those to get to see ‘‘Saturday Night Live’’ on my friend, Senator DOMENICI. He has loans; you have made that contribution the last Saturday before the election. identified a real problem. Let me no- and have to live with it. I think there As the NBC news went off, four ads tify Members of the Senate, we have is some reality. went on the air. All four ads were nega- received calls asking about our amend- The Senator from New Mexico is tive ads blasting me. Not a single one ment. For the last several weeks, Sen- probably aware of this, but I want to was paid for by my opponent or the Re- ator DOMENICI and I have been engaged make sure it is on the record. publican Party. They were from groups in discussions and negotiations be- According to the Federal Election I never heard of. I heard of a couple of tween the two of us to try to come up Commission, candidates gave or loaned them. Some I never heard of. with an amendment on which both he their campaigns $194.7 million from I said: Who are these people? I have and I could agree. Let me notify my personal and immediate family funds to disclose every dollar I raise and colleagues that we are getting closer at in the 2000 election cycle. This is up spend; that is proper; that is legal; that this late hour and we hope to have from $107 million in 1998 and $106 mil- is right. Why should these drive-by something resolved in the next few lion in 1996. The $194.7 million in 2000 shooting artists come in with 30-second minutes. I will withhold any comments included $40 million from Presidential ads and never tell you from where the about the specifics of that agreement. candidates, $102 million from Senate money is coming? The point is, Senator DOMENICI has candidates, and $52 million from House I will give an illustration. One group identified a real problem. He has iden- candidates. for term limits wants to limit the time tified a constitutional loophole. It is a Think about what we are saying Members of the Senate and House constitutional loophole that needs to about the men and women who run to serve. I disagree with them on that po- be confronted. What am I talking serve in the Senate. Think about what sition, and I have been open about it. about? I think it would come as a sur- this institution will become if that is But I disclose all the money I am rais- prise to the average American to know what one of the rules is to be part of ing and spending to tell my side of the the current state of the law is this: the game: That you have to be loaning story. The group that sponsors term Every citizen in this country is limited or contributing literally millions of limits refuses to disclose from where to how much money he or she can con- dollars in order to be a candidate for their money comes. I confronted one of tribute to a candidate for the Senate— public office. their organizers and said: Why every person in this country, except As I have said from the outset, I sup- shouldn’t you be held to the same rules one. That one person is a candidate port McCain-Feingold. They are doing to which I am held if we are going to himself or herself. Based on the Su- the right thing, but there are two ele- have a fair fight? He said: Oh, as soon preme Court’s Buckley case, and based ments that need to be addressed. Sen- as I have to disclose my sources, we on their interpretation of the first ator DOMENICI has one amendment that know there will be retribution against amendment, Congress cannot limit how addresses it, the so-called self-funding them. much money an individual puts into wealthy candidate. Senator DEWINE Well, hogwash. In this system, people his or her own campaign. and I are working on an alternative if should be willing to disclose where We have what for most people, the Senator DOMENICI’s amendment is not their money comes from, whether they average person, would seem to be a adopted. are on the right or on the left. Let the crazy situation. Everyone in this coun- We also have to deal with the cost of American people know who is spon- try is limited to only giving $1,000 or media because, unless we deal with soring the term limit campaigns in up to $1,000 to a candidate for the Sen- that, frankly, all of the restrictions we their States, who is putting the money ate or a candidate for the House of

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY March 19, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2463 Representatives. However, an indi- begin to level the playing field, making expenditures, we in effect have no lim- vidual candidate, if he or she has the it easier for that candidate running its on campaign contributions anymore wealth to do it, can put an unlimited against the millionaire to raise money. despite the law. The law has been amount of money into his or her cam- You still have to get it from individ- evaded, avoided, bypassed, mainly now paign. uals, but it makes it easier to do it. It financing television ads, often nega- We have seen now in the last several would not level the playing field. I tive, called issue ads. election cycles this phenomenon. Most don’t think there is anything to do to I think most of us who have seen people find it obscene. Most people find level the playing field, but it moves it these issue ads who have been in this it a ridiculous situation that someone a little closer and makes that race a profession long enough recognize that can spend $10 million, $20 million, $30 lot more competitive. there is no difference between the issue million, $50 million, or $60 million of I thank my colleague from New Mex- ad which does not name the candidate their own money. As a practical mat- ico for yielding me time, and I con- and says that you should vote against ter, a person who has that much money gratulate him for identifying a real him, and the issue ad which says this spent against them has a very difficult problem. I notify Members of the Sen- candidate is great or his opponent is time competing, making it a level ate and those who have asked about awful but doesn’t use the magic words playing field or even close to being a the DeWine amendment we have shared ‘‘vote for’’ or ‘‘vote against’’ and the level playing field. with Members, Senator DOMENICI and I, candidate ad which uses the magic I congratulate my colleague for his as well as others, are involved in nego- words ‘‘vote for’’ or ‘‘vote against.’’ concern about this problem. The solu- tiations and we hope to work out those At hearings we have held at the Gov- tion, quite candidly, is not to, of differences. ernmental Affairs Committee, we put course, limit what a person can put I yield the floor. these television ads on the screen right into the campaign. We cannot do that. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who next to each other. There is no reason- We cannot stop someone from putting yields time? able person who could reach the con- an unlimited amount in their cam- Mr. MCCONNELL. It is my under- clusion that the ad which is paid for paign. The only way to do that is to standing the Senator from New Mexico with soft money is anything different, change the Constitution. What we can and the Senator from Ohio are hoping in 95 percent of the cases, from the ad do is give the other person, the person to work out an amendment that is mu- which is paid for in hard money. who is faced with doing battle with tually agreeable. So we have now trashed the limits on that person who is putting $10 million, Mr. DEWINE. That is absolutely cor- contributions that exist in the law. $20 million, or $30 million of their own rect. We are working on it now. We Hopefully, McCain-Feingold is going to in the campaign, we can give their op- hope to have something in the next restore those limits. But the first ponent some ability to compete. half hour. amendment which is offered to this, it Senator DOMENICI does this in several Mr. DODD. How much time remains seems to me, goes in the wrong direc- different ways. The amendment I have on this amendment? tion and opens up a number of loop- will also do so. The amendment I will The PRESIDING OFFICER. The holes, No. 1, but also, it seems to me, is be proposing raises the dollar amounts sponsor has 231⁄2 minutes and the mi- not workable the way it is written. a person can give to an individual can- nority has 25 minutes. I can understand the frustration of didate. We raise it on a sliding scale Mr. MCCONNELL. It is my under- running against somebody who is ei- based on two factors. One, the size of standing this vote occurs at 6:15, but if ther partly self-financed or totally self- the State; the other, based upon how I added up the minutes correctly it car- financed. It seems to me there is a way much money that individual million- ries past that time. in which we ought to try to address aire puts into his or her own campaign. The PRESIDING OFFICER. It goes that. But we surely should not try to At one level, we raise the donor limits beyond that time. address that by blowing the caps on for the other person to one amount, Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield? party contributions, which is what this and we keep racheting it up. Mr. MCCONNELL. I am happy to amendment does. I believe it fits the constitutional re- yield. I do not think we should do that by quirements of proportionality. We have Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are having a process here which is unwork- cases we can supply to any Members of some who made a request that it would able because it is not graduated from the Senate who want to look at that. be very helpful if the vote would be at State to State. Somebody in a State We believe it therefore is, in fact, con- 6 o’clock rather than at 6:15. with 30 million people is given the op- stitutional. Mr. MCCONNELL. I say to the distin- portunity to raise these funds from all The reality is each Member who has guished assistant Democratic leader, of the contributions from the people gotten to the Senate knows how much we are checking on the 6 o’clock time who contribute directly to the cam- they can raise in their individual State and should know momentarily whether paign in multiples, the same as some- under the current limits. I will take or not that would be agreeable. body who comes from a small State, the Chair’s home State and my home Mr. REID. We have a couple of Mem- giving the person who comes from a State of Ohio. In the past election cy- bers over here who would like to have larger State a much greater advantage cles, going back to 1988, no one has the vote sooner if at all possible. over someone coming from a smaller raised more than $8 million in the Mr. MCCONNELL. I am told there is State, although they are both running State of Ohio for any of those cam- an objection on this side to moving the against the person who is putting in paigns for the Senate. It stayed fairly vote up to 6. their own money. constant over that period of time. Tak- The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is I wonder if the Senator will yield 3 ing our State as an example, if some- objection on the majority side to the more minutes? one was running against a millionaire vote at 6 o’clock. Mr. REID. I yield 3 more minutes. in the State of Ohio and they wanted Who yields time? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without to put in $20 million, that person who Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am happy objection, it is so ordered. put in their own $20 million would have to yield 3 minutes to my colleague Mr. LEVIN. So the first amendment a tremendous advantage over another from Michigan, Senator LEVIN. that comes before the Senate is an candidate who did not have his or her The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- amendment which is written in a way individual wealth. Based on what we ator from Michigan. to eliminate any limit. have seen in the last 12 years in Ohio, Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are Mr. MCCONNELL. Was consent just $8 million is about all you can raise. So facing a real crisis in campaign finance asked for something? you have one candidate with $20 mil- in this country. We have effectively no Mr. REID. Three more minutes. lion of their own, another candidate limits on campaign contributions, even Mr. MCCONNELL. Fine. with $8 million maximum that he or though the law seems to provide that The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- she can raise. there be a $1,000 contribution limit ator from Michigan. The DeWine and Domenici amend- from an individual, $5,000 from a PAC, Mr. LEVIN. So the first amendment ments—and we do it in different ways— and so forth. Because of the soft money that comes before us blows the caps on

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S2464 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 19, 2001 party contributions altogether in the was on television. He said: People are they are more or less corrupt than case that somebody partly self-finances going out deliberately recruiting mil- somebody such as the Senator from a campaign. Second, it has a procedure lionaires to run for office. In fact, he Alabama who worked as attorney gen- here which doesn’t strike me as being said, we are creating a millionaires eral and took a State salary every day? either fair or workable. It is unfair be- club, particularly in the Senate. I don’t know. But the Supreme Court cause it is not graduated, giving can- Since I was running in a Republican has ruled that a wealthy person cannot didates who run against somebody who primary, facing seven different can- be limited in the amount of money is partly self-financing very different didates, two of whom were spending they can put into a campaign. We are rights and opportunities, because the over $1 million of their own money, I going to live with that. That is what person who has a large number of hard listened to that. It meant a lot to me the law is. money contributors gets a much great- at the time. Two others in that race I Let me mention that there has been er opportunity to raise money than think spent approximately a half mil- a trend in recent years of large somebody who has a small number of lion dollars each in the race. It was a amounts of personal wealth going into hard money contributors, presumably total of $5 million spent by my oppo- campaigns. In 1996, 54 Senate can- somebody from a smaller State. Since nents, and I was able to raise $1 million didates and 91 House candidates each there is no gradation in terms of the in that primary and was able to win put $100,000 or more of their own per- States, all the States are being treated that primary. sonal money in the campaign through the same, despite the fact that there I am not complaining about the Su- direct contributions or loans. In the are some very obvious differences. preme Court ruling that says a million- 1998 general election campaign—that is Finally, it seems to me this is an im- aire, multimillionaire, or billionaire a final election campaign—Senate can- practical approach because of the trig- can spend all he or she wants to spend. didates gave about $28.4 million to ger, the trigger being the candidate has What I am saying is we have all these their own campaigns while House can- to file a declaration, when the declara- restrictions on people who have to didates gave close to $25 million to tion of candidacy is filed, to declare raise money. It limits their ability to their own campaigns. This is compared whether or not he or she intends to raise money. Then a wealthy candidate to 1988 when the Senate candidates spend personal funds of a certain can waltz in out of left field with hun- used only $9.7 million of their own amount. That intention can be hon- dreds and hundreds of millions of dol- money in Senate campaigns and House estly ‘‘no’’ at the beginning of a cam- lars in his account and can just over- candidates gave $12.5 million. paign, but near the end of a campaign whelm their opponent, and it creates, I This means that the share of the the temptation is great. If somebody believe, an unfair situation. total Senate donations from personal near the end decides to borrow a half I think it is very difficult for anyone funds more than doubled—from 5.4 per- million dollars, then that person has a to contend this is not an unfair situa- cent to 11.4 percent in 1988. That is decided advantage which is not cor- tion. We can deal with it, in my view. pretty significant. In the Senate races alone, about 1 rected by this amendment. Even Senator DOMENICI has given a lot of out of every 5 dollars raised in 1994 though you have to file a notice within thought to it. He and I have talked for came from the bank accounts of the 24 hours, it could come far too late for some time about this. I believe he has candidates themselves. This is clearly the person who is disadvantaged by moved in a direction that can deal with significant, and I think under the this large amount of money to do any- it. We are saying individual candidates present tight financial rules on people thing much about it. in a primary, for example, can only raising money it is an unfair advantage So it seems to me, for all these rea- raise $1,000 from a contributor to com- to people who have access to unlimited sons, this amendment is not the right bat the money that was poured in it by approach to a problem. But it is a prob- funds. a wealthy opponent. I believe we have Can there be any doubt why a can- lem. I want to acknowledge the Sen- an unfair situation. It makes it dif- ator from New Mexico has identified, didate or recruitment committee for ficult for candidates to run on a level any party, Republican or Democrat, is as have a number of people on this playing field. floor, a problem which is a real one, going to look out for people who can I was a former Federal prosecutor put in that kind of money? It gives which is what happens in the case of and attorney general of Alabama at the somebody who is either partly self-fi- them a clear advantage in the can- time of my campaign. I had two chil- didate recruitment process if they can nanced or fully self-financed, as to dren in college. I had some public serv- what do you do about the person run- write that kind of check. ice experience. I wanted to take my This amendment, I believe, deals ning against that individual. record to the people of Alabama. We We have that problem now. I don’t with it quite fairly and justly. First, it were able to raise enough money. I think this amendment solves it in a talks about disclosure. Within 15 days didn’t have any problem asking people practical or a fair way or in an even- after a candidate is required to file a for money. I was able to raise enough handed way. But that does not mean declaration of candidacy under the money to get my message out and win the problem does not exist. I hope we Federal law, he or she must declare in a runoff in that primary. will continue to try to work on some whether they intend to spend personal But it really creates an unlevel play- practical way, which doesn’t blow caps, funds in excess of $500,000, $750,000, or ing field if I am restricted to these lev- to address that problem. even $1 million of their own money. It els of contributions. What if my oppo- Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, how didn’t say they can’t do that. They can. much time do I have remaining? nent had not spent $1 million? What if They simply have to state an inten- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- they spent $5 million, $7 million, or $40 tion. I have to state and have to abide ator has 22 minutes. million in that primary in a State such by the rule that I cannot raise more Mr. MCCONNELL. I yield to the dis- as Alabama? Could they have gained than $1,000. What is wrong with asking tinguished Senator from Alabama 10 enough votes to tilt in their favor them to at least say how much they in- minutes. while a candidate who is a public serv- tend to spend? I think that is reason- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ant is subject to limited funds? I think able. What could be unfair about that? ator from Alabama. that is quite possible. That could have Then this triggers the events that Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I occurred. occur to give the opponent of the bil- thank the Senator from Kentucky for The Supreme Court, in my view, may lionaire candidate, or the one-hundred- allowing me to speak on this amend- not have been perfectly brilliant in the millionaire candidate, a little advan- ment. It is something about which I Buckley case in suggesting that an in- tage. It sort of balances the scales a have felt strongly for a long time. I dividual who has a lot of money has no little bit. It is not a lot. It is still find absolutely nothing unreasonable potential for corruption. If their money tough to compete against a candidate or unfair about the Domenici proposal. is in one sector of the economy—health who will put in $40 million or $7 mil- I think it fits precisely the cir- care, finance, high tech—if that is lion. But they don’t always win when cumstances in a very realistic way. where their wealth is and maybe they they go to the American people. I remember when I was running for have another billion dollars of invest- If a wealthy candidate declares his or the Senate in 1995, a prominent leader ment, they have a lot to lose. Who says her intent to spend in excess of $500,000,

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY March 19, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2465 the opponent of that candidate can in- Who yields time? If a candidate commits $1 million of crease individual and PAC contribution Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield my- personal resources, then all the limits limits threefold. In the present cir- self 5 minutes. on coordinated party contributions cumstance, instead of being able to ask Mr. President, I have great affection come off for the challenger. And the people for only $1,000, it would be for my colleague from New Mexico. He challenger is permitted to have five $3,000. Instead of a PAC giving $5,000, a is one of my best friends in the Senate. times the allowable individual con- PAC could give $15,000, to give you Even though we are of different polit- tribution limits. The result is a mil- some chance to compete against that ical parties, we do a lot of work to- lion-dollar personal commitment by wealth. gether. I admire him immensely as a one candidate being met with a poten- If the candidate says in his declara- Senator, and, more importantly, I tial $10 million party expenditure by tion that he or she intends to spend cherish his friendship. But I disagree the challenger. It seems to me that more than $750,000, his or her opponent with him on this amendment. would defeat the very purpose of what can increase individual and PAC con- I understand the arguments being we are trying to achieve with the un- tribution limits by five times. It would made. In fact, I have been through a derlying McCain-Feingold legislation. be $5,000 per individual. campaign where I in fact faced an oppo- In addition, obviously, PAC contribu- If some friends of mine say: JEFF nent who was going to spend—at least tions rise to $25,000 per election, above SESSIONS is getting overwhelmed by a he threatened to spend—a substantial the $5,000 limitations right now, once multimillionaire candidate, they could part of his personal wealth to defeat that threshold of $750,000 has been met, all rally and try to go out there and me. So I am more than familiar with as I understand it. help me have a fair playing field. I how this can work. It turned out he So I think there is a way, maybe, to think some people would. They would didn’t spend all that money he said he address this issue, but I think this rally under those circumstances. But was going to. But at least the threat amendment goes too far. It really does under current law, they cannot help a was there. I know what it means to be undo, at a very low threshold level, a candidate any more than the maximum sitting there in the campaign won- lot of what is trying to be achieved by contribution. dering whether or not you see a person the McCain-Feingold proposal. If the wealthy candidates exceed $1 who endlessly writes personal checks Again, I understand those who object million in personal expenditures, under in a campaign. to the underlying McCain-Feingold leg- the Domenici amendment the direct I understand the motivations behind islation, the thrust of it. But if you ba- party contribution limit and party co- this and the concerns about it. But I sically agree with what John McCain ordinated expenditure limits are elimi- think the amendment as crafted lacks and Russ Feingold are trying to nated. Why not? There is a chance to some proportionality and balance. I ad- achieve with this bill—reducing the buy an election by pouring $1 million- mire the effort to try to come up with amount of money in the system—if you plus into a campaign, and the opponent various triggers that kick in if a can- think that is the right track to be on, can be left helpless. I think that is a didate relies upon his personal wealth then adopting or supporting this good law. for campaign funds. But this amend- amendment is a direct contradiction, it It also has a give-back provision that ment doesn’t take into consideration seems to me. any excess funds raised by the oppo- the size of various States. A $500,000 I understand if you are opposed to nent of a wealthy candidate may be commitment of personal funds in McCain-Feingold, then this is one used only in the election cycle for Rhode Island, or Delaware, or even quick way to sort of gut it, to undercut which they were raised. So they Connecticut certainly might cause an it. couldn’t be used in the next election. opponent to pause. Mr. President, I ask for one addi- Excess contributions must be returned In Texas, Illinois, Florida, and Cali- tional minute, if I can. to the contributor, if there is any left fornia, that amount of funding hardly The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without after that. represents a commitment of personal objection, it is so ordered. It also prohibits wealthy candidates, resources. Today, that is nothing more Mr. DODD. So if you want to basi- who incur personal loans in connection than a second mortgage on a home. cally gut the bill, then this is the with their campaign that exceed And a trigger allowing three times the amendment, it seems to me. The very $250,000, from repaying those loans allowable funds to be used, I think, is first amendment we are dealing with from any contributions made to the unnecessary at that level of personal here on this bill, the very first effort candidate. funds. If you are getting to $750,000 or out of the box, is to undermine what The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- $1 million, again, in a large State, we are trying to achieve. ator from Alabama has used his 10 min- where a $20 or $30 million race is going Again, I respect what my colleagues utes. to occur, I do not think that amount are trying to do, as someone who has Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous con- necessarily is going to pose a great faced opponents in the past who have sent to have 1 additional minute. threat. at least threatened to spend significant Mr. MCCONNELL. I yield the Senator Remember, we are talking, in many personal wealth in a campaign. That an additional minute of my time. instances, about challengers. We are can be intimidating. But what you do Mr. SESSIONS. I know there were incumbents. As incumbents, we have a not want to have happen is the mere large contributions in this last Senate lot of advantages that do not come out expenditure, or the announcement of campaign from candidates of $10 mil- of our personal checkbooks. Obviously, an expenditure, of equal or greater lion, $60 million, and other amounts of if we are e-mailing our constituents, than $500,000, $750,000 or $1 million trig- money that the winning candidates in responding to mail, having telephone gering off the contribution limits. this body contributed from their own services, and the like, we have an ad- In Connecticut that would be a lot of funds. I tell you, I am glad I didn’t face vantage that obviously gives us the money. But if you are going to get in- a person who could write a check for upper hand in many instances when volved in a race that uses the New $60 million, $10 million—or $5 million, facing a challenger who may have per- York media, for instance, a race that for that matter. If so, I would like to sonal wealth or may decide they are in Connecticut would be $5 or $6 mil- be able to have a level playing field so going to put at risk their family re- lion, could quickly mushroom to $10 I could stay in the ball game. sources to run for public office. million. And $1 million of personal This is a fair and reasonable bill. I I do not want to be in a position wealth, while it is a lot of money, that believe it is the right thing to do. I to- where we gut the McCain-Feingold bill certainly then could unleash $10 mil- tally support the Domenici amend- because of a $500,000, or $750,000, com- lion or $15 million once the party lim- ment. mitment in a race that may cost, on its are off. And the party limits would I ask that I be allowed to be listed as average, today $15 or $20 million. That, come off with that $1 million commit- a cosponsor to the Domenici amend- it seems to me, is not proportional. It ment. I think that would be a mistake. ment. does not rise to that level. And that So I urge my colleagues who are The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without would be the net effect, if I understand thinking about supporting this amend- objection, it is so ordered. the amendment correctly. ment, who simultaneously want to see

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S2466 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 19, 2001 McCain-Feingold become the law of the standing that once this amendment is spend $750,000 or more, it is five times. land, to think twice about this amend- completed, we will sit down in a good- And $1 million or more, it is 10 times, ment. faith effort, bipartisan effort, to ad- as I have just indicated. In addition, we Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for dress this issue. Without his leader- have the loan payback provisions in a question under his time? ship, we might not even be at this the bill that I have just described, and Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield. point in the debate. we have a provision that the hard Mr. REID. I say to my friend, I thank him for that leadership. money that can come from campaigns wouldn’t it set a bad tone on the first The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- is limited as it is under the McCain- amendment on this very important leg- ator from New Mexico. Feingold. islation—no matter how well meaning Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I Having said that, I would ask Sen- the proponents of this amendment have remaining? ators who think the time has come to might be—to, in effect, according to The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven send not a signal but to change the law the sponsors of this bill, MCCAIN and minutes. so that the multimillionaire cannot es- FEINGOLD, gut the bill? Wouldn’t that Mr. DOMENICI. Eleven. I am not sentially put the opponent at such odds set a bad tone? sure I will use all of it. I am aware that that the opponent has no chance of Mr. DODD. I think it would. There a Senator desires to get out of here raising sufficient money to run a cam- may be some merit we can seek out at quickly, and I will do my very best to paign—we have seen many examples of some point. We are going to be on this accommodate the Senator. that of late. I think it is as serious a bill for the next 2 weeks. It seems to But what I want to say to the Senate problem as the underlying issues that me, if there is value in trying to do is, I have been working with Senator are before us on McCain-Feingold. I something here, we ought to be willing DEWINE and others on a modification choose to fix them. I ask Senators not to talk about it. If we come out of the to my amendment. Frankly, I cannot to vote to table my amendment, thus box and adopt this amendment, it modify it unless there is a consent that giving me a chance to present a modi- seems to me then it would be a major I be permitted to modify it. If we move fied one that has broader support than setback in what we are trying to to table it, and the tabling motion the original Domenici amendment. achieve in the McCain-Feingold legisla- fails, then I can amend it. So I would Mr. MCCAIN. Will the Senator yield? tion. I urge those who would be tempt- hope you would not table the Domenici Mr. DOMENICI. Surely. ed to support this bill to resist doing amendment. Because if it is not tabled, Mr. MCCAIN. I don’t want to take the so, and those who are sponsoring this Senator DEWINE and I, and others, will floor from the Senator from New Mex- amendment, if the amendment is, in offer an amendment, which we will ico, but I have to tell the Senator from fact, defeated or tabled, to go back to then be permitted to do, which will, es- New Mexico, he has made substantial the drawing board and take another sentially, greatly simplify it. and probably significant and beneficial changes to his amendment. He just ar- look at how this might be achieved. It will essentially be that if some- But this particular proposal, I think, body under this new law indicates they ticulated them. We haven’t had a chance to digest them to see what the eviscerates what Senator MCCAIN and are going to spend $500,000 or more of impact would be. We have gone a long Senator FEINGOLD are trying to achieve their own money, then only the indi- way from if the candidate exceeds $1 and what those of us supporting them vidual contributions are increased to million, the direct party contributions would like to see accomplished. three times what they are now—$3,000 and party coordinated expenditure lim- Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield me instead of $1,000—that if you are going its are eliminated. We have to figure 2 minutes? to spend more than $1 million, it is 10 Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield my times, which is $10,000 contributions. out exactly what all this means, I say to the Senator from New Mexico. This colleague 2 minutes. So if somebody was going to spend Mr. REID. There is no one I have $20- or $30 million, then the $1,000 cap is legislating on the fly here. What we would like to do, if it is greater respect for than the Senator would be $10,000. That is the extent of agreeable to the Senator from New from Illinois, Mr. DURBIN, with whom I the changes except we have a loan pay- Mexico and the Senator from Ohio and came to Washington in 1982. I had the back provision which we have discussed all of us involved, is to have a chance on the floor that says, if you use your same feeling he had, I say to my friend to sit down and negotiate this with own money, then after you are in of- from Illinois. I heard his very eloquent him. I agree with the Senator from fice, you cannot pay yourself back by speech. The fact is, I was of the under- New Mexico. I think he has some very raising money as a sitting Senator. standing this would help the bill. But I good provisions, but at this time we Mr. President, I think that amend- have been told by the proponents of would like to be able to examine those ment I am going to offer with Senator this legislation that it will not help the provisions, determine exactly what the DEWINE, which he would speak to at a bill. impact is, have some negotiations, later date, is a compromise amend- Does the Senator understand that? which have been going on among our Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator ment. I wanted to go a little further. staffs. Hopefully, we could get some- from Nevada for his kind words. In our But now what we are going to do in a thing on which we can all agree. conversations, I agree with what Sen- few minutes is vote on whether or not I am not sure in this very short time ator DOMENICI is setting out to do. I do to table the Domenici amendment. If period where the Senator’s amendment not believe it is antagonistic to we do not table it, then we will offer has changed rather drastically, fun- McCain-Feingold. I think it is com- this amendment. I am sure everybody damentally, when we are talking about plementary. It is an important ele- is listening and at least these increases if the candidate exceeds $1 million per- ment. But I do believe we need to take in caps would pass in the Senate. Only sonal expenditures, the direct party the concept Senator DOMENICI has the individual limits, the individual contribution limits and party coordi- brought to the floor and work on it. We contributions would be changed if we nated expenditure limits are elimi- need to spend a little time working on are permitted to offer the Domenici- nated—I don’t frankly understand ex- this to bring it to where it ought to be. DeWine amendment, which would be a actly the ramifications of the amend- I say to my friend from New Mexico, substitute after the tabling motion. ment of the Senator from New Mexico. I hope—he, of course, can do what he So there is no misunderstanding, the The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. would like with his amendment. I can- Domenici amendment has no soft ALLEN). The Senator from New Mexico not support it at this moment, but I money in it. The Domenici amendment has the floor. want to work with him and work with is all hard money. Essentially, it says, Mr. DOMENICI. I say to my friend, I Senator DEWINE of Ohio to try to find if you are going to spend a half million am not choosing to amend my amend- a bipartisan alternative that deals with dollars of your money, then you get to ment. My amendment stands as it was this in a realistic way. raise money in return for the candidate understood by the distinguished Sen- So if Senator DOMENICI wants to go who was bound by the old laws, the 26- ator from Arizona. I am merely stating ahead with this amendment, I will have year-old laws. You can raise $3,000 in that I am asking, and I now ask unani- to join those who are attempting to individual money and PACs are in- mous consent that I be permitted to table it, but only with the under- creased threefold. If you are going to modify it.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY March 19, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2467 Mr. REID. I object. Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to ing about that concern me. A tenfold Mr. DOMENICI. All I am saying is, if yield. increase seems to be an awfully high you don’t table the Domenici amend- Mr. DEWINE. I thank my colleague number. Perhaps there is another level ment, standing there, I will offer an from New Mexico. Let me urge the that could work. amendment on behalf of myself, Sen- Members of the Senate not to vote in On the question of what the thresh- ator DEWINE, and others which will do favor of tabling the Domenici amend- old would be, $500,000, many people what I described a while ago, and you ment. The Senator has outlined very have said, is too low a trigger for these can have all the time you want to look clearly what modification he and I increases. In New York or California, at that amendment, debate it, and even wanted to make. It is a modification there is a difference. I agree with the modify it, if you would like. I ask that that is very logical. It turns this into Senator from Connecticut that the way we leave the amendment standing so I an amendment that improves the to do this is to table this amendment can modify it. Has the motion to table amendment. It deals with the propor- and then see what kind of agreement or been lodged against the amendment? tionality question. modification or new amendment can be The PRESIDING OFFICER. The mo- If Members do look at it—and they agreed upon by the Senator from New tion to table can only be made at the have just had the opportunity a mo- Mexico and the Senator from Ohio, who expiration of time. The Senator has a ment ago to hear the Senator outline genuinely care about these issues. little over 4 minutes, and the other exactly what it is—they will find it is I share the concerns, but we need to side has a little over 9 minutes. very rational; it is very reasonable. It do this in a manner that doesn’t sud- Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I say to is going to be held to be constitutional, denly put together an act of modifica- my colleague from Kentucky that we and it is going to begin to deal with tion that we don’t completely under- are prepared to yield back whatever this tremendous problem the Senator stand. I ask that Members table this time we have on this amendment. I ask and I have been outlining, with others. amendment. unanimous consent, if I don’t have I urge my colleagues not to vote in Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, let time, I may yield 1 minute to the dis- favor of tabling. Give us the oppor- me explain to everyone that if this tinguished Senator from Arizona. tunity to come right back and make amendment is tabled, the next one The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- the changes and get this amendment comes from the Democratic side of the ator has time. The Senator from Ari- passed. aisle. The first opportunity to do some- zona. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- thing about one of the most pervasive Mr. MCCAIN. I want to say again to ator from Connecticut. problems in American politics today, my friend from New Mexico, we can Mr. DODD. Mr. President, just as a the purchasing of public office by peo- work this out. We can do that. By the suggestion to my colleagues, under this ple of great wealth, will have been lost. way, it is my understanding if we table unanimous consent agreement, the Yes, it is true we may get back to your amendment, you can bring up an- only way the amendment could be set this later, but there are a lot of amend- other amendment anyway, whether it aside would be, I suppose, a motion ments seeking to be offered on this side is tabled or not. If we don’t table the asking unanimous consent to set aside of the aisle. I don’t know about the present amendment, then that will sig- or withdraw the amendment. That is other side. I hope Senator Domenici’s nal that the Senate agrees with that something on which the authors of the amendment will not be tabled, giving amendment. Obviously, I do not, nor do amendment must make a decision. It him an opportunity. Normally the I believe does the majority. I empha- seems to me we are fairly close to size again to the Senator from New something that might be agreeable. I courtesy of the Senate would give an Mexico, I think we have made great don’t think it serves the interests of offeror of an amendment an oppor- progress in these negotiations. We are the Senate to have a vote on something tunity to modify his own amendment. in agreement in principle. All we need where it goes down and then comes Here that is being denied. to do is work out the details of it. back again. In the beginning, we got off to a good Frankly, I haven’t been here nearly It seems to me, if the authors of the start, and now people won’t even let as long as the Senator from New Mex- amendment and the authors of the the offeror of an amendment modify ico, but I haven’t heard of a parliamen- principal legislation feel as though his own amendment. Senator DOMENICI tary procedure where you would not they are fairly close to something they is trying to keep his amendment alive table somebody’s amendment that you might agree on, it would make some so he can offer a second degree which, oppose when there is going to be a fol- sense, rather than putting the Senate under the agreement, would be appro- low-up amendment because we have through a vote, to ask unanimous con- priate if the motion to table is not suc- unlimited amendments on this bill, sent that the amendment be with- cessful, which is something normally very soon that we hope we will have drawn. We can go on to another matter he would have an opportunity to do in worked out together. and then come back to something we the Senate, almost as a matter of Again, I am optimistic that we will may agree on. We may not ultimately. right. So what the Senator is asking work out the differences we have and it I don’t see the value in having the for is not inappropriate. It is the only will give us all a better understanding Senate march down here and cast 100 way he can modify his amendment of the amendment so we can make the votes on something that is going to be under the circumstances. best and most efficient use of our time. changed or modified at some later Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I sug- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- point anyway. I urge the authors to gest the absence of a quorum. ator from New Mexico. consider that for the minute that we The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Mr. DOMENICI. I say to my good have before the vote must occur. It clerk will call—— friend from Arizona, it is not a ques- seems to me that is a more prudent Mr. DODD. If the Senator will with- tion of whether there is a procedure way to proceed. hold on the quorum call, I would like like this or not. We have established I yield 2 minutes, if I have them, to to be heard. the procedure by the unanimous con- the Senator from Wisconsin. I hear my colleague from Kentucky. sent agreement we had entered into. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- The reason we object to a modification We entered into a unanimous consent ator from Wisconsin. at this point is because of what the agreement that said that this amend- Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator Senator from Arizona had to say. This ment can’t be modified unless we vote from Connecticut. I completely agree is a complicated amendment, with four on a motion to table it and it is not ta- with his remarks, as well as the Sen- different triggers involved. It seems to bled. We established that rule. I am ator from Arizona. I am pleased that me the size of States is relevant, where asking that since that was the rule, we the Senator from New Mexico has rec- $500,000 in Idaho or Connecticut would go ahead and not table it and let me ognized that his original amendment provoke one response, whereas in Cali- offer an amendment with my good just goes too far and there needs to be fornia it is something entirely dif- friend from Ohio and that will be thor- some modifications. We should try to ferent. oughly debated and modified. get together and work this out. The modification is being objected to Mr. DEWINE. Will my colleague There are a couple of items already for the reason that it is a complicated yield? in some of the modifications he is talk- amendment and it is only fair that the

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S2468 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 19, 2001 authors of the bill spend a little time The result was announced—yeas 51, ever, I would just like to reiterate for to look at the implications. nays 48, as follows: the Senators present, my amendment My suggestion of asking unanimous [Rollcall Vote No. 37 Leg.] was caught in a parliamentary bind consent to withdraw the amendment at YEAS—51 where there was no way for me to this point—I don’t know about the au- Akaka Dodd Lincoln amend it, other than to not let this thors of the underlying bill, but I am Baucus Durbin McCain table occur. That is rather unfair prepared to concede the next amend- Bayh Edwards Mikulski treatment. Had I figured that out in ment to the Republican side and let Biden Feingold Miller the unanimous consent agreement, I Boxer Fitzgerald Murray them go first again. This is an impor- Breaux Graham Nelson (FL) would have never agreed to it because tant enough issue that we ought to try Byrd Hagel Nelson (NE) most Senators can modify their amend- to reach out to one another, and rather Cantwell Inouye Reed ments. Carnahan Jeffords Reid I thank those who agreed to grant me than having 100 votes cast on this Carper Johnson Rockefeller amendment as some bellwether of Cleland Kennedy Sarbanes that privilege. For those who want to where we stand, and if there is an op- Clinton Kerry Schumer work with us to try to get an amend- portunity to reach a compromise, let’s Cochran Kohl Snowe ment, we will do that. I can’t do that Collins Landrieu Stabenow tonight. We have other things to do do that, and I would concede that the Conrad Leahy Torricelli next amendment be offered by the Re- Corzine Levin Wellstone around here also. But I thank the dis- publican side to avoid any conflict. Daschle Lieberman Wyden tinguished Senator from Arizona for Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, if NAYS—48 his welcoming a compromise. There will be one, I assure you. the motion to table is not agreed to, Allard Enzi McConnell the next amendment will be the modi- Allen Feinstein Murkowski The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- fied Domenici amendment because he Bennett Frist Nickles ator from Ohio, Mr. DEWINE. will be recognized at that point for an Bingaman Gramm Roberts Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, let me Bond Grassley Santorum opportunity to offer the modification just follow up on what my colleague Brownback Gregg Sessions and friend from New Mexico has said. I that, normally, Senate comity would Bunning Harkin Shelby think it was a shame that we were not allow. So that will be the next amend- Burns Hatch Smith (NH) Campbell Helms Smith (OR) given the opportunity to modify his ment if the motion to table is not Chafee Hollings Specter amendment. The Senate has spoken. I agreed to. Craig Hutchinson Stevens think it is too bad. I think it is very Senator DOMENICI and Senator Crapo Hutchison Thomas unfortunate. DEWINE will offer the modification Dayton Inhofe Thompson DeWine Kyl Thurmond Having said that, I do believe we are they have been trying to get consent to Domenici Lott Voinovich fairly close in negotiations. The Sen- offer and that will be the next amend- Ensign Lugar Warner ator from New Mexico and I had ment presumably voted on in the NOT VOTING—1 reached an agreement that would deal morning, depending upon what the in- Dorgan with this problem. It would have been, structions of the majority leader are. The motion was agreed to. I think, very positive. I am confident, How much time remains? from talking to some of my friends on The PRESIDING OFFICER. A half Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote. the other side of the aisle, as well as minute to the sponsor and 4 minutes to friends on this side, that we still can, the opposition. Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. within a relatively short period of Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask time, reach agreement and come back for 30 seconds. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. to the Senate with an amendment to The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- which we can in fact agree, and we in- ator from New Mexico. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from Arizona. tend to do that. Mr. DOMENICI. I ask that Senators I thank the Chair. Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I say to not vote to table this amendment. Give The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- my friend from New Mexico, we are me an opportunity tomorrow to work ator from Kentucky. ready now to sit down and negotiate so with people to modify it. It will be an Mr. MCCONNELL. The practical ef- opportunity for me, as the principal we can have an agreement on his fect means the next amendment is to sponsor, to get a modification that I amendment in the morning. be offered by the Democratic side be- can offer. It will be recognized as the I believe the Senator from Con- cause Senator DOMENICI was, first, de- next order of business. I ask that in necticut has said he could have the nied the opportunity to modify his fairness. I yield back my time. next amendment. The only reason we amendment; second, the opportunity to Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am about objected to it is because we did not modify it after a motion to table failed to make a motion to table. I urge my have sufficient time to review the was denied him by switching a number colleagues to support it. This amend- modifications and continue negotia- of Members. ment, if adopted, would gut the tions. The practical effect of all this, I say McCain-Feingold campaign finance I say to my friend from New Mexico, to everyone in the Senate, is that the bill, in my opinion. we are ready to sit down right now and next amendment is on the Democratic I move to table the amendment and negotiate. I think we are very close to side under our agreement. I am curious ask for the yeas and nays. an agreement so we can get this done as to what it might be. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a immediately and move on to other The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- sufficient second? issues. ator from Connecticut. There is a sufficient second. Mr. President, I also would like to Mr. DODD. In light of the events that The question is on agreeing to the thank the Senator from New Jersey just unfolded here, we don’t have a spe- motion to table the amendment of the and the Senator from Wisconsin. cific amendment ready to offer at this Senator from New Mexico. Again, before I yield the floor, I be- particular point. As I understand it, The clerk will call the roll. lieve we are very close to an agree- there will be no more votes this The bill clerk called the roll. ment. We were before the modification. evening. We encourage Members who Mr. REID. I announce that the Sen- I also believe that with these negotia- have not made opening statements on ator from North Dakota (Mr. DORGAN), tions, within an hour we can come up this bill, who are here on the floor, to is necessarily absent. with an agreement that will get a very do so tonight, and then with some con- I further announce that, if present substantial and majority vote. sultation between the two of us and and voting, the Senator from North I thank my colleagues, and I yield others interested, we will try to come Dakota (Mr. DORGAN), would vote the floor. up with an amendment this evening to ‘‘aye.’’ The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- go tomorrow. I don’t know what the The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there ator from New Mexico. timeframe will be tomorrow. The lead- any other Senators in the Chamber de- Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I er is here. I don’t know what the agen- siring to vote? thank the Senator from Arizona. How- da will be, what time we will start, but

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY March 19, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2469 we will certainly give you ample notice Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I had pre- ability to take up and address this bill ahead of time what the amendment pared to offer a unanimous consent in a meaningful way. will be. that when we come in, at 9:45 in the In that regard, I ask unanimous con- Mr. MCCONNELL. I thought the idea morning the pending business would be sent that I or my designee be recog- behind this agreement we painstak- the modified Domenici amendment. nized tomorrow morning as debate on ingly entered into over a number of If they are going to work on this to- the legislation is again convened in weeks of negotiations with the Senator night, we will be glad to work with you order to offer an amendment. from Arizona was that there would be on that. But we have to keep this proc- Mr. MCCONNELL. Reserving the an opportunity for lots of amendments. ess going forward. right to object. Now here we are on a Monday night, Just one thing on the substance. I Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Sen- getting ready—the majority leader think it is going to be a sad com- ator will yield under his reservation, wants us to have a vote in the morn- mentary if we don’t address this issue first of all, I appreciate what Senator ing— I am hearing that the other side of candidates being able to put unlim- DASCHLE had to say about allowing doesn’t want to lay down an amend- ited amounts of money in their races Senators to modify their own amend- ment. without the opponents having some ments. We need to continue to honor Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if my col- way to at least be competitive. that practice. league will yield, we went through this I hope the Senate will find a way to Second, I don’t see any problem with discussion on the Domenici proposal. It come together on this issue. I know it his request. If he does not act on his may very well may be that we will has the support of both sides of the right, then we will be able to reclaim offer something that would accommo- aisle. It is going to be a bad start of and move forward on our side. I don’t date what the Senator from New Mex- getting to a proper conclusion to this see a problem with that under the cir- ico is proposing. If that could be legislation if we don’t address this cumstances. worked out, that may be the next issue. I would encourage both sides to Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for the amendment. I think we might be able work on this overnight. information of my colleagues, in con- to do that. If we are unable to do that, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- sultation with our ranking member, I obviously we will have another amend- ator from Maine is recognized. suggest that our amendment will deal ment to offer right away. I know the Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I voted with the millionaires amendment. leader indicated that on tomorrow he to table Senator DOMENICI’s amend- The Durbin approach I think is one would like to have a vote by 12:30. If we ment not because I was not sympa- with which many of us could be com- come in at 9:30, we will have an amend- thetic with the same. And I give him fortable. I understand they are talking ment to offer, and we will be right on great credit for bringing up a real prob- now about ways in which to address the schedule that the leader laid out lem in our campaign finance system of some of the differences between Sen- some days ago. very wealthy candidates being able to ator DURBIN and Senator DOMENICI. But The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ma- self-finance their races. That discour- that will be the subject of an amend- jority leader is recognized. ages a lot of otherwise very qualified ment we will offer at 9:30 in the morn- Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, just to re- people from even running for office in ing. spond to the last comment of Senator the first place. I yield the floor. DODD, that is the point. We want to I commend the Senator from New The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without make sure, if you are going to take ad- Mexico for bringing up an important objection, it is so ordered. vantage of the opportunity to offer an issue. I did not support his amendment f amendment tonight, fine, or we will because I disagreed with some of the have one the first thing in the morn- provisions in it. I believe, however, MORNING BUSINESS ing. But we had an agreement that we that the amendment he is likely to Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I would do these by regular order of 3 propose with Senator DEWINE is a far ask unanimous consent that there now hours. So hopefully you will either superior amendment. be a period for the transaction of rou- have one in the morning or we will be I think it was very unfortunate that tine morning business with Senators prepared to go with one on this side. the Senator from New Mexico was not permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, allowed unanimous consent to modify each. since there seems to be so much inter- his amendment. That is very unusual. f est in accommodating Senator DOMEN- Members usually are allowed to modify BANKRUPTCY REFORM ICI, might it not be possible for every- their own amendments. I think it is one to agree that Senator DOMENICI’s very unfortunate that did not occur in Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I modified amendment would be the first this case. It does not bode well for the have a few clarifying comments regard- one up in the morning? debate on this issue for us to start off ing the bankruptcy reform bill which Mr. DODD. I object to that. like that. the Senate passed last week, During The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- I yield the floor. the debate on the small business provi- ator from Nevada. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sions in S. 420, Senator KERRY erro- Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to the Democratic leader. neously characterized how the Na- majority leader and to my friend from Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I can tional Bankruptcy Review Commission Kentucky that the Senator from Con- certainly understand the frustration of voted on the small business changes necticut has been busy. some of our colleagues as we have at- that were contained in the bill. Sen- I think the amendment—and we will tempted to work through the first day ator KERRY maintained that the provi- be happy to discuss it in more detail of what is an unusual unanimous con- sions were controversial and passed by with the Senator from Kentucky—will sent agreement. We are used to a little a narrow 5–4 vote. This was not true. In be offered by Senators CORZINE, KOHL, more flexibility on amendments. I fact, the National Bankruptcy Review and TORRICELLI. It will probably deal think when we entered into this unani- Commission voted for these provisions with the same subject matter that was mous consent agreement, our entire by a vote of 8–1. discussed all day today. purpose was to ensure that we could I also want to clarify another point Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I think we move amendments along. That was the in the bankruptcy legislation. Senator have done some good work today. We whole idea—that we would make sure SCHUMER offered an amendment in had some good opening statements and that in the process of moving amend- committee and then on the floor that considered an amendment. Obviously, ments along, we would accommodate changed a provision in the bill that the people involved could do a little Senators. prohibited corporate entities in Chap- work this evening. I hope that unanimous consent agree- ter 11 from discharging fraud debts in We will be prepared. At 9:30 tomor- ments, to demonstrate a little more bankruptcy. I opposed this amendment row, we will have an amendment, and practicality, could be agreed to in the since I think that corporations should we will be ready to vote on it by 12:30, future because I think we will actually not be able to commit fraud and get before the respective conferences meet. accommodate rather than impede our away with it by filing for bankruptcy.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:36 Dec 20, 2013 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 J:\ODA425\1997-2008-FILES-4-SS-PROJECT\2001-SENATE-REC-FILES\RECFILES-NEW\S mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY