E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 105 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

Vol. 143 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1997 No. 139 Senate The Senate met at 11 a.m. and was ISTEA legislation. It is also possible bill. I want a chance to vote on a re- called to order by the President pro the Senate will resume consideration form bill and I want to ban or limit tempore [Mr. THURMOND]. of the D.C. appropriations bill if the soft money. But it is now clear that two remaining issues can be resolved. there is no consensus in support of PRAYER The Senate may also consider any ap- McCain-Feingold, and if we are to have The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John propriations conference reports that serious and meaningful reform, we will Ogilvie, offered the following prayer: may be available. Therefore, Members and must take a different direction. Gracious Lord, You know what is can anticipate additional rollcall votes I absolutely do not support the cur- ahead today for us. Crucial issues throughout today’s session of the Sen- rent version of McCain-Feingold. In my await our attention. Unmade decisions ate. opinion, and I have expressed it both demand our concentration. And we f publicly and privately, McCain- know that the choices we make will af- Feingold contains provisions that fect us, others around us, our Nation BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM threaten free speech and pose serious and the world. ACT OF 1997—CLOTURE MOTION constitutional problems, especially in It’s with that in mind that we say The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. the area of issue advocacy. These with the psalmist, ‘‘Show us Your HUTCHINSON). Under the previous order, groups, which play such an important ways, O Lord; teach us Your paths. there will now be 1 hour equally di- part in the political process, regardless Lead us in Your truth and teach us, for vided in the usual form, prior to the of their affiliation, deserve to play that You are the God of our salvation; on cloture vote on S. 25. important role. And we must not in any way place a chill on their right of You we wait all the day.’’—Psalm 25:4– Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I free expression and their ability to 5. suggest the absence of a quorum. criticize their public officials. There May we prepare for the decisive deci- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The have been abuses, no doubt about that. sions of this day by opening our minds clerk will call the roll. But it is far better for us to err on the to the inflow of Your spirit. We confess The assistant legislative clerk pro- side of freedom and to err on the side of ceeded to call the roll. that we need Your divine wisdom to liberty and to err on the side of the Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I shine the light of discernment in the Constitution than to take a chance of dimness of our limited understanding. ask unanimous consent that the order passing a misguided, though popular We praise You, that we can face the for the quorum call be rescinded. right now, reform bill that would in rest of this day with the inner peace of The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without fact begin that erosion of those lib- knowing that You will answer this objection, it is so ordered. erties and freedoms and the right of prayer for guidance. Through our Lord Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, am free expression that we cherish as and Saviour. Amen. I correct that the 1 hour between now Americans and that we always should. f and the vote at 12 is equally divided? It is clear there is no consensus on The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- McCain-Feingold and will not be. It is RECOGNITION OF THE ASSISTANT ator is correct. equally clear that repeated cloture MAJORITY LEADER Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I votes on McCain-Feingold is a part of a The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The would like to yield to the Senator from political strategy to portray opponents able assistant majority leader, Senator Arkansas such time as he may desire, of McCain-Feingold as opponents of re- NICKLES of Oklahoma, is recognized. and take this opportunity to come pre- form. As unfortunate as it is for the f side while he speaks. American people, the McCain-Feingold (Mr. MCCONNELL assumed the bill has become so politicized that even SCHEDULE chair.) supporters of campaign finance reform, Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I like myself, are disgusted with the po- morning the Senate will begin imme- thank the Senator from Kentucky for litical tactics that have been used in diately 1 hour of debate on the motion yielding time. this debate. You have to question the to invoke cloture on S. 25, the McCain- Yesterday I voted to invoke cloture sincerity of a strategy that disrupts Feingold campaign finance reform bill. on the McCain-Feingold bill. Today I Senate business and distracts the Sen- Members can therefore expect a cloture will oppose that effort. ate from other important business such vote at approximately 12 noon today. I voted for cloture because I want as ISTEA, the transportation funding Assuming cloture is not invoked, the campaign finance reform. I want an op- bill, fast track, appropriation con- Senate may then proceed to S. 1173, the portunity to amend McCain-Feingold, ference reports and judicial nomina- so-called highway transportation bill, which I believe is a seriously flawed tions, all of these vitally important

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

S10501 S10502 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE October 8, 1997 things, pressing business of the Amer- Proponents say the fate of our democracy cans want Congress to pass legislation to ican people, and to set that aside so we hangs on reform. And given a predisposition tighten the rules under which politicians and can hold press conferences to portray of many in the media to agree, that message political parties collect money. Never one to misread a popular trend, opponents of McCain-Feingold as oppo- is hammered home and almost daily. * * * * * President Clinton has enlisted on the side of nents of reform, which is not true and reform. Never mind that it was alleged CNN gives its position away in the title of is not fair. abuses of current law by Clinton and Vice a show on campaign finance it will air Tues- If supporters of McCain-Feingold President Gore in 1996 that intensified calls day: The Money Trail; Democracy for Sale. truly wanted to put forth a serious ef- for change in the first place. He’s now a be- This was ostensibly an objective fort to enact reform, they would take a liever. piece by CNN on campaign finance, an different approach by working to find While reform may be needed, there are sev- issue which the occupant of the chair consensus, by working to find agree- eral arguments for moving carefully. For ex- has just said is largely about the first ample, enacting limits on contributions ment, rather than attempting to score amendment to the U.S. Constitution. could run afoul of the Constitution. political points. Mr. Benedetto goes on: In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled 9–0 that I will not be a part of these partisan campaign contributions are the equivalent of Thanks to coverage such as that, it’s no speech and that attempts to limit them guerrilla warfare tactics. I fully and surprise polls show that a majority of Ameri- could violate First Amendment rights. How completely support campaign finance cans want Congress to pass legislation to thoroughly has that issue been aired? Not reform. I think we have need to address tighten the rules under which politicians and very. The focus of most reporting is on pro- it. I think we need to reform the sys- political parties collect money. cedural maneuvering of opponents. Never one to misread a popular trend, tem and particularly deal with that When Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, President Clinton has enlisted on the side of area in which there has been abuse, in R–Miss., introduced an amendment last week reform. Never mind that it was alleged the area of soft money. But I will not to require labor unions to get permission of abuses of current law by Clinton and Vice again vote to invoke cloture on S. 25 members before spending dues money for po- President Gore in 1996 that intensified calls litical purposes, news reports said he was and be a part of a political game that for change in the first place. He’s now a be- ‘‘muddying the water.’’ is more concerned about portraying po- liever. litical opponents in a certain bad light Opponents called it ‘‘a poison pill.’’ News- Just a couple of other comments paper editorials denounced the move as than enacting meaningful and real and from his column, Mr. Benedetto’s col- shamefully partisan. The charge: Repub- significant reform. umn in USA Today of Monday: licans want to hamper unions’ ability to I thank again the Senator from Ken- Media conduct on this one is not pure lib- raise money because the millions of dollars tucky for his leadership and for his eral bias. It’s another example of what Wash- they raise for campaigns go mostly to Demo- genuine deep convictions in defense of ington Post columnist Robert Samuelson crats. the first amendment and the right of calls ‘‘pack journalism run amok.’’ But if that’s legitimate cause for denounc- free expression. I yield the floor. ‘‘We media types fancy ourselves independ- ing the amendment, why is it not similarly (Mr. HUTCHINSON assumed the ent and skeptical thinkers,’’ he recently legitimate to question the motive of Demo- crats seeking to ban ‘‘soft money?’’ Those chair.) wrote. ‘‘Just the opposite is often true. We’re patsies for the latest social crusade or intel- are unlimited contributions that go to politi- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- lectual fad.’’ cal parties and are supposed to help pay for ator from Kentucky. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- party-building activities such as get-out-the- Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I sent Mr. Benedetto’s column in USA vote efforts. listened with keen interest to the com- Republicans collect more soft money than Today be printed in the RECORD at this Democrats. So it would seem in the Demo- ments of the Senator from Arkansas point. and want to congratulate him for his crats’ interest to get rid of that GOP advan- There being no objection, the article tage. Yet, few raise that point. According to decision. With his decision there is an was ordered to be printed in the the prevailing wisdom, soft money must go— excellent chance that today we will RECORD, as follows: period. reach a historic high in opposition to [From USA Today, Oct. 6, 1997] Media conduct on this one is not pure lib- measures similar to McCain-Feingold. eral bias. It’s another example of what Wash- MEDIA TOO QUICK TO BUY INTO CAMPAIGN So I commend the Senator from Arkan- ington Post columnist Robert Samuelson REFORM sas for his conviction and thank him calls ‘‘pack journalism run amok.’’ (By Richard Benedetto) for his support in defense of the first ‘‘We media types fancy ourselves independ- If you think the news media are providing amendment. I think he has done the ent and skeptical thinkers,’’ he recently the straight story on efforts to revise cam- wrote. ‘‘Just the opposite is often true. We’re courageous and correct thing. paign finance laws, look closer. patsies for the latest social crusade or intel- I want to make a few brief observa- Much of the reporting is tilted toward lectual fad.’’ tions this morning. There is not a voices in favor of wholesale reform. Those The anti-smoking campaign is a recent ex- whole lot left to say in this debate. But who take an opposing view are mostly por- ample of the media buying in with few res- I wanted to refer to a few articles over trayed as either corrupt or partisan. ervations. Global warming, too. Now it’s the last few days that I think ought to Little space or time is devoted to sober, campaign finance reform. broad looks at arguments on all sides of the be noted and printed in the RECORD. Mr. MCCONNELL. Also there was a issue. Instead, coverage is often emotional recent and interesting survey con- A USA Today column on Monday, by and selective. Reporting usually begins from Richard Benedetto, is worth noting, in ducted by Rasmussen Research, out of the premise that the McCain-Feingold re- North Carolina. terms of the attitude of the press on form bill now before the Senate is good, and this issue. Americans have every right that any attempt to slow it, stop it or Most Americans think that friendly re- to expect that the press will not take change it is bad. porters are more important to a successful Proponents say the fate of our democracy political campaign than money, according to sides on an issue off of the editorial a Rasmussen Research survey of 1000 adults. page. Here is Mr. Benedetto’s column hangs on reform. And given a predisposition of many of the media to agree, that message By a 3-to-1 margin (61 percent to 19 percent) of Monday, that I think is noteworthy, is hammered home almost daily. Americans believe that if reporters like one in USA Today. He says: Consider this opening sentence from an As- candidate more than another, that candidate If you think the news media are providing sociated Press wire story last week: ‘‘Vir- is likely to win—even if the other candidate the straight story on efforts to revise cam- ginia’s candidates for governor are taking raised more money in a campaign. paign finance laws, look closer. full advantage of one of the nation’s most I ask unanimous consent that be Much of the reporting is tilted toward liberal campaign finance laws, raking in printed in the RECORD as well. voices in favor of wholesale reform. Those more than $10 million through August.’’ In There being no objection, the mate- who take an opposing view are mostly por- one sentence, readers are given two negative rial was ordered to be printed in the trayed as either corrupt or partisan. cues on campaign finance. The first: that Little space or time is devoted to sober, Virginia law is ‘‘one of the nation’s most lib- RECORD, as follows: broad looks at arguments on all sides of the eral.’’ The second: the loaded phrase ‘‘raking REPORTERS MORE INFLUENTIAL THAN issue. Instead, coverage is often emotional in.’’ CAMPAIGN CASH?—MOST AMERICANS SAY YES! and selective. Reporting usually begins from CNN gives its position away in the title of WAXHAW, NC.—Most Americans think that the premise that the McCain-Feingold re- a show on campaign finance it will air Tues- friendly reporters are more important to a form bill now before the Senate is good, and day: The Money Trail: Democracy for Sale. successful political campaign that money, that any attempt to slow it, stop it or Thanks to coverage such as that, it’s no according to a Rasmussen Research survey change it is bad. surprise polls show that a majority of Ameri- of 1,000 adults. By a 3-to-1 margin (61% to October 8, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10503 19%) Americans believe that if reporters like year on laundry and dry cleaning. Is the communicate; and to communicate, they one candidate more than another, that can- price of politics really too steep? need cash. Someone has to pay for all the didate is likely to win—even if the other can- Robert Samuelson asks. ads, direct mail and polls. There is no easy didate raised more money in the campaign. Further in the article he says: way to curb the role of money in politics ‘‘This finding raises basic questions about without curbing free expression. If I favor More menacing are the artificial limits the types of reform that it will take to re- larger (smaller) government, I should be able that ‘‘reformers’’ have imposed on political store voter confidence in representative de- to support like-minded candidates by helping expression—— mocracy,’’ noted Scott Rasmussen, president them win. Campaign ‘‘reformers’’—who Something the Senator from Arkansas was of Rasmussen Research. ‘‘Campaign con- would like to replace private contributions just referring to a few moments ago in his tributions that buy special favors are viewed with public subsidies and impose strict speech—— by the American people as a problem that spending limits—reject this basic principle. What’s been created is a baffling maze of Money, they say, is corrupting politics. It needs to be addressed. However, most also election laws and rules that, once codified, think that much more serious reform will be isn’t. Campaign spending isn’t out of control establish new types of criminal or quasi- or outlandish. In the 1996 election campaign needed to solve our nation’s electoral prob- criminal behavior. Anyone tiptoeing around lems.’’ spending at all levels totaled $4 billion, says the rules is said to be ‘‘skirting the law.’’ political scientist Herbert Alexander of the Earlier surveys by Rasmussen Research And there are violations. In the futile effort Citizens’ Research Foundation. That was one have found the most Americans think the to regulate politics, the ‘‘reformers’’ have twentieth of one percent of the gross domes- passage of new campaign finance laws will manufactured most of the immorality, ille- tic product (GDP) of $7.6 trillion. Americans not end corruption in government. The con- gality and cynicism that they deplore. spend about $20 billion a year on laundry and sensus view is that new laws would simply Today’s ‘‘abuses’’ stem mostly from the dry cleaning. Is the price of politics really encourage politicians to find new ways of ob- 1974 ‘‘reforms’’ enacted after Watergate. Con- too steep? taining money in exchange for votes or other gress then limited the amount individuals Nor have contributions hijacked legisla- favors. Nine-out-of-ten Americans believe could give a candidate to $1,000 per election; tion. Consider the tax code. It’s perforated that members of Congress do exchange votes total giving to all candidates (directly, with tax breaks, many undesirable. Some tax for campaign cash. through parties or committees) was limited breaks benefit wealthy constituents who Americans are also generally suspicious of to $25,000 a year. What happened? The limits sweetened their lobbying with generous cam- reporters. More than seven-out-of-ten reg- inspired evasions. Suppressing contributions paign contributions. But the largest tax istered voters believe that the personal bi- to candidates encouraged new political-ac- breaks stem mostly from politicians’ desire ases of reporters affect their coverage of sto- tion committees. People gave to PACs, to pander to masses of voters. In the 1997 tax ries, issues, and campaigns. which give to candidates. In 1974, there were bill, Clinton and Congress provided huge tax Additional survey information on cam- 608 PACs; now there are 4,000. breaks for college tuition. Does anyone paign finance reform and other issues can be Another evasion is ‘‘independent spend- think these passed because Harvard’s presi- found at www.PortraitoAmerica.com, a web ing’’: groups (the Supreme Court says) can dent is a big contributor? site maintained by Rasmussen Research. promote a candidate by themselves if they The media coverage and congressional Rasmussen Research is a public opinion don’t ‘‘coordinate’’ with a candidate. The hearings of today’s alleged campaign-finance polling firm that conducts independent sur- present evasion of concern is ‘‘soft money’’: ‘‘abuses’’ have, of course, revealed the fren- zied and demeaning efforts of politicians of veys on events in the news and other topics. contributions to parties for ‘‘party-building’’ both parties to raise money. But there hasn’t The survey of 1,000 adults was conducted activities like voter registration. ‘‘Soft been much evidence of serious influence buy- September 27–28, 1997. The survey has a mar- money’’ contributions have no limits; so ing. The worst we’ve heard is of President gin of sampling error of +/¥3 percentage Tamraz could give $300,000. But ‘‘soft points, with a 95% level of confidence. Clinton’s, in effect, subletting the Lincoln money’’ can also be used for general TV ads Bedroom to big contributors and of business- Mr. MCCONNELL. Also, there was a that mention candidates as long as they man Roger Tamraz’s giving $300,000 to Demo- fascinating column by Robert Samuel- don’t use such words as ‘‘vote for.’’ Does any crats in the hope of winning government sup- son in Newsweek of October 6, Monday of this make any sense? Not really. Ordinary port for an oil pipeline. All Tamraz got was of this week. The headline says, ‘‘Mak- people can’t grasp all the obscure, illogical a brief chat with Clinton and no blessing for distinctions. ing Pols Into Crooks—Campaign-Fi- the project. This sort of preferential ‘‘ac- nance ‘Reform’ Criminalizes Politics And he is talking, Mr. President, cess’’ isn’t dangerous. More menacing are all the artificial limits and Deepens Public Cynicism.’’ about current law, even before we talk about making it more complicated. that ‘‘reformers’’ have imposed on political Let me just take a few excerpts out expression. What’s been created is a baffling of this article, because I think it really No matter. The failure of past ‘‘reforms’’ is maze of election laws and rules that, once is excellent, and sums up the nature of no barrier to future ‘‘reforms.’’ The latest ef- codified, establish new types of criminal or fort is the McCain-Feingold bill now before this debate. Bob Samuelson says: quasi-criminal behavior. Anyone tiptoeing the Senate. around the rules is said to be ‘‘skirting the The ‘‘reformers’’ claim they’re trying to Samuelson says: law.’’ And there are violations. In the futile lower public cynicism by cleansing politics effort to regulate politics, the ‘‘reformers’’ of the evils of money. Actually, they’re Most of the bill flouts the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment. have manufactured most of the immorality, doing the opposite: by putting so many unre- illegally and cynicism they deplore. alistic restrictions on legitimate political Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- Today’s ‘‘abuses’’ stem mostly from the activity, the ‘‘reformers’’ ensure that more sent that this article be printed in the 1974 ‘‘reforms’’ enacted after Watergate. Con- people—politicians, campaign workers, advo- RECORD. gress then limited the amount individuals cacy groups—will run afoul of the prohibi- There being no objection, the article give a candidate to $1,000 per election; total tions. Public cynicism rises as politics is was ordered to be printed in the giving to all candidates (directly, through criminalized. parties or committees) was limited to $25,000 RECORD, as follows: Mr. Samuelson goes on: a year. What happened? The limits inspired [From Newsweek, Oct. 6, 1997] evasions. Suppressing contributions to can- There is no easy way to curb the role of MAKING POLS INTO CROOKS—CAMPAIGN-FI- didates encouraged new political-action com- money in politics without curbing free ex- NANCE ‘‘REFORM’’ CRIMINALIZES POLITICS mittees. People give to PACs, which give to pression. If I favor larger (smaller) govern- AND DEEPENS PUBLIC CYNICISM candidates. In 1974, there were 608 PACs; now ment, I should be able to support like-mind- (By Robert J. Samuelson) there are nearly 4,000. ed candidates by helping them win. Cam- Another evasion is ‘‘independent spend- paign ‘‘reformers’’—who would like to re- The prospect that an independent counsel ing’’: groups (the Supreme Court says) can place private contributions with public sub- will be named to investigate the alleged promote a candidate by themselves if they sidies and impose strict spending limits—re- campaign-law violations of President Bill don’t ‘‘coordinate’’ with a candidate. The ject this basic principles. Clinton and Vice President Al Gore exposes a present evasion of concern is ‘‘soft money’’: Money, they say, is corrupting politics. It central contradiction of ‘‘campaign-finance contributions to parties for ‘‘party-building’’ isn’t. reform.’’ The ‘‘reformers’’ claim they’re try- activities like voter registration. ‘‘Soft Campaign spending isn’t out of control or ing to lower public cynicism by cleansing money’’ contributions have no limits; so outlandish. In the 1996 election, campaign politics of the evils of money. Actually, Tamraz could give $300,000. But ‘‘soft spending at all levels— they’re doing the opposite: by putting so money’’ can also be used for general TV ads many unrealistic restrictions on legitimate At all levels, Federal, State and that mention candidates as long as they political activity, the ‘‘reformers’’ ensure don’t use such words as ‘‘vote for.’’ Does any local— that more people—politicians, campaign of this make sense? Not really. Ordinary peo- totaled $4 billion, says political scientist workers, advocacy groups—will run afoul of ple can’t grasp all the obscure, illogical dis- Herbert Alexander of the Citizens’ Research the prohibitions. Public cynicism rises as tinctions. Foundation. That was one twentieth of one politics is criminalized. No matter. The failure of past ‘‘reforms’’ is percent of the gross domestic product of $7.6 The distasteful reality is that politics re- no barrier to future ‘‘reforms.’’ The latest ef- trillion. Americans spend about $20 billion a quires money. To compete, candidates must fort is the McCain-Feingold bill now before S10504 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE October 8, 1997 the Senate. Named after its sponsors (Repub- have ruled is constitutionally protected. And legalistic mumbo-jumbo, and so that at- lican John McCain of Arizona and Democrat when reformers placed tight limits on con- tempts to enforce them have made campaign Russell Feingold of Wisconsin), it would out- tributions to candidates, donors began giving law bewilderingly complex without accom- law ‘‘soft money’’ and try to ban ‘‘issue ad- to political parties instead: ‘‘soft money.’’ plishing any of the law’s goals. Campaigns vocacy’’ ads in the 60 days before an election The distinctions between ‘‘hard’’ and are neither cheaper not fairer nor less de- (‘‘Issue advocacy’’ ads favor or oppose can- ‘‘soft’’ money, and between ‘‘express advo- pendent on private money than, say, 30 years didates; the distinction between them and cacy’’ and ‘‘issue advocacy,’’ are grounded in ago—just the opposite, in fact. One conclu- ‘‘independent spending’’ cannot briefly be ex- legalistic mumbo-jumbo, and so the at- sion you might draw is that the 1970s-style, plained.) Most of the bill flouts the spirit, if tempts to enforce them have made campaign money-regulating model is bankrupt. An- not the letter, of the First Amendment: law bewilderingly complex without accom- other is that a horse-doctor’s dose of the old ‘‘Congress shall make no law . . . abridging plishing any of the law’s goals. Campaigns medicine will finally heal the patient. Enter the freedom of speech . . .; or the right of are neither cheaper nor fairer nor less de- Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Russell the people peaceably to assemble, and to pe- pendent on private money than, say, 30 years Feingold (D., Wis.). tition the Government for a redress of griev- ago—just the opposite, in fact. One conclu- Among many things their bill would do, ances.’’ sion you might draw is that the 1970s-style, two are paramount. First, it would ban ‘‘soft The connection between campaign ‘‘re- money-regulating model is bankrupt. An- money’’ given to political parties. Second, to form’’ and the Clinton-Gore predicament has other is that a horse-doctor’s dose of the old make the ‘‘soft money’’ ban work, it would emerged, ironically, in the complaints of medicine will finally heal the patient. Enter also restrict independent ‘‘issue advocacy.’’ ´ some ‘‘reformers’’ that the president and Sens. John McCain and Russell Feingold. Voila—no more money, right? Wrong. Lots and lots of money, but in dif- vice president are being unfairly targeted. In Among many things their bill would do, ferent places. Ban soft money, and lobbies The Washington Post, Elizabeth Drew says two are paramount. First, it would ban ‘‘soft would bypass the parties and conduct their that Gore behaved like a ‘‘klutz,’’ but money’’ given to political parties. Second, to own campaign blitzes. Candidates and par- ‘‘klutziness isn’t a federal crime.’’ The 1883 make the ‘‘soft money’’ ban work, it would law that he and the president may have vio- ties are already losing control of their mes- also restrict independent ‘‘issue advocacy.’’ sages as lobbies—which, unlike candidates lated (soliciting contributions from federal Voila—no more money, right? property), argues Drew, aimed to protect and parties, are not accountable to voters— Wrong. Lots and lots of money, but in dif- run independent advocacy campaigns. The civil servants from being shaken down by ferent places. Ban soft money, and lobbies McCain-Feingold bill would accelerate the politicians. In The New York Times, former would bypass the parties and conduct their alienation of politicians from their own cam- deputy attorney general Philip Heymann own campaign blitzes. Candidates and par- paigns, and, for good measure, it could also says the campaign against Gore aims only to ties are already losing control of their mes- starve the parties of funds. ‘‘destroy the Democratic front runner for sages as lobbies—which, unlike candidates The sponsors are aware that independent president.’’ and parties, are not accountable to voters— advertising might replace soft money: thus All this is true. But it misses the larger run independent advocacy campaigns. the bill’s remarkable new limits on all ads point: the campaign-finance laws are so arbi- that mention candidates within 60 days of an trary and complex that they invite ‘‘crimi- Mr. President, I see that my friend election. In the words of Sen. McCain: ‘‘Ads nality’’ or its appearance. Bad laws should be from Wisconsin is here. I am going to reserve the remainder of my time and could run which advocate any number of discarded. Rep. John Doolittle of California causes. Pro-life ads, pro-choice ads, antilabor sensibly suggests abandoning all contribu- ask that the entire Jonathan Rauch ar- ads, pro-wilderness ads, pro-Republican tion limits and enacting tougher disclosure ticle that I just was reading from be Party ads, pro-Democrat Party ads—all laws. The best defense against the undue in- printed in the RECORD. could be aired in the last 60 days. However, fluence of money is to let candidates raise it There being no objection, the article ads mentioning the candidates could not.’’ from as many sources as possible—and to let was ordered to be printed in the So, for example, I might commit a federal the public see who’s giving. That would be RECORD, as follows:] crime by taking out an ad in this newspaper genuine reform. criticizing Sen. McCain for supporting his [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 1, 1997] Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, also bill. The Founders would have run screaming in the Wall Street Journal of October 1, VOTE AGAINST MCCAIN, WAIT, CAN I SAY from such a notion, and rightly so: You can- there was a piece by Jonathan Rauch, THAT? not improve the integrity of any political who is a contributing editor to the Na- (By Jonathan Rauch) system by letting politicians restrict politi- tional Journal. I want to read a few The McCain-Feingold bill being debated in cal speech. parts of that. the Senate this week has become the default In real life the courts are likely to strike down McCain-Feingold’s speech controls, in Mr. Rauch said: option for campaign-finance reformers: If you are an editorialist who needs to suggest which case, of course, the limits would not The McCain-Feingold bill being debated in work. But even if the limits were allowed to the Senate this week has become the default something better than today’s tumbeldown system, you press the McCain-Feingold but- stand, they still would not work: Everybody option for campaign-finance reformers: If would race to game the system by dressing you are an editorialist who needs to suggest ton on your word processor. Well, the system today is rotten, and radical change is needed. up political expression in absurd costumes, something better than today’s tumbledown whose legitimacy would be contested ad nau- But McCain-Feingold, for all its good press system, you press the McCain-Feingold but- seam in the courts. Maybe my ad couldn’t and good intentions, is a bad bill. It would do ton on our word processor. Well, the system say ‘‘Vote against McCain and Feingold,’’ nothing to end the failures of the past 20 today is rotten, and radical change is needed. but could it say ‘‘Show the promoters of the years. Indeed, it would unflinchingly But McCain-Feingold, for all its good press dangerous McCain-Feingold bill how you compound them. and good intentions, is a bad bill. It would do feel’’? Who would decide? nothing to end the failures of the past 20 At the core of today’s troubles are two re- The potential for speech micromanage- years. Indeed, it would unflinchingly alities that will not yield to any amount of ment is endless. Imagine the fun lawyers compound them. legislative or lawyerly cleverness. The first could have with the bill’s exception for At the core of today’s troubles are two re- is that private money—a lot of it— is a fact ‘‘voter guides’’—a permissible voter guide alities that will not yield to any amount of of life in politics, and if you push it out of being (hold on tight, now) any printed mat- legislative or lawyerly cleverness. The first one part of the system it tends to re-enter ter written in an ‘‘educational manner’’ is that private money—a lot of it—is a fact somewhere else, usually deeper in shadow. about two or more candidates that (1) is not of life in politics, and if you push it out of The second is that money spent to commu- coordinated with a candidate, (2) gives all one part of the system it tends to re-enter nicate with voters cannot be regulated with- candidates an equal opportunity to respond somewhere else, usually deeper in shadow. out impinging on the very core of the First to any questionnaires, (3) gives no candidate The second is that money spent to commu- Amendment, which was written to protect any greater prominence than any other, and nicate with voters cannot be regulated with- political discourse above all. (4) does not contain a phrase ‘‘such as’’ (my out impinging on the very core of the First We got into today’s mess by defying both italics), ‘‘vote for,’’ ‘‘re-elect,’’ ‘‘support,’’ Amendment, which was written to protect of these principles, with predictable results. ‘‘defeat,’’ ‘‘reject’’ or other ‘‘words which in political discourse above all. When reformers placed limits on money context can have no reasonable meaning spent to support or defeat candidates, lobbies That is what they were thinking other than to urge the election or defeat of simply shifted to ad campaigns that omitted one or more candidates.’’ Is that clear? about when they wrote the first explicit requests to vote for or against can- So, after McCain-Feingold, campaign law amendment, political discourse. didates: ‘‘issue advocacy,’’ which the courts would become even more complex and mys- We got into today’s mess by defying both have ruled is constitutionally protected. And tifying. Politicians would remain men- of these principles, with predictable results. when reformers placed tight limits on con- dicants, forced by low contribution limits to When reformers placed limits on money tributions to candidates, donors began giving beg every day and in every way for dona- spent to support or defeat candidates, lobbies to political parties instead: ‘‘soft money.’’ tions. Our already weak parties would lose simply shifted to ad campaigns that omitted The distinctions between ‘‘hard’’ and their main source of funds, becoming weaker explicit requests to vote for or against can- ‘‘soft’’ money, and between ‘‘express advo- still. If the speech controls were upheld, po- didates: ‘‘issue advocacy,’’ which the courts cacy’’ and ‘‘issue advocacy,’’ are grounded in litical discussion would be both chilled and October 8, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10505 contorted. And if the speech controls were frequently. The Senator from Ken- the Supreme Court and, guess what? struck down, political campaigns would be tucky speaks frequently and elo- Unanimously that Supreme Court—of run by lobbies (‘‘independent expenditures’’) quently about the first amendment. which a majority of the Members were rather than by candidates and parties. Quite a reform. But the way our system is established, appointed by the majority party Presi- Even total deregulation would be better surely if you pass a bill in the Con- dents—unanimously ruled that that than McCain-Feingold, provided disclosure gress, a piece of legislation, a statute, was unconstitutional. were retained. For that matter, doing noth- it doesn’t amend the Constitution. Mr. President, both with regard to ing would be better. Best by a very long There is more to the process. The your concern that we be flexible and measure, however, would be a combination of President has to sign the bill, and it open to other people’s ideas, which I deregulation, disclosure and generous public financing for candidates who forgo private has to go up to the United States Su- think you and I have established a fund-raising—a plan which, instead of trying preme Court, unless nobody challenges good record on, and with regard to the to eliminate or micromanage private money, it. And I have a sneaking suspicion issue of the first amendment to the would give voters an alternative to it, and that somebody might challenge this Constitution, not only couldn’t I agree make the acceptance of private donations an bill if it became law. with you more, but I believe we have a issue in every campaign. So what is the worst-case scenario? lot to talk about and work together on Alas, all of those admittedly imperfect The worst-case scenario is that if, in to achieve campaign finance reform. ideas are bitterly opposed by the anti-money crusaders who gave us the system we have fact, there is a shred of our bill that is Since the Senator from Kentucky now, and who still predominate in the ‘‘re- unconstitutional, the Supreme Court continues in his steadfast way to make form community.’’ To change their minds, will say so and strike it down. They a record, which I hope one day will get campaign-finance law will probably have to know how to do their job. If we do our before the Supreme Court—he hopes it be made worse before it can be made better. job, they will do their job. That is ex- won’t get that far—let me address a That task, at least, McCain-Feingold would actly what they did in the very famous couple of other issues and put a few perform admirably. case of Buckley versus Valeo. They de- things of concern to me in the RECORD. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. termined that some elements of the The Senator from Kentucky has been The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- bill were constitutional, despite the proudly suggesting that the McCain- ator from Wisconsin. claim of the ACLU and others that Feingold bill is dead, and yet we are Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. they were not, and they said they were out here today debating it again, and President. Let me, first of all, con- OK. we will be debating it again. That is be- gratulate the occupant of the chair for For example, having a limitation on cause it is not going away. It is be- his vote yesterday. I heard his com- contributions. It is, obviously, the law cause it is not simply a question of var- ments this morning. The occupant of now, and the Senator from Kentucky ious elements of the media saying that the chair did the right thing yesterday. cannot dispute that it is the law, that the McCain-Feingold bill is a good He voted for cloture and joined 52 other right now somebody can’t give more idea. There are others who are not in Senators—a Senator we had not in the than $2,000 in the course of 6 years to a the media who, I think, are not easily past known for sure whether or not he U.S. Senate candidate in hard money. duped by the media who think we was going to vote for cloture on any That is a limitation. The Supreme occasion, and I very much appreciate ought to enact some of the things that Court said it is OK. are in the McCain-Feingold bill. that. On the other hand, in Buckley versus I realize that his words are sincere. Let me just put a few of those items Valeo, the Court said you can’t have He does, in fact, support campaign fi- in the RECORD. First, I ask unanimous overall mandatory spending limits be- nance reform. It is important that, consent that letters from former Presi- cause that, in their view, would be a again, the Senator from Arizona and I dents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and violation of the first amendment. signal what we have signaled in the George Bush endorsing a soft money So what is the threat to the first ban—a soft money ban, which is the past, and that is that we are very eager amendment of passing a piece of legis- to negotiate, whether on the floor or centerpiece of the McCain-Feingold lation about which we have a good- off the floor, to make a bill that would proposal—be printed in the RECORD. faith disagreement as to its constitu- be more palatable to Members on both There being no objection, the letters tionality? I happen to think it is clear sides of the aisle. were ordered to be printed in the I think the Senator from Arkansas that the major provisions of our bill RECORD, as follows: are constitutional. has indicated some excellent ideas in HOUSTON, TX, I would be the first to concede that the past. That is the signal I want to June 19, 1997. the closest case would be the one that give, despite whatever indications one Senator NANCY KASSEBAUM BAKER, the Senator from Kentucky has focused might feel from the press accounts, Washington, DC. which, of course, all of us have to take most of his firepower on in this debate, DEAR SENATOR KASSEBAUM: First, let me commend you and the former Vice President, with a grain of salt on both sides of the and that is the issue of what I like to call phony issue ads. But I can see that Ambassador Mondale, for taking a leadership issue. The fact is that many of us real- role in trying to bring about campaign re- ly would like to change this system, would be something the Supreme Court would have to take a long and hard form. and I believe the Senator who occupies I hope the current Congress will enact the chair is one of them. look at, and I think they should. That Campaign Reform legislation. Let me reiterate our offer, which I is why, Mr. President, I don’t support a We must encourage the broadest possible think we have made good on time and constitutional amendment to get this participation by individuals in financing time again, that if modifications need done. The first amendment is too sa- elections. Whatever reform is enacted should to be made to pass this terribly impor- cred. go the extra mile in demanding fullest pos- tant bill, we are ready to do it. That is So, I want to address your concern sible disclosure of all campaign contribu- tions. how the junior Senator from Maine be- about the first amendment to tell you that I was, I believe, the first or second I would favor getting rid of so called ‘‘soft came such a tremendous advocate for money’’ contributions but this principle our cause. She had some ideas that Member of the U.S. Senate to come out should be applied to all groups including were better than ours, and we incor- here and oppose something called the Labor. porated them and moved on to make Communications Decency Act. People I congratulate you for working for better the bill even better. fell all over each other voting for that campaign finance law enforcement. So I look forward to working with bill that would have censored the With my respects to you and Vice Presi- the occupant of the chair so that, once Internet. I came out here and said, dent Mondale I am, sincerely, again, he can feel comfortable voting ‘‘Look, on the face of this, even though GEORGE BUSH. for cloture as we continue to press this I am not a leading constitutional ex- pert but I have looked at the Constitu- JULY 17, 1997. issue on the floor, which we will do To VICE PRESIDENT WALTER MONDALE: until we get the result that the Amer- tion, on the face of it, this is unconsti- I am pleased to join former Presidents ican people demand. tutional.’’ Yet, I believe 84 Members of Bush and Ford in expressing hope that this Let me also suggest, this is a point this body, including the Senator from Congress will enact meaningful campaign fi- that seems to be missed in this debate Kentucky, voted for it, sent it up to nance reform legislation. For the future of S10506 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE October 8, 1997 our democracy, and as our experience may be the form of corporate or union treasury con- The original signers of the statement are emulated by other nations, prompt and fun- tributions to federal campaigns, or large and joined by: damental repair of our system for financing unregulated contributions from individuals. Bella Abzug (D-NY), Wendell Anderson (D- federal elections is required. From President Carter. MN), Mark Andrews (R-ND), Bob Bergland (D-MN), Rudy Boschwitz (R-MN), John The most basic and immediate step should President FORD indicated in a letter: Brademas (D-IN), William Brock (R-TN), , include an end to ‘‘soft money,’’ whether in . . . the need to end huge uncontrolled the form of corporate or union treasury con- Clarence Brown (R-OH), Jim Broyhill (R-NC), ‘‘soft money’’ contributions to the national Beverly Byron (D-MD), Rod Chandler (R- tributions to federal campaigns, or large and parties and their campaign committees, and unregulated contributions from individuals. WA), Dick Clark (D-IA), Tony Coelho (D-CA), to bar solicitation from ‘‘soft money’’ from Barber Conable (R-NY), Alan Cranston (D- The initial step should also include measures all persons, parties and organized labor by that provide for complete and immediate dis- CA), John Culver (D-IA), Hal Daub (R-NE), federal officeholders and candidates for any John Dellenback (R-OR), Butler Derrick (D- closures of political contributions and ex- political organizations . . . penses. SC), Tom Downey (D-NY), Don Edwards (D- Mr. President, how can these three CA), Mickey Edwards (R-OK), Robert Ells- To accomplish these and other reforms and Presidents, two from the Republican to lay the basis for future ones, we also need worth (R-KS), Karan English (D-AZ), James to develop a strong national consensus about Party and one from the Democratic Exon (D-NE), Dante Fascell (D-FL), Geral- the objectives of reform. It will take more Party, be considered pawns of a solely dine Ferraro (D-NY), Sheila Frahm (R-KS), than just the action of this Congress, but Democratic effort to pass campaign fi- Bill Frenzel (R-MN), Clifford Hansen (R-WY), fundamental reform is essential to the task nance reform? On its face it is absurd Fred Harris (D-OK), Thomas Hartnett (R- of repairing public trust in government in to suggest a bill led by the Senator SC), Howell Heflin (D-AL), Peter Hoagland our leaders. We must take significant steps from Arizona, a strong Republican, is (D-NE), Carroll Hubbard (D-KY), Walter Hud- to assure voters that public policy is deter- dleston (D-KY). such a bill. But here are two Repub- Martha Keys (D-KS), Melvin Laird (R-WI), mined by the exercise of their franchise rath- lican Presidents saying we should ban er than a broken and suspect campaign fi- Russell Long (D-LA), Mike Mansfield (D- MT), Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (D-PA), nance system. soft money. Yet, the effort to kill this Charles Mathias (R-MD), Ron Mazzoli (D- Please extend to Senator Nancy Kasse- bill would prevent the core element of KY), Paul McCloskey (R-CA), John Melcher baum Baker my appreciation for the work our bill to ban soft money. (D-MT), Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH), John that she has undertaken with you to advance Let me add, it is not just former Miller (R-WA), George Mitchell (D-ME), the essential cause of bipartisan campaign Presidents, Mr. President, it is also Frank (Ted) Moss (D-UT), Gaylord Nelson finance reform. former Members of this body and of the (D-WI), Dick Nichols (R-KS), Leon Panetta Sincerely, other body. Former Members of Con- (D-CA), Claiborne Pell (D-RI), David Pryor JIMMY CARTER. gress have endorsed our bipartisan (D-AR), Albert Quie (R-MN), John Rhodes III campaign finance reform bill and the (R-AZ), Matthew Rinaldo (R-NJ), Peter Ro- JULY 10, 1997. end of soft money. dino (D-NJ), Warrent Rudman (R-NH), Lynn DEAR SENATOR KASSEBAUM: Our system of I ask unanimous consent that a Schenk (D-CA), Richard Schweiker (R-PA), financing federal election campaigns is in se- Philip Sharp (D-IN), Paul Simon (D-IL), Jim rious trouble. To remedy these failings re- statement of former Members of Con- gress, dated September 29, 1997, be Slattery (D-KS), W.B. Spong (D-VA), Robert quires prompt action by the President and Stafford (R-VT), Al Swift (D-WA). the House and Senate. I strongly hope the printed in the RECORD. Congress in cooperation with the White There being no objection, the state- Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in House will enact Campaign Reform legisla- ment was ordered to be printed in the that letter, a number of our former col- tion by the forthcoming elections in 1998. RECORD, as follows: leagues from both Houses of the Con- Public officials and concerned citizens. Re- gress state: STATEMENT OF FORMER MEMBERS OF publicans and Democrats alike, have aleady CONGRESS We are pleased to join former Presidents identified important areas of agreement. Bush, Carter and Ford in expressing the hope We are pleased to join former Presidents These include (1) the need to end huge un- that the current Congress enact meaningful Bush, Carter and Ford in expressing the hope controlled ‘‘soft money’’ contributions to the bipartisan campaign finance reform legisla- that the current Congress enact meaningful national parties and their campaign commit- tion. bipartisan campaign finance reform legisla- tees, and to bar solicitation of ‘‘soft money’’ tion. This includes the names of people from all persons, parties and organized labor The distinguished former Presidents have like the distinguished former Member by federal officeholders and candidates for identified the indispensable core of reform: any political organizations; (2) the need to Nancy Kassebaum Baker, former Sen- (1) a ban on ‘‘soft money’’ contributions to provide rapid and comprehensive discount of ator from Kansas; Howard Baker, Jr., the national parties and their campaign or- contributions and expenditures in support of, former leader and Senator from Ten- ganizations, applied equally to contributions or opposition to, candidates for federal of- nessee; former Republican Senator of corporate and union treasury funds, as fice; and (3) the need to repair the system of well as to large individual contributions in John Danforth of Missouri, who I had campaign finance law enforcement by assur- excess of those permitted by law; (2) com- the honor to serve with briefly; former ing that it is effective and independent of plete and rapid disclosure of political con- Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon; politics. tributions and expenses; and (3) effective and former Senator Walter Mondale and A significant bi-partisan effort across politically independent enforcement of cam- former Vice President; former Senator party lines can achieve a legislative consen- paign finance laws. Bill Bradley from New Jersey; former sus in campaign reforms that will help to re- Some of us favor additional proposals, in- store the confidence of our citizens in their minority leader of the other body, Rob- cluding provisions to assure that a ban on ert Michel; former U.S. Senator Sam federal government. ‘‘soft money’’ is not circumvented through I commend you and former Vice President campaign advertisements that are thinly dis- Nunn; former Senator Al Simpson, the Mondale for your leadership on behalf of guised as ‘‘issue advocacy.’’ Together we be- Senator from Wyoming with whom I campaign reform. lieve it is time to test the merits of different disagreed frequently on the floor of the Sincerely, or competing ideas through debate and Senate who was among the toughest GERALD R. FORD. votes, but that any disagreement over fur- and most clever opponents you could Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ther reforms should not delay enactment of have on the floor, but he cosponsored would like to mention just a sentence essential measures, beginning with a ban on the McCain-Feingold bill last session from President Bush’s letter, who I soft money, where agreement is within after he made his retirement announce- don’t think is usually considered a reach. Our democracy will be strengthened when ment, and he still supports it. And the pawn of the liberal media. He says: the Congress acts to assure the American list goes on. I would favor getting rid of so called ‘‘soft public that the nation’s campaign finance Mr. President, I do not think these money’’ contributions but this principle system honors our nation’s ideals. folks are merely pawns of the media. should be applied to all groups including Nancy Kassebaum Baker (R-KS), Howard These folks have been here; they have Labor. H. Baker, Jr. (R-TN), David L. Boren seen it; they have done it. And they Of course, our soft money ban in our (D-OK), John C. Danforth (R-MO), know that spending a tremendous bill is comprehensive and includes Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR), Abner J. amount of your time in raising money labor. Mikva (D-IL), Patricia S. Schroeder (D- is the corrupting of this process. And CO), Walter F. Mondale (D-MN), Henry A letter from President Carter also Bellmon (R-OK), Bill Bradley (D-NJ), many of them, as they announced their indicates as follows: Thomas F. Eagleton (D-MO), Robert H. retirements, said they were sick and The most basic and immediate step should Michel (R-IL), Sam Nunn (D-GA), Alan tired of spending their time as Mem- include an end to ‘‘soft money,’’ whether in K. Simpson (R-WY). bers of Congress raising money. The October 8, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10507 killing of the bill, the vain attempt to Significant majorities might be found for system to other nations. Our model (or ‘‘the kill this bill, as it turns out, would pre- other reforms. As the debate goes forward, U.S. model’’) must be fundamentally re- vent the first efforts to get our atten- Congress should be encouraged to consider formed in terms of campaign financing to further steps to provide relief from the inces- warrant the faith of other countries. tion away from raising money and sant treadmill of fund-raising. However, we We can both personally attest that there is back to the business we were elected to should not delay action on those measures no greater honor than to serve your country. do. that can pass now. Yet the honor of public service is being tar- Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- Time is of the essence. Congressional elec- nished by a system of campaign funding that sent to have printed in the RECORD an tions are coming up next year. The presi- has made many Americans lose faith in the op-ed piece that appeared in the July dential campaign for the year 2000 will begin concept of public service as a virtue. That 18, 1997, Washington Post authored by soon after. Each day these elections draw service is diminished when elected officials former Republican Senator Nancy closer, the passage of reform becomes even are forced to spend so much time raising more difficult. Now is the best time to ad- Kassebaum, Baker, and former Vice money instead of focusing on the many im- vance legislation that will provide the Amer- portant issues they were elected to address. President Walter Mondale calling for ican people with a more effective and more We firmly believe that now is the time to bipartisan campaign finance reform equitable election process. restore Americans’ faith in their democracy, and a ban on soft money. It is no secret that the Senate will be the their government and their democratically There being no objection, the mate- first battleground for reform. There are hon- elected institutions. Meaningful, bipartisan rial was ordered to printed in the est differences that warrant debate there but campaign finance reform is needed to rein in also votes on their merits. We are confident RECORD, as follows: a system that is out of control. that the Senate’s leadership will recognize [From the Washington Post, July 18, 1997] As a minimal first step, Congress and the its responsibility to schedule campaign fi- president should approve legislation that CAMPAIGN FINANCE: FIX IT nance reform for early and full debate. And bans soft money, enhances enforcement of (By Nancy Kassebaum Baker and Walter F. speaking plainly, we further believe that the existing campaign finance laws and creates a Mondale) American public will deem unacceptable any more accountable disclosure system that in- President Clinton has challenged Congress tactic that prevents a majority of the Senate forms rather than obfuscates. These are the to ‘‘make this summer a time not of talk but from coming to a final vote. areas identified by former vice president of action’’ in fixing our broken system of We appreciate the value of Senate rules on Walter Mondale and former senator Nancy campaign financing. We agree whole- debate. But campaign finance issues are well Kassebaum Baker in their effort to promote heartedly. known to every member. Whatever any sen- reform. It is particularly important to seize Earlier this year the president asked the ator’s individual views on campaign finance this opportunity for reform now so it can im- two of us, a Republican and a Democrat, to issues may be, all senators should unite in prove the next presidential election. assist in the cause of bipartisan campaign fi- one conviction. The future of our democracy In order to accomplish this goal, both par- nance reform. Although pessimism about the requires them to address their differences in ties must lay down their partisanship and will of Congress to reform campaign finance public debate on the Senate floor and for rise to meet this challenge together. Leaders laws is widespread, we are optimistic that their votes on final passage to be recorded. of both parties have demonstrated their abil- the task can be achieved through a clear Most important is to set aside attempts to ity to work together on critical and conten- focus on necessary and achievable reforms, gain or maintain partisan advantage. The tious issues to do what is right for the coun- leadership and determination. time is now to come together to address the try. This is another such issue where co- Last month, we submitted an Open Letter integrity of our national government. Re- operation is the only road to results. It is to the President and Congress recommending storing that integrity demands honest, bi- impossible to expect one side to disarm uni- four areas in which to begin, without delay, partisan campaign finance reform. laterally in this massive arms race for funds. the task of ensuring that our nation’s cam- Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I also Rather, both sides must agree that bilateral paign finance system serves, rather than un- ask unanimous consent to have printed limits are the only rational course of action dermines, the interests of American democ- in the RECORD an opinion piece from to preserve the moral integrity of our elec- racy. toral system. First, Congress should promptly ban ‘‘soft last Sunday’s Washington Post coau- thored by former Presidents Carter and One item that we should all agree on is a money,’’ the huge uncontrolled contribu- ban of so-called ‘‘soft money’’ for national tions to national parties and their campaign Ford, who actually ran against each parties and their campaign committees. Soft organizations that have so dismayed the other in 1976, calling for campaign fi- money was initially intended exclusively for public. This prohibition would do much to nance reform and the end of the soft ‘‘party building’’ activities but has meta- slow the flood of campaign money and enable money system. morphosed into a huge supplemental source the nation to adhere to the justified premise There being no objection, the mate- of cash for campaigns and candidates. It is of earlier reforms, that massive amounts of rial was ordered to be printed in the one of the most corrupting influences in money from powerful sources distort elec- RECORD, as follows: modern elections because there is no limit tions and government. [From the Washington Post, Oct. 5, 1997] on the size of donations—thus giving dis- Second, we must ensure that ‘‘soft money’’ proportionate influence to those with the AND THE POWER OF THE BALLOT not continue its corrosive work under the deepest pockets. this disguise of ‘‘issue advocacy.’’ The elec- (By Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford) According to the Federal Elections Com- tion law should be tightened to distinguish When we ran against each other in 1976, the mission, both parties raised a record-break- clearly between media advertisements that modern campaign finance system was in its ing $262 million in soft money during the 1996 are campaign endorsements or attacks and infancy; it was the first presidential election elections. Recent news reports showed that those that genuinely debate issues. to make governed by strict limits and public financ- figure will be shattered again in 2000 if cur- a ‘‘soft money’’ ban fully meangingful the ing. Looking back, it is easy to recognize rent fund-raising rates continue. election law should establish consistent why the reforms of the 1970s were so essen- These figures make it absolutely clear rules for the financing of all electioneering tial. Today it is disheartening to witness what is at stake. If Congress does not act advertisements. changes that have distorted those reforms now to stem this massive flow of soft money, Third, disclosure rules should be broadened and shaken Americans’ faith in their democ- Americans’ cynicism and mistrust of govern- to ensure that voters know who is respon- racy. ment will only increase. And that step is sible for the accuracy and fairness of cam- We have watched as elections have grown only the beginning of needed fundamental paign advertisements. Increasingly, can- more controversial, more expensive, riddled reform. didates are bystanders in their own cam- with soft money and less understandable to We must demonstrate that a government paigns, not knowing the identity of sponsors the average voter. We have watched as par- of the people, by the people and for the peo- of messages that dominate the airwaves ticipation in presidential elections has de- ple is not a thing of the past. We must redou- close to elections. Also, with today’s tech- clined—plummeting during the last election ble our efforts to assure voters that public nology, even last-minute contributions and to the lowest levels since 1924. policy is determined by the checks on their expenditures can be revealed before Election Less than half of the voting-age population ballots rather than the checks from powerful Day. cast their ballots for president in 1996, and interests. Fourth, no reform will be worth much while there are many factors that might con- Jimmy Carter was president from 1977 to without effective enforcement. The Federal tribute to this disturbing figure, we believe 1981. Gerald Ford was president from 1974 to Election Commission must be strengthened. that a lack of public trust in government 1977. This should include the appointment of and in our system of democratic elections is Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I knowledgeable and independent-minded com- a major part of the problem. When people would like to place in the RECORD as missioners. Additionally, changes are needed feel disenfranchised from their political sys- well a couple of items from groups to allow for the full and timely resolution of tem, they stop participating in it. And when issues through the courts when the commis- that happens, democracy suffers. across the country that I think have sion is deadlocked or cannot act because of We have both worked in our public lives to- independent judgment, who are not lack of funds. ward the goal of exporting our democratic easily fooled by a media campaign in S10508 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE October 8, 1997 favor of a bill that would otherwise not cation’’. They serve God by serving the well- Some of you may be more familiar with have merit. The suggestion that this is being of all people. When public officials are my past activities in the business world. Per- all that is going on here is on its face consumed by constant fund raising, they haps you are curious why a successful busi- cannot adequately invest themselves in ful- nessman is getting involved in this ugly de- absurd, it is even a little insulting. filling the public leadership role with which bate. And what’s more, why he is persuading But I do not think you can say of the they have been entrusted. Our current cam- other business leaders to follow suit. National Council of the Churches of paign financing practices inflict frantic de- Personally, I was never a major political Christ that they were somehow tricked mands and exhausting requirements on polit- donor. It was not until 1988 when Michael into supporting something that isn’t ical leaders. Every sensitivity to them has to Dukakis ran for President that I began to really reform. So I ask unanimous con- insist on reform. make substantial political contributions. He So here we are—I on behalf of the National was a fellow graduate of Swathmore, and I sent to have printed in the RECORD a Council of Churches—to urge support for ef- though he was an honorable man who would statement by the National Council of fective campaign finance reform. We call for make a good President. During that race, I the Churches of Christ endorsing com- prompt consideration and passage of such a contributed $100,000 in soft money to the prehensive campaign finance reform reform bill, and urge legislators to oppose Democratic Party. which includes, Mr. President, specific amendments currently being offered to the I continued to support the party through references to a number of the provi- McCain-Feingold measure in an effort to kill 1992, but became increasingly uncomfortable sions in the McCain-Feingold bill and its passage. It is rooted in our religious tra- with the process. Although I wasn’t looking specifically references the McCain- dition of public morality and the pursuit of for access, I was given the opportunity many the common good. We call on people in times. I could only imagine what someone Feingold bill asking ‘‘legislators to op- churches and other religious communities who was looking for access might get for his pose amendments currently being of- across the land to support leaders in the Ad- or her money. When decisions from the rou- fered to the McCain-Feingold measure ministration and the Members of Congress tine to the profound are shaped by who gave in an effort to kill its passage.’’ I think who have the wisdom and courage to enact money and how much, who didn’t and why, it is an unmistakable reference to the genuine reform. and who might in return for what, we have a Lott amendments. Rev. Dr. ALBERT M. PENNYBACKER, problem. Clearly, money is undermining, Associate General Secretary, NCCC. rather than supporting democracy. I ask unanimous consent that it be Therefore, while I continue to have a great printed in the RECORD, and a statement CATHOLIC LOBBY DEMANDS CONGRESS MOVE deal of respect for those individuals who by NETWORK, a national Catholic so- ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM NOW choose public service, and I continue to sup- cial justice group. The press release en- NETWORK, a National Catholic Social port individual candidates from both parties, dorses the McCain-Feingold reform Justice Lobby supports campaign finance re- I no longer give soft money. proposal. form that promotes greater participation in I, and my colleagues on the Business Advi- There being no objection, the mate- the election process for all and believes com- sory Council of the Campaign Reform Project, believe these large money contribu- rial was ordered to be printed in the prehensive reform must include a public fi- nancing component as well as spending lim- tions distort the system giving unequal RECORD, as follows: its. NETWORK is very disappointed and con- weight to the opinions of the rich, the cor- NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE cerned about the lack of commitment by porations and the labor unions. CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE USA, Members of Congress for real campaign fi- Our children and grandchildren deserve a Washington, DC, October 4, 1997. nance reform and demands that Congress top better legacy—a legacy of a responsive and The National Council of Churches joins its political maneuvering and bring cam- responsible federal government. Therefore, with others today to urge legislators to paign finance reform up for debate and a rather than just cease making donations, I break the logjam which has blocked cam- vote. ‘‘To not deal with campaign finance re- want to insure that the campaign finance paign finance reform efforts for so long and form would be an affront to the voice of the system is reformed for my grandchildren to pass a meaningful bipartisan reform bill. people of our country. Project Independence and, ultimately, for the country. Therefore, I Our long-standing commitment to campaign is a clear example of the desire people have am committing substantial personal re- finance reform grows directly from profound for real campaign finance reform’’ declares sources to this effort because the stakes are religious faith: every human being is a per- Kathy Thornton, RSM, NETWORK’s Na- too high not to. I have dedicated funds to both the Cam- son of dignity and worth as a child of God. In tional Coordinator. our democracy a signal of that dignity and NETWORK sees the stripped down version paign Reform Project and the Campaign for worth is a fair and just electoral process of the McCain (R-AZ)—Feingold (D-WI) cam- America. Both organizations are committed where all people are included equitably and paign finance reform bill S. 25 as a positive to fundamental campaign finance reform. with respect. incremental step, not as the final answer to The Campaign for America joined with Com- What a moral affront to buy or sell either reforming the campaign finance system. mon Cause in Project Independence to col- lect the signatures of over one million citi- the public trust or the individual vote! In Therefore, NETWORK does support S. 25, but zens who support campaign finance reform. our policy statements we have long held that opposes Senator Lott’s amendment because With the Campaign Reform Project, we’ve it sees it as a poison pill that is designed to unfair campaign financing violates the worked to organize business leaders in sup- moral integrity of public life. kill meaningful campaign finance reform. NETWORK, a National Catholic Social port of this issue. Many of our members are Our support for current campaign finance elder statesmen from the business commu- reform comes from seeing it as an important Lobby is a membership organization which lobbies, educates and organizes on the fed- nity. The presence here today of Mr. Murphy step in moral correction. Of course, even the and Mr. Rosenberg illustrates the deep con- proposed legislation is not perfect. Inequities eral level from a faith-based perspective pro- moting economic justice for people who are cern they have with this system. will still need attention. But we believe that Any many other individuals. Warren poor and marginalized. such reform can strengthen the control of Buffett, Alan Hassenfeld, and Arjay Miller, corrupting processes that attack the very Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask to name just a few, have joined with us in heart of democratic elections. The undue in- unanimous consent that statements by this fight for reform. fluence of money diminishes the voting Jerome Kohlberg, founder of the Cam- I call it a fight because I know it would be power of ordinary citizens. paign Reform Project, Thomas S. Mur- one. While a very sensible and modest pro- Further, we are very concerned about phy, and Richard Rosenberg, and a list posal toward reform has been offered in the widespread disillusionment with public life, of two dozen former and current cor- Senate, I fear that there are many who and especially political life. Religion means would prefer the status quo. for us God’s mandate for the well-being of all porate chief executive officers who All of us sitting around this table under- people. We have long sought ‘‘the common have endorsed bipartisan, comprehen- stand the process for making a deal. We’ve good’’. We have long stood against religious sive campaign finance reform be print- been deal-makers. We know that closing a self-seeking or the private advantage of any ed in the RECORD. deal on campaign finance reform isn’t going religious group. It is not our ‘‘good’’ we seek; There being no objection, the mate- to be easy. But, we do believe it is possible. it is the ‘‘common good’’. Disillusionment rial was ordered to be printed in the The proposal that is pending now before the and cynicism over politics and electoral RECORD as follows: Senate is a reasonable one. It seems to us processes must be addressed. We believe that that it’s a package everyone should support. campaign finance reform can be a step to- CRP BUSINESS ADVISORY COUNCIL However, we suspect there are those who ward building ‘‘the common good.’’ (By Jerome Kohlberg, Founder, Campaign may try adding amendments that are likely Let me add one more piece to our public Reform Project) to make it unreasonable—in other words, endorsement of campaign finance reform. In Thank you for joining us this morning, My kill the deal. We believe that is unaccept- Protestant Christian heritage we have long name is Jerome Kohlberg. I founded the able. affirmed what we call ‘‘Christian vocation’’. Campaign Reform Project (and its sister or- Democracy is serious business. Campaign Many elected public officials see their works ganization Campaign for America) for one finance reform will help restore some public as a public trust, and go about it with a gen- purpose—to end the influence of money in confidence in our democratic system of cam- uine sense of religious commitment—a ‘‘vo- politics. paigns and elections. We are here today to October 8, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10509 say the system must be changed. I have been So what could we do in the short term? We there are a whole lot of businesspeople pleased that so many business leaders have decided to educate other business leaders and that are tired of being the fall guys of been willing to put their name to the call for recruit them to join us. We also evaluated this system. reform as is evidenced by the ad we will run the prospects for reform and decided that Under the system, even with hard tomorrow. We will continue, over the next something had to be enacted this year. We weeks, to further galvanize the business came to a consensus that any reform must money, let alone soft money, where community in support of reform. Thank you. include, at a minimum: a ban on soft money they can be asked for hundreds of thou- and stronger financial disclosure require- sands of dollars, a lot of these CEO’s CRP BUSINESS ADVISORY COUNCIL ments and reporting rules. feel like they have become the fall (By Thomas S. Murphy, Retired-Chairman & Changes in both of these areas would con- guys of American politics. CEO, Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.) stitute significant first steps. But, I must I actually had the CEO of one of It is a pleasure to be here and join Jerry in stress, only first steps. Our long-term agenda these companies, the Federal Express this important endeavor. As members of the focuses on the principles I outlined earlier. I Co., come to visit me after last year’s Campaign Reform Project’s Business Advi- think they are important enough to mention episode, where they were able to insert sory Council evaluated the prospects for re- again—leveling the playing field between form this year, it became clear that doing challengers and incumbents, increasing ac- a provision into the Federal aviation something to curtail the explosion of soft cess to electronic media in order to facilitate bill that allowed them to not have a money needed to be a top priority. more direct communication from candidates, national union even though, as we very All of the improprieties being examined in and curtailing the overall cost of campaigns. well know, their competitor, the Unit- the Senate Government Affairs Committee ed Parcel Service does have a national are related to soft money. It is a system that BUSINESS ADVISORY COUNCIL union, which they had to contend with has gone out of control. Jerome Kolberg, Founder. As you know, in the 1996 election cycle, the recently, but they were able to place a Robert L. Bernstein, Former Chairman/ parties raised over $260 million in soft provision in that bill, even though they President of Random House. money—more than three times the $87 mil- had not won a vote on any occasion on George T. Brophy, Chairman, President & lion raised in the 1992 election cycle. What’s the particular issue, shortly after they CEO, ABT Building Products Corporation. more, although a Los Angeles Times survey John H. Bryan, Chairman & CEO, Sara Lee gave each of the two parties—I want to released earlier this week indicated that 26 Corp. check my notes on this—but I believe percent of the nations largest 544 corpora- Warren E. Buffett, Chairman, Berkshire they gave them each $100,000 of soft tions made no political contributions, this Hathaway, Inc. money just a few days—just a few percentage was even higher four years ago. William H. Davidow, General Parnter, Unfortuantely, more and more business lead- days—before this provision was in- Mohr, Davidow Ventures. ers feel in order to come out on top, they serted into the bill. Walter Gerken, Chairman of the Equity must play the soft money game. When I met with the CEO, who is a Board, PIMCO Advisors, L.P. Therefore, a soft money ban would go a tremendous entrepreneur in this coun- Alan Hassenfield, Chairman & CEO, long way toward fixing the most egregious Hasbro, Inc. try, he said he has no choice, in effect, problem. But, it is not enough. It is also nec- Ivan J. Houston, Retired—Chief Executive that if this is the way the rules are set essary to improve the system of reporting Officer, Golden State Mutual Life Insurance up, he has to represent his employees contributions. Electronic disclosure would Co. and his shareholders and he has to be one step, expanding reporting require- Robert J. Kiley, President, New York City ments for independent expenditure cam- fight and make political contributions, Partnership. paigns might be another. An FEC with teeth and he has to play hardball in effect. Melvin B. Lane, Former Publisher & Co- would also be a major improvement. He did. He won. Our group, the Business Advisory Council, Chairman, Lane Publishing Co.-Sunset Mag- You know what? During that UPS has worked to solicit the support from sev- azine. strike, Federal Express, which has that eral of our colleagues for this effort. Morton H. Meyerson, Chairman & CEO, Perot Systems Corp. protection against such national union We began at the beginning of the year with advocacy, Federal Express picked up only a few of us. As you can see from the ad, Arjay Miller, Dean Emeritus, Graduate however, the number of business leaders call- School of Business, Stanford University, something like 10 to 15 percent of ing for reform in 1997 has grown substan- Former President, Ford Motor Co. UPS’s market share, something they tially. Thomas S. Murphy, Retired-Chairman & had been trying to do forever. And this list is a work in progress. Many CEO, Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. My point in introducing this item others, as evidenced by the survey I cited Sol Price, Price Entities. from the business leaders is to suggest earlier, support these modest reforms which Sanford R. Robertson, Chairman, Robert- that even the business leaders, who son Stephens & Co. will help restore public confidence in the po- many might associate with the other litical process. Arthur Rock, Arthur Rock & Co. We’re not naive. We’re pragmatic. We be- Richard Rosenberg, Former Chairman & side of the aisle in many cases, are say- lieve that Congress can no longer avoid tak- CEO, Bank of America. ing, we are sick and tired of being the ing action. Jane E. Shaw, Ph.D., Founder, The Stable fall guys of a system that essentially Network. has the potential to shake them down, CRP BUSINESS ADVISORY COUNCIL Thomas W. Smith, President & Founder, otherwise, they are afraid their com- (By Richard Rosenberg, Former Chairman & Prescoft Investors, Inc. petitor might get an edge. CEO, Bank of America) Donald Stone, Former Chairman & CEO, It is almost exactly what Mr. Tamraz When I first became involved with the MLSI. said when he indicated by paying Robert D. Stuart, Jr., Chairman Emeritus, Campaign Reform Project it was around a $300,000 he got the room the other peo- broad set of principles—reducing special in- The Quaker Oats Company. terest money in political campaigns, Dr. P. Roy Vagelos, Former Chairman & ple got that paid $300,000. That is ac- strengthening financial disclosure require- CEO, Merck & Co., Inc. cess, and that is how you get in the ments, leveling the playing field between A.C. Viebranz, Former Senior Vice Presi- room, and that is in effect the Amer- challengers and incumbents, increasing ac- dent, External Affairs, GTE Corporation. ican way. That seemed to be what he cess to electronic media, and curtailing the Thomas S. Volpe, President & CEO, Volpe was saying. It is pretty sad that has be- cost of campaigns. Brown Whelan & Company, LLC. come the American way. When members of the Business Advisory Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this Even some of the corporate leaders of Council met this past spring and summer, we one makes an interesting point, that this country do not want this to be- affirmed our support for these principles, but is, that in addition to the various we also focused on what we could accomplish come what it has become, which is in now. church and other religious groups, in effect a corporate democracy, a democ- As business executives, we know the value addition to former Presidents, in addi- racy dominated by big money, not by of both short and long term results. We rec- tion to former Members of Congress, in the average citizen’s right to have ognize that business has a critical role to addition to the hundreds of editorials their vote count the same as others. play in reforming the current campaign fi- by liberal papers, conservative papers, Mr. President, I also ask unanimous nance system. Nothing would revive reform moderate newspapers all across the consent to have printed in the RECORD faster than corporate America halting its country that have supported McCain- a statement by Jay Lintner of the soft money contributions. Many business leaders already feel the system has become Feingold and believe it has merit, that United Church of Christ calling for an industry unto itself, caught up in a per- what we have discovered, Senator comprehensive campaign finance re- petual cycle that undermines both democ- MCCAIN and I, the Senator from Ari- form, and a statement from the Church racy and genuine business interests. zona and I have discovered, is that Women United endorsing the McCain- S10510 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE October 8, 1997 Feingold proposal, and a statement by paign finance reform which calls for tougher ican democracy, a system which can help the Religious Action Center of Reform restrictions on special-interest PACs and salvage our collective faith in public service. Judaism in support of comprehensive spending limits for congressional candidates. We pledge our vigorous support in this his- campaign finance reform. CWU is aware of the increasing role special toric effort. interest money plays in influencing politi- There being no objection, the mate- Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, at cians and policy. Members of Congress are this point these are all the items I rial was ordered to be printed in the rapidly losing their ability to represent the RECORD, as follows: interest of the common good in favor of a want to place in the RECORD at this time. But fortunately this debate will OFFICE FOR CHURCH IN SOCIETY more narrow, wealthy constituency. As such, UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, we view campaign finance reform as one of continue in one form or another. We Washington, DC, October 6, 1997. the major challenges in ensuring that the will have an important cloture vote PRESS STATEMENT—THE REV. JAY LINTNER needs of poor women and children are taken shortly on the overall bill. seriously in the formation and implementa- Do we have a democracy or a dollarocracy? Tomorrow, there will be two more tion of public policy. Until politicians are Do politicians represent people or money? cloture votes. And it will continue be- Our mythology is democracy. The reality, freed from the pressures of monied interests, cause it is absolutely essential that we made very apparent in the elections last it will remain difficult to have the needs of do not disgrace ourselves by going Fall, is that politicians are bought and sold those without means heard. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance re- home, certainly for the 1998 elections, in the open market. All efforts at reform form bill is a first step at recognizing and and even more importantly just going have collapsed, and the Senate prepares to correcting the imbalance of power in our po- home at the end of this session having filibuster and confuse the issue. Every other country in the world knows litical system. We applaud all members of displayed to the American people all that money rules. Are we the last naive the House and Senate who are co-sponsoring the abuses of the current system, the country on earth? Or are we the first country the bill. We encourage others who currently areas where the law is insufficient, the whose guiding ideology may lead us into a are not supportive to join in these efforts to areas where there are loopholes in the new reality? Is the Holy Spirit at work, em- help make the electoral process more rep- law, and then to return home and say powering people to turn the political order resentative of the interests of all U.S. citi- zens. to everyone, ‘‘You know what? We upside down? didn’t do anything about it. We didn’t I’m speaking today on behalf of 18 major pass a single piece of legislation.’’ denominations and faith groups—AME, STATEMENT OF MARK PELAVIN—RELIGIOUS Methodist, Episcopal, United Church of ACTION CENTER OF REFORM JUDAISM, OCTO- I don’t think any of us on either side Christ, Union of American Hebrew Congrega- BER 6, 1997 of the aisle consider that to be an ac- tions. We are here to say that campaign fi- On behalf of the Union of American Hebrew ceptable outcome. nance reform is not just some political, par- Congregations and the Central Conference of I would like finally to say again to tisan issue. It is a moral issue. American Rabbis, their 860 congregations the Chair, I look forward to working to The prophet Isaiah said it well: ‘‘Your and 1,800 rabbis, and the 1.5 million Reform negotiate the kind of legislation that princes are rebels and companions of thieves. Jews throughout the United States and Can- he can support. And I again thank him Everyone loves a bride and runs after gifts. ada, I am proud to be here today to add our for his vote yesterday. They do not defend the orphan and the wid- voice to those calling, urgently, for serious Mr. President, I yield the floor. campaign finance reform. ow’s cause does not come before them’’ (Isa- Mr. President, I suggest the absence iah 1:23). Our call for comprehensive campaign fi- The front page today says that the Capitol nance reform is reflective of the views of of a quorum. Hill princes put 129 pork barrel projects in many mainstream religious communities. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The the recent military construction bill, more From the pews and pulpits of our churches clerk will call the roll. money given away in one bill than all the and synagogues across the nation, we hear The assistant legislative clerk pro- campaign contributions that bought the that campaign finance reform is not an eso- ceeded to call the roll. politicians. Is there some bill here where teric technical issue of election regulations, Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I they’ve sneaked some money for the widows but one that goes to the essence of the ethi- ask unanimous consent that the order and orphans? cal and moral life of our nation. We hear peo- for the quorum call be rescinded. Can we get moral corruption out of the po- ple asking: The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without litical process? Politicians count on public How can we expect just results from an un- apathy, public cynicism, public awareness just system, one in which monied interests objection, it is so ordered. that this is the way rulers always rule. hold every advantage, and those who most Mr. MCCONNELL. Parliamentary in- This is more than a moral problem. This is need the helping hand of government—the quiry, in a quorum call is the time a spiritual problem. Have we given up faith poor, our children—cannot make their voices equally charged to both sides? in government, in our common community heard above the din? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time shaping a moral order? No. We sent out How can we—whose religious calling in- is charged to the side which puts in the 100,000 packets of petitions to our churches cludes the imperative to speak for the widow quorum call, unless consent is granted and synagogues, and now our petitions are and the orphan, for the poor and the chil- to divide that equally. laid at the feet of the capitol. dren—accept an electoral process which Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I We will not go away. The gates of hell will structurally and systematically favors the ask unanimous consent that four let- not prevail and the gates of Washington will richest among us? not prevail. We demand a ban on soft money, How can we acquiesce in a system which ters from the American Civil Liberties and we demand much more comprehensive forces those who seek public office, or who Union, outlining the constitutional in- reform that breaks the power of big money wish to continue in public service, to spend firmities of the McCain-Feingold bill, buying our electoral process. We want our so much of their precious time and energy be printed in the RECORD. I understand politicians back, accountable to we the peo- not raising the nation’s moral conscience that the Government Printing Office ple, not we the dollars. but raising campaign funds? estimates the cost of printing these ar- If we are serious about seeking justice, and ticles in the RECORD to be approxi- CHURCH WOMEN UNITED SUPPORTS CAMPAIGN we are, then we cannot, and we will not, ac- mately $2,500. FINANCE REFORM EFFORTS cept such a system. There being no objection, the letters WASHINGTON, DC, October 6, 1997.—Church We stand at the brink of a historic oppor- Women United (CWU) stands in solidarity tunity. Real reform is within reach. But were ordered to be printed in the today with all citizens concerned over the in- first, the Senate must prove that it is com- RECORD, as follows: tegrity of our democratic system. In particu- mitted to ending the status quo. The Lott AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, lar, we support the efforts of Senators Amendment, which the Senate will consider Washington, DC, October 1, 1997. McCain, Feingold and Thompson and Rep- tomorrow, was designed as a distraction, Hon. MITCH MCCONNELL, resentatives Shays and Meehan to reform crafted to protect politics as usual. (And how Russell Senate Office Building, the current system of raising and spending ironic, and revealing, that in attempting to Washington, DC. private money to finance election cam- derail vital legislation to open up our politi- DEAR SENATOR MCCONNELL: Ever since the paigns. cal system, Senator Lott and his supporters’ very first version of the various McCain- Church Women United is a 55-year-old, ecu- first thought is to undermine the political Feingold campaign finance bills were intro- menical movement of Christian women from voice of America’s working men and women!) duced in the Senate, the ACLU has gone on Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox tradi- We call on our elected leaders to reject the record to assert that each version was fa- tions. Since our beginnings, we have worked Lott Amendment and to work toward the tally and fundamentally flawed when meas- for a just and peaceful world, with a special creation of a more ethical campaign financ- ured against settled First Amendment prin- concern for women and children. In 1986, ing system, a system which will reinforce ciples. Now the Senate is debating a new ‘‘re- CWU adopted a policy in support of cam- rather than tarnish the principles of Amer- vised’’ incarnation of the bill. While we are October 8, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10511 pleased that the sponsors of the new version laws. And it permits issue discussion to go advocate the election or defeat of a clearly have abandoned some of the more egregious forward at the time that it is most vital in identified candidate, they are free to spend as provisions that appeared in earlier versions, a democracy: during an election season. much as they want to promote the candidate the ‘‘pared down’’ bill still cuts to the core of The new version of the McCain-Feingold and his views.’’ 424 U.S. at 45 (emphasis sup- the First Amendment. We once again urge bill once again would obliterate the bright plied). The purpose of this profound distinc- you to reject McCain-Feingold’s unconstitu- line test of ‘‘express advocacy’’ which the tion is to keep campaign finance regulations tional and unprecedented assaults on free- courts have fashioned over a period of 25 from overwhelming all political and public dom of speech and association. years to protect the broad range of issue dis- speech. And it is this distinction which de- Although the bill has a number of con- cussion in America from campaign finance fenders of the constitutionality of a ban on stitutional flaws, this letter focuses on those controls. Instead, the bill would impose un- ‘‘soft money’’ continue to disregard. that impose restrictions primarily on issue precedented controls on issue advocacy in The same principles that protect unre- advocacy. It is important to note at the out- clear violation of settled First Amendment strained advocacy by issue groups safeguard set that the recent letter from 126 law pro- principles. issue advocacy and activity by political par- fessors, commenting on McCain-Feingold, The new bill attacks issue advocacy on a ties. ‘‘Soft money’’ is funding that does not was silent on the issue advocacy restrictions number of fronts. support ‘‘express advocacy’’ of the election in the bill, which are the subject of this let- It abandons the bright-line test of express or defeat of federal candidates, even though ter. advocacy in favor of a permanent year-round it may exert an influence on the outcome of 1. The unprecedented restrictions on issue restriction on issue advocacy redefined in an federal elections in the broadest sense of advocacy contained in the McCain-Feingold unconstitutionally vague, overbroad and wa- that term. It sustains primary political ac- bill are flatly unconstitutional under settled tered-down fashion. tivity by parties such as get-out-the-vote First Amendment doctrine. It imposes, in effect, a two-month, 60 day drives and issue advertising. Because it is The Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo well blackout before any federal election on any not used for express advocacy, it can be understood the risks that overly broad cam- radio or television advertisement on any raised from sources that would be restricted paign finance regulations could pose to elec- issue if that communication ‘‘mentions’’ any in making contributions or expenditures. toral democracy because ‘‘[discussion of pub- candidate for federal office. Compare Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Com- lic issues and debate on the qualifications of It restrains any communication that ex- merce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990) with First National candidates are integral to the operation of presses ‘‘support for or opposition to’’ any- Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978). the system of government established by our one who is a candidate for office. Indeed, the unrestricted use of soft money Constitution.’’ 424 U.S. at 14. The Court rec- These unprecedented restrictions would ef- by political parties and non-party organiza- ognized that ‘‘the distinction between dis- fectively silence issue advocacy by the tions like labor unions has been invited by cussion of issues and candidates and advo- countless hundreds and thousands of groups Buckley (‘‘So long as persons and groups es- cacy of election or defeat of candidates may that add to the political debate in America. chew . . .’’), authorized by Congress (see 2 often dissolve in practical application. Can- These proposals would all undermine the U.S.C. sections 431 (8)(A)(I) and (B)(xii) didates, especially incumbents, are inti- purpose of the ‘‘express advocacy’’ doctrine, which permit soft money for state elections mately tied to public issues involving legis- which is to keep campaign finance regula- and voter registration and get out the vote lative proposals and governmental actions. tions from overwhelming all political and drives), sanctioned and enhanced by rulings Not only do candidates campaign on the public speech. They would do so by dramati- of the Federal Election Commission and ac- basis of their positions on various public is- cally expanding the statutory definition of knowledged by the Supreme Court last year sues, but campaigns themselves generate is- express advocacy and thereby impermissibly in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Com- sues of public interest.’’ 424 U.S. at 43. If any sweeping an enormous amount of protected mittee v. Federal Election Commission, 116 S.Ct. discussion of a candidate in the context of issue advocacy within the net of campaign fi- 2309 (1996), which upheld unlimited ‘‘hard discussion of an issue rendered the speaker nance regulations. money’’ independent expenditures by politi- subject to campaign finance controls, the The current version of McCain-Feingold cal parties on behalf of their candidates. consequences for free discussion would be in- takes a ‘‘new’’ approach to silencing issue Most pertinently, the Colorado Republican tolerable and speakers would be compelled advocacy, but it is no less flawed than its Court reached that conclusion despite argu- ‘‘to hedge and trim,’’ Id., quoting Thomas v. predecessors. Once again, the clear purpose ments that unrestrained soft money con- Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 535 (1945). and inevitable effect of the provisions in the tributions were undermining the Act’s limi- Accordingly, the Court reasoned, under the revised McCain-Feingold bill will be to shut tations on hard money party funding: First Amendment, campaign finance con- down citizen criticism of incumbent office- ‘‘We recognize that FECA permits individ- trols had to be limited and could only apply holders standing for re-election at the very uals to contribute more money ($20,000) to a to ‘‘communications that in express terms time when the public’s attention is espe- party than to a candidate ($1,000) or to other advocate the election or defeat of a clearly cially focused on such issues. political committees ($5,000). . . . We also identified candidate.’’ Conversely, all speech Given the fact that the proposed restraints recognize that FECA permits unregulated which does not ‘‘in express terms advocate on issue advocacy are targeted primarily at ‘‘soft money’’ contributions to a party for the election or defeat of a clearly identified criticism of incumbent legislators during an certain activities, such as electing can- candidate’’ must be totally free from permis- election season, the danger to the core pur- didates for state office . . . or for voter reg- istration and ‘‘get out the vote’’ drives. . . . sible controls. ‘‘So long as persons and poses of the First Amendment posed by such But the opportunity for corruption posed by groups eschew expenditures that in express legislation is clear and present. these greater opportunities for contributions terms advocate the election or defeat of a 2. The unprecedented and sweeping re- is, at best, attenuated. Unregulated ‘‘soft clearly identified candidate, they are free to straints on the ‘‘soft money’’ funding of money’’ contributions may not be used to in- spend as much as they want to promote the issue advocacy and political activity by po- fluence a federal campaign, except when used candidate and his views.’’ 424 U.S. at 45. And litical parties raise severe First Amendment in the limited party-building activities spe- they are free from reporting and disclosure problems. A central critical distinction has informed cifically designated by statute.’’ Id. at 2316. requirements as well. And the Court’s suggestion that Congress The Court fashioned the express advocacy the Supreme Court’s campaign finance juris- ‘‘might decide to change the statute’s limi- doctrine to safeguard issue advocacy from prudence. Contributions and expenditures tations on contributions to political par- made by federal candidates, or those who ex- campaign finance controls, even though such ties’’—which has been taken out of context pressly advocate their election or defeat, discussion might influence the outcome of an by defenders of McCain-Feingold’s soft may be subject to regulation. All other polit- election. The doctrine provides a hard, money ban—referred to hard money dona- bright-line, objective test that protects po- ical and issue advocacy and discussion—even tions. litical speech and association by focusing though it might influence the outcome of an Accordingly, we submit that McCain- solely on the content of the speaker’s words, election—may not be subject to govern- Feingold’s sweeping controls on the amount not the motive in the speaker’s mind or the mental control. This constitutional Con- and source of soft money contributions to impact of the speaker’s opinions, or the tinental Divide is compelled by the First political parties and disclosure of soft money proximity to an election, or the phase of the Amendment and is built upon the concept disbursements by other organizations con- moon. The doctrine marks the boundary of that only ‘‘express advocacy’’ of the election tinue to raise severe constitutional prob- permissible regulation and frees issue advo- or defeat of specific federal candidates can be lems. Disclosure, rather than limitation, of cacy from any permissible restraint. subject to regulation. large soft money contributions to political The Buckley Court could not have been Accordingly, while candidate-focused con- parties, is the more appropriate and less re- more clear about the need for that bright tributions and expenditures and ‘‘express ad- strictive alternative. line test which focuses solely on the speak- vocacy’’ can be subject to various restric- McCain-Feingold’s labyrinth of restric- er’s words and which is now an integral part tions or regulations, the Court in Buckley v. tions on party funding and political activity of settled First Amendment doctrine. It was Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) held that all speech can have no other effect but to deter and dis- designed to protect issue discussion and ad- which does not ‘‘in express terms advocate courage precisely the kind of political party vocacy by allowing independent groups of the election or defeat of a clearly identified activity that the First Amendment was de- citizens to comment on and criticize the per- candidate’’ is totally free of any permissible signed to protect. formance of elected officials without becom- regulation: ‘‘So long as persons and groups The ACLU continues to believe that the ing ensnared in the federal campaign finance eschew expenditures that in express terms most effective and least constitutionally S10512 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE October 8, 1997 problematic route to genuine reform is a sys- issue advocacy provisions of the revised bill quire disclosure of issue advocacy through tem of equitable and adequate public financ- are unconstitutional. Such unconstitutional statute and through FEC regulation have re- ing. While reasonable people may disagree provisions include: peatedly been declared unconstitutional by about the proper approaches to campaign fi- A permanent, year-round restriction on the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. nance reform, this bill’s restraints on politi- issue advocacy achieved through redefining The Court has always viewed issue advocacy cal party funding and issue advocacy raise express advocacy in an unconstitutionally as a form of speech that deserves the highest profound First Amendment problems and vague and watered-down manner. The key to degree of protection under the First Amend- should be opposed. The bill has a number of the existing definition of express advocacy is ment. Not only has the Court been support- other severe flaws, some old, some new, the inclusion of an explicit directive to vote ive of issue advocacy, the justices have af- which we will address in a future commu- for or vote against a candidate. Minus the firmatively stated that they are untroubled nication. But we wanted to take the oppor- explicit directive or so-called ‘‘bright line by the fact that issue advertisements may tunity to share our assessment of two of the test,’’ what constitutes express advocacy influence the outcome of an election. In fact, most salient problems with the bill now. will be in the eye of the beholder, in this in Buckley v. Valeo, the justices stated: Sincerely, case the FEC. Few non-profit issue groups ‘‘The distinction between discussion of is- IRA GLASSER, will want to risk their tax status to engage sues and candidates and advocacy of the Executive Director. in speech that could be interpreted by the election or defeat of candidates may often LAURA W. MURPHY, FEC to have an influence on the outcome of dissolve in practical application Candidates, Director, Washington an election. especially incumbents, are often intimately Office. A two-month black out on all television tied to public issues involving legislative and radio issue advertising before primary JOEL GORA, proposals and governmental actions. Not Professor of Law, and general elections. The only individuals only do candidates campaign on the basis of Brooklyn Law and groups that will be able to characterize their positions on various public issues, but a candidate’s record on radio and television School, and Coun- campaigns themselves generate issues of during this 60 day period would be the can- sel to the ACLU. public interest. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 didates, PACs and the media. It seems this (1976) at 42.’’ ban would exclude issue advertising on cable, Those of us who truly understand and de- QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT ISSUE ADVO- the Internet, in print and in ads on movie fend the phenomenon of issue advocacy free- CACY (WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE RE- screens. ly acknowledge that the advertisements and VISED MCCAIN-FEINGOLD BILL) A misleading ‘‘exception’’ for candidate statements of issue groups do have political 1. WHAT IS ISSUE ADVOCACY? voting records. The voting records that impact. In fact, many groups hope that the Issue advocacy can best be defined as any would be permitted under this new statute voters will take candidate positions and vot- speech relating to issues and the policy posi- would be stripped of any advocacy-like com- ing records into account when voters go to tions taken by candidates and elected offi- mentary. For example, depending on its the polls. cials. It can be as simple as a statement like wording, the ACLU (as a 501(c)(4) corpora- For example, groups like the ACLU want ‘‘Senator Doe’s position on school vouchers tion) might be banned from distributing a to continue to discuss candidate positions on is grievously mistaken.’’ Or it can be as in- voting guide that highlighted members of civil liberties issues before, during and after volved as a multimillion dollar campaign of Congress who have a 100 percent ACLU vot- elections, even though we are barred by our broadcast and print advertisements that ing record as members of an ‘‘ACLU Honor own policies from endorsing or opposing par- spreads the same message. Any group or in- Roll.’’ Unless the ACLU chose to create a ticular candidates for public office. Forbid- dividual can engage in issue advocacy. PAC to publish such guides, we would be ding us to do so would make much of our leg- Under current law, a message stops being barred by this statute even though we do not islative advocacy irrelevant during large considered ‘‘issue advocacy’’ if it is accom- expressly advocate the election or defeat of a portions of the year. Would we, for example, panied by ‘‘express advocacy’’ or actual candidate. be permitted to criticize Senator Doe for his statements advocating the election or defeat Redefining ‘‘expenditure,’’ ‘‘contribution’’ position on vouchers after September 4? of a clearly identified candidate for office, and ‘‘coordination with a candidate’’ so that The premise of the Federal Election Cam- i.e. ‘‘Senator Doe’s position on school vouch- legal and constitutionally protected activi- paign Act and current campaign reform pro- ers is grievously mistaken and anyone who ties of issue advocacy groups would become posals is that Congress can control the quan- cares about the separation of church and illegal. If the ACLU decided to take out an tity and qualify of all speech that influences state should vote against him in November.’’ advertisement lauding—by name—Senators the outcome of elections in an attempt to Although issue advocacy can leave the im- for their effective advocacy of constitutional make elections ‘‘fair.’’ pression that a listener should support or op- campaign finance reform, this ad would be The Supreme Court has responded on re- peated occasions to this attempt to regulate pose a particular candidate, such messages counted as express advocacy on behalf of the political speech by invoking the primacy of cannot—under current law—be treated (and named Senators and therefore prohibited. The Senate is threatening to erect a Byz- the First Amendment instead of deferring to therefore regulated) as express advocacy by antine set of laws that pose a formidable bar- the concept of ‘‘political speech equali- the Federal Elections Commission. rier to citizen speech. This barrier to free zation’’ asserted by Congress and FECA. 2. WHY IS CONGRESS TRYING TO REGULATE ISSUE speech and free participation in the electoral The only justification for any regulation of ADVOCACY? process is like a barbed wire fence. No indi- political speech upheld by the Court has been During the 1996 elections, groups across the vidual or group should try to scale it unless to guard against the reality or appearance of political spectrum engaged in intense issue they are willing to become ensnared in a corruption. Although many have criticized advocacy campaigns. Many members of Con- complicated set of laws that have significant issue advocacy, few, if any, are asserting gress felt they lost control of their cam- penalties. that it fosters a quid pro quo form of corrup- paigns because of the unregulated and undis- These provisions of the new McCain- tion that the Court has allowed Congress to closed advertising from issue groups. Their Feingold legislation would silence citizen guard against. concern that elections are ‘‘out of control’’ speech to give candidates more control over Defenders of the First Amendment know seems to be the driving force in current ef- what is said about them prior to an election that the freedom to engage in robust politi- forts to regulate issue advocacy. and throughout the election year. Similar cal debate in our democracy will be at risk if Because of this loss of control, some fed- bans and disclosure requirements were con- the Congress or the FEC is given the author- eral lawmakers seem to believe that can- tained in the original McCain-Feingold bill. ity to ban issue ads close to an election, or didates’ interests should trump the right of In addition, many of the pending reform evaluate the content of issue ads to deter- citizen involvement and speech. Also, many bills in the House and Senate such as H.R. mine if they are really a form of express ad- members of Congress believe that issue advo- 2183, the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act of vocacy. The Supreme Court recognized this cacy became far too political and powerful 1997, H.R. 493, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform danger long before it decided Buckley. In an during the last election cycle. They assert Act (which has evolved into H.R. 1776 and opinion issued in 1945 in Thomas v. Collins, that these issue ads are really a subterfuge 1777, the Campaign Independence Restoration the Court stated: for express advocacy communications. Many Act, Parts I and II) and H.R. 600, American Po- ‘‘. . . the supposedly clear-cut distinction between discussion, laudation, general advo- lawmakers and advocacy groups think that litical Reform Act, among others, would ban cacy, and solicitation puts the speaker in all communications that could influence the or impose burdensome and unconstitutional these circumstances wholly at the mercy of outcome of elections should be regulated by disclosure on issue speech. the varied understanding of his hearers and statute. 4. WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS WITH CONGRES- consequently of whatever inference may be SIONAL ATTEMPTS TO REIN IN ISSUE ADVO- 3. HOW WILL THE REVISED MCCAIN-FEINGOLD drawn as to his intent and meaning. Such a CACY? LEGISLATION AFFECT ISSUE ADVOCACY? distinction offers no security for free discus- The legislation that the Senate will most The proposals being considered in the sion. In these conditions it blankets with un- likely vote on during the next several days is House and Senate have manifold constitu- certainty whatever may be said. It compels a revised version of the McCain-Feingold tional and practical problems. the speaker to hedge and trim. Thomas v. bill. The ACLU will soon be releasing an A. Constitutional Concerns Collins,’’ 323 U.S. 516 (1945). analysis of the new legislation, but in the All of the proposals violate the First Given the Court’s concern about the meantime, we continue to assert that the Amendment. Attempts to regulate and re- chilling effect regulation has on speech, one October 8, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10513 can better appreciate the need for a clear-cut ley case. When the challenge came before the 1996); Maine Right to Life Committee v. FEC, 98 standard for limiting the kinds of commu- U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit F.3d 1 (1st Cir. Me. 1996); and Clifton v. FEC, nications that can be regulated by campaign (prior to coming before the Supreme Court), 114 F.3d 1309 (1st Cir. Me. 1997). finance laws. While some are disheartened the provision was struck down because it that the FEC only has clear authority to reg- was vague and imposed an undue burden on AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, ulate communications that include express groups engaged in activity that is, and Washington, DC, April 14, 1997 advocacy terms like ‘‘vote for’’ and ‘‘vote should be, protected by the First Amend- Hon. MITCH MCCONNELL, against,’’ ‘‘elect Doe for Congress,’’ etc., oth- ment. The D.C. Circuit Court ruling stated: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. ers are relieved that the FEC is not free to ‘‘To be sure, any discussion of important DEAR SENATOR MCCONNELL: On February regulate all political speech. public questions can possibly exert some in- 20, 1997, I wrote to you on behalf of the It is noteworthy that none of these propos- fluence on the outcome of an election pre- American Civil Liberties Union urging our als seek to regulate the ability of the media ceding . . . But unlike contributions and ex- strong opposition to S. 25, the Bipartisan to exercise its enormous license to editorial- penditures made solely with a view to influ- Campaign Reform Act of 1997. In that letter, ize in favor or against candidates. If the encing the nomination or election of a can- we set forth the reasons why we believe that sponsors of these proposals to regulate issue didate, issue discussions unwedded to the bill is ‘‘fatally and fundamentally flawed advocacy have their way, the only entities cause of a particular candidate hardly when measured against First Amendment that would be free to comment on can- threaten the purity of the elections. More- values.’’ didates’ records would be the press, PACs over, and very importantly, such discussions Thereafter, a letter was sent to Senators and the candidates themselves. are vital and indispensable to a free society John McCain and Russell Feingold by the With no proven record of corruption, why and an informed electorate. Thus, the inter- Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of are citizen groups being ejected from politi- est group engaging in nonpartisan discus- Law. That letter asserted that the ACLU’s cal debate during the crucial period before sions ascends to a high plane, while the gov- analysis of the constitutionality of S. 25 was elections? ernmental interest in disclosure correspond- based on arguments which had been rejected B. Practical Implications ingly diminishes.’’ in the Buckley case and would not command The proposed McCain-Feingold statutory It is noteworthy that the FEC did not ap- majority support on the current court. De- limitations on issue advocacy would force peal this aspect of the Circuit Court’s ruling. spite the eminence of its author, however, groups that now engage in issue advocacy— 6. HAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE the letter is incomplete and incorrect in a 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4)—to create new institu- FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION TRIED TO number of key respects. We appreciate this tional entities—PACs—to ‘‘legally’’ speak REGULATE ISSUE ADVOCACY IN A WAY THAT opportunity to demonstrate why and to re- within 60 days before an election. The groups WOULD TREAT IT AS EXPRESS ADVOCACY? spond to the charge that we presented ‘‘dis- would also be forced to disclose all contribu- It certainly has. In one early telling inci- torted descriptions of existing constitutional tors to the new PAC. dent, three elderly citizens with no connec- law.’’ Those provisions of S. 25 which seek to in- Opportunities that donors now have to tion to any candidate or political party pub- duce candidates to adhere to spending limits anonymously contribute to issue groups lished an advertisement in early 1972 in The in Senate campaigns and penalize those who would be eliminated. Not all members of New York Times that condemned the secret refuse, which severely restrict political ac- non-profit organizations want to become bombings of Cambodia by the United States. tion committees and which likewise restrain members of PACs. Separate accounting pro- The advertisement also called for the im- contributions to political parties are not jus- cedures, new legal costs and separate admin- peachment of President Nixon and printed an tified by Buckley or later cases. They will istrative processes would be imposed on honor roll of those members of Congress who not survive strict scrutiny. The provisions of these groups, merely so that their members had opposed the bombings. The honor roll in- the bill which assault independent political could preserve their First Amendment rights cluded Senator George McGovern. to comment on candidate records. It is very Although the ad was a classic example of activity and invade the absolutely protected likely that some groups will remain silent speech protected by the First Amendment, it sphere of issue speech are precisely con- rather than risk violating this new require- violated a federal campaign finance law, demned by Buckley and its progeny and are ment or absorbing the attendant cost of which effectively barred such expenditures all but per se invalid. The entire sweep of the compliance. on the ground that they could influence the bill, including the greatly expanded enforce- This new provision may trigger Internal upcoming presidential election by criticizing ment powers given to the Federal Election Revenue Service review of the non-profit sta- President Nixon and applauding one of his Commission, is worse than the sum of its tus of groups that elect to create PACs. The possible opponents, Senator McGovern. On parts. It is as objectionable an assault on po- IRS may justifiably examine the primary the basis of this law, the U.S. government litical freedom as were the provisions of the purpose of the issue groups. Groups could sued the three in federal court, seeking to Federal Election Campaign Act at issue in face a loss of members and tax deductible enjoin them from publishing such ads, and Buckley. Preliminarily, we would note that our con- gifts for exercising their First Amendment wrote a letter to the Times threatening demnation of three of the most extreme pro- rights. them with criminal prosecution if they pub- visions of the bill—the total and complete It is notable that the much ballyhooed lished such an ad again. Brennan Center constitutional law profes- The ACLU represented the three citizens ban on any political contributions by politi- sors letter recently released by Senators and won. But the FEC has tried to regulate cal action committees (Section 201), the John McCain (R–AZ) and Russ Feingold (D– issue advocacy repeatedly since then. As re- sweeping new public disclosure requirements WI) is conspicuously silent on the advocacy cently as October 5, 1995, and on March 13, targeting people who give as little as $50 restrictions contained in the bill. 1996, the FEC attempted to issue regulations (Section 304) or even $20 (Section 101) to a Senate candidate, and the xenophobic ban on 5. HAS CONGRESS PREVIOUSLY ENACTED LAWS severely circumscribing the rights of issue political contributions by lawful resident REGULATING ISSUE ADVOCACY? advocacy groups to communicate informa- aliens—went unremarked in the Brennan Yes, in 1974 Congress enacted a similar tion on candidates. Center letter. Nothing in Buckley would jus- issue advocacy disclosure law that was In fact, the FEC has a terrible track record tify the constitutionality of these provi- struck down in federal court. The Federal of trying to broadly interpret current FECA sions, and we would welcome the Brennan Election Campaign Act of 1971 was amended statues to encompass issue advocacy speech. Center’s joining us in denouncing them. in 1974 to require the disclosure to the Fed- While it is impossible to go into the facts of eral Election Commission of issue groups en- every case, with the narrow exception of FEC I. S. 25: THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL OFFER YOU gaged in ‘‘any act directed to the public for v. Furgatch, 869 F.2d 1256 (9th Cir. Cal. 1989), CAN’T REFUSE the purpose of influencing the outcome of an the Supreme Court and the lower courts Replying to our assertion that ‘‘S. 25’s co- election, or publishes or broadcasts issues to have repeatedly rebuffed the FEC in this ercive and punitive scheme designed to com- the public any material referring to a can- area. pel candidates to accept spending limits in didate (by name, description, or other ref- In addition to Buckley, we suggest you Senate elections and to penalize those who erence) . . . setting forth the candidates po- look at the following decisions: United States refuse, violates First Amendment prin- sition on any public issue, [the candidate’s] v. National Committee for Impeachment, 469 ciples,’’ the Brennan Center asserts that this voting record, or other official acts . . . or is F.2d 1135 (2d Cir, N.Y. 1972); American Civil is an argument that the ACLU lost in the otherwise designed to influence individuals Liberties Union v. Jennings, 366 F. Supp. 1041 Buckley case. to cast their votes for or against such a can- (D.D.C. 1973); FEC v. AFSCME, 471 F Supp. 315 There are three reasons why this is not so didate or to withhold their votes from such (D.D.C. 1979); FEC v. Central Long Island Tax and why Buckley does not control the valid- candidate.’’ 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437A. Reform Immediately Committee, 616 F.2d 45 (2d ity of these provisions of S. 25. Such groups would have been required to Cir. N.Y. 1980); FEC v. NCPAC, 470 U.S. 480 First, we didn’t lose that argument in disclose to the FEC in the same manner as a (1985); FEC v. NOW, 713 F. Supp 428 (D.D.C. Buckley because we never made it. The pri- political committee or PAC. They would 1989); Faucher v. FEC, 928 F.2d 468 (1st Cir. mary contention was that the Presidential have to make available every source of funds Me. 1991); FEC v. Survival Education Fund, 65 public funding scheme discriminated against which were used in accomplishing such acts. F.3d 285 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1994); FEC v. Christian those candidates and parties whom it ex- This provision of the 1974 amendments was Action Network, 110 F.3d 1049 (4th Cir. Va. cluded, not that it exacted unconstitutional challenged by the ACLU as part of the Buck- 1997); FEC v. GOPAC, 917 F. Supp. 851 (D.D.C. conditions and limitations from those whom S10514 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE October 8, 1997 it benefited, nor that it coerced compliance too. That scheme, which coerces candidates even though it might influence the outcome by penalizing those who declined the offer. to accept the limitations by penalizing them of an election, on the other. This constitu- Second, the Buckley Court did state that if they do not, is a far cry from anything sus- tional Continental Divide is compelled by Congress could condition acceptance of pub- tained in Buckley. It is an offer that few can the First Amendment and is built upon the lic funds on a candidate’s agreement to abide refuse. concept that only ‘‘express advocacy’’ of the by specified spending limits, because a can- II. S. 25’S ATTACKS ON PACS election or defeat of specific federal can- didate may decide voluntarily to forego pri- The bill whose constitutionality the Bren- didates can be subject to regulation. vate fundraising and accept public funding. nan Center vouches for would totally and en- It is not that there is an inherent distinc- But a candidate or party was free to reject tirely ban PAC contributions to Senate can- tion between issue speech and electoral ad- that offer and choose to try to raise and didates, a wholly unprecedented restriction vocacy. Quite the contrary, as the Buckley spend more money than the conditional lim- of the rights of literally millions of Ameri- Court recognized: ‘‘For the distinction be- its would permit, without regard to what op- cans, most of them small donors in the $25 to tween discussion of issues and candidates posing candidates or parties did. The choice $100 range, to pool their resources to amplify and advocacy of election or defeat of can- of one candidate did not affect the rights of their voices. Such small-donor PACs affili- didates may often dissolve in practical appli- others. Whether that conditional funding ated with groups running the gamut from cation. Candidates, especially incumbents, scheme would survive close scrutiny under the National Abortion Rights Action League, are intimately tied to public issues involving the Court’s unconstitutional conditions doc- the Human Rights Campaign Fund and legislative proposals and governmental ac- trine is a substantial question. tions. Not only do candidates campaign on But the scheme in S. 25 is not just a condi- Emily’s List, on the one hand, to the Na- tional Right to Life Committee, the Chris- the basis of their positions on various public tional funding scheme which requires can- issues, but campaigns themselves generate didates to give up rights in order to get bene- tian Coalition and the National Rifle Asso- ciation, on the other, would be denied the issues of public interest.’’ 424 U.S. at 43. But fits and which penalizes non-complying can- Buckley held that if any mention of a can- didates by denying them free television right to support the candidates of their choice. didate in the context of discussion of an prime time, half-priced purchased and dis- issue rendered the speaker or the speech sub- counted mass mailings rates. S. 25 is also a Nothing in Buckley sustains such a radical restraint on the right of freedom of speech ject to campaign finance controls, the con- contingent benefits scheme whereby the ex- sequences for the First Amendment would be ercise of protected campaign spending rights and association. Buckley upheld a $5,000 limit on political action committee contributions intolerable. by a noncomplying candidate triggers statu- Accordingly, while candidate-focused con- tory fundraising benefits to his or her com- to individual federal candidates, not the $0 limit, total ban that Section 201 of S. 25 tributions and expenditures and ‘‘express ad- plying opponent. Thus, if any noncomplying vocacy’’ can be subject to various restric- Senate candidate exceeds the applicable would impose on all Senate campaigns. Even the ‘‘fall back’’ provision that would tions or regulations, the Court clearly held spending limit by only 5% the complying impose a 20% cap on the amount of PAC con- in Buckley that all speech which does not ‘‘in candidate’s spending limit is raised tenfold tributions that any Senate candidate could express terms advocate the election or defeat by 50%. Likewise, if a noncomplying can- receive operates, effectively, as a $0 limit, of a clearly identified candidate’’ is totally didate’s expenditures exceed 155% of the total ban once that limit is reached. Once free of any permissible regulation: ‘‘So long limit, the complying candidate’s ceiling is any Senate candidate has received PAC con- as persons and groups eschew expenditures again raised tenfold to 200%. And in both in- tributions totaling 20% of the applicable that in express terms advocate the election stances, the contribution limits for the com- spending limit, all other groups are barred or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, plying candidate, but not the noncomplying from supporting that candidate and effec- they are free to spend as much as they want to one, are doubled from $1,000 to $2,000, making tively silenced. In Buckley the Court said promote the candidate and his views.’’ 424 U.S. it easier for the complying candidate to raise that ‘‘[g]iven the important role of contribu- at 45 (emphasis supplied). The purpose of this funds to ‘‘drown out’’ the noncomplying can- tions in financing political campaigns, con- profound distinction is to keep campaign fi- didate. Adding insult to injury, noncomply- tribution restrictions could have a severe nance regulations from overwhelming all po- ing candidates are subject to more burden- impact on political dialogue if the limita- litical and public speech. some disclosure requirements in order to en- tions prevented candidates and political The effect of the distinction has been force the triggering mechanism that raises committees from amassing the resources manifold. It is the express advocacy concept the spending limits and contribution caps for necessary for effective advocacy.’’ 424 U.S. at that defines the notion of ‘‘soft money’’ their complying opponents. 22. The Court found that the contribution which is political funding that is used for Further, the law mandates that 60% of all party-building, get-out-the-vote activities contributions must be raised in state in limits there survived close scrutiny under that test, in large part precisely because the and generic advertising (‘‘Vote Demo- order to be eligible for the benefits. Resi- cratic’’), all activities which do not ‘‘ex- dency requirements can be the basis for who Act, though limiting individual contribu- tions to $1,000, permitted PACs to contribute pressly advocate’’ the election or defeat of can vote in an election but should not be the specific federal candidates. Because it is not basis for who can speak about an election. five times that amount, and provided for a proliferation of PACs to fill the fundraising used for such express advocacy, it can be See McIntyre v. Ohio Board of Elections, 517 raised from sources that would be restricted U.S. (1995). Moreover, in-state limitations gap. Id. at 23, 29–30. A total or near-total ban on PAC contributions would fail the Buckley in making contributions or expenditures. It could deprive particular kinds of under- is the express advocacy concept that sepa- financed, insurgent candidates of the kind of test. That is why reducing the PAC contribution rates an illegal corporate expenditure advo- out-of-state support they need. Just as much ceiling to $1,000 is also extremely suspect. In cating the election or defeat of a specific of the civil rights movement was fueled by 1976 dollars, that would be about a $350 ceil- candidate from an allowed issue advertise- contributors and supporters from other parts ing on contributions. It is simply incredible ment discussing public and political ques- of the nation, so, too, are many new and to believe that the Buckley Court would have tions. Compare Austin v. Michigan Chamber of struggling candidates supported by interests upheld that low a limit on individual or PAC Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990) with First Na- beyond their home states. This proposal contributions, especially when so many tional Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 would severely harm such candidacies. Per- PACS are small donor PACs where the con- (1978). It is the express advocacy concept haps that is its purpose. that defines and cabins the concept of inde- In addition, Congress is our national legis- cern with corruption is attenuated. The pendent expenditures and determines the lature, and although its representatives Brennan Center letter is simply wrong in its permissibility of coordinated expenditures. come and are elected from separate districts assertion that ‘‘in the years since Buckley, It is the express advocacy concept that pro- and states, the issues that are debated are, the Supreme Court has upheld every con- tects the myriad on non-partisan, issue-ori- by definition, national issues that transcend tribution limit that has come before it in an ented groups like the ACLU in their right to district and state lines and may be of con- election context.’’ (p. 2). In Citizens Against comment on and criticize the performance of cern to citizens all over the nation. When Rent Control v. Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 1981), elected officials without becoming ensnared such issues become central in certain cam- cited in our earlier letter, the Court, by a in the federal campaign finance laws. See paigns, people and groups from all over the vote of 8 to 1, invalidated a $250 limit on per- Buckley v. Valeo, 519 F.2d 817, 832 (D.C. Cir. country should be entitled to have their sonal contributions to local referendum cam- 1975). views and voices heard on those issues. Any paigns. S. 25’s limits would be similarly vul- And it is that critical constitutional dis- other approach takes a disturbingly insular nerable. tinction which S. 25 seeks to blur beyond and isolated view of political accountability III. S. 25’S ATTACKS ON ISSUE ADVOCACY AND recognition. and the obligations of a Member of Congress. SPEECH The clear purpose and patent effect overall One of the central tenets of the Supreme A. Soft Money of this conditional funding scheme is to chill Court’s campaign finance jurisprudence has As indicated, soft money is funding that and deter, dollar for dollar, any candidate been the critical distinction between con- does not support ‘‘express advocacy’’ of the from trying to mount an effective high- tributions and expenditures made by federal election or defeat of federal candidates, even spending campaign. With this contingent candidates, or their campaigns or those who though it may exert an influence on the out- limitation scheme, incumbents, who will al- expressly advocate their election or defeat, come of federal elections in the broadest most always opt for the public funding, have on the one hand, and all other political and sense of that term. It sustains primary polit- arranged a way to have their cake and eat it issue advocacy and discussion and activity, ical activity such as get-out-the-vote drives October 8, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10515 and issue advertising. That is why, contrary son or group who has had even the most cas- toral advocacy have now reappeared in this to the Brennan Center’s letter, the relevant ual interaction with a candidate or a cam- bill. In Buckley the Court rejected a trigger- precedent is not Austin which involved ex- paign is therefore barred from making inde- ing provision that regulated advocacy speech press advocacy by corporations, but Colorado pendent expenditures. Section 405. ‘‘relative to a clearly identified candidate.’’ Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Second, the bill imposes a number of new S. 25 regulates advocacy speech that ‘‘refers Federal Election Commission, 116 S.Ct. 2309 and burdensome reporting and disclosure re- to a clearly identified candidate.’’ Section (1996), which upheld unlimited independent quirements on those who would make such 406. and any communication by a political expenditures by political parties on behalf of expenditures. Sections 241, 405. For example, party to the public which ‘‘refers to a clearly their candidates. any person or group who spends more than identified candidate’’ would be subject to Indeed, the unrestricted use of soft money $1,000 to place a small political advertise- regulation, without more. by political parties and non-party organiza- ment in The New York Times—a very small tions like labor unions has been invited by ad—within three weeks of an election must Beyond that, First Amendment rights Buckley (‘‘So long as persons and groups es- file a report with the government within 24 would turn once again on such vague and chew . . .’’), authorized by Congress (see 2 hours of when they arrange for the ad—before subjective concepts as whether the commu- U.S.C. sections 431 (8)(A)(I) and (B)(xii) it even runs. Section 241. Failure to do so nication ‘‘conveys a message’’ that advo- which permit soft money for state elections can result in civil monetary penalties or in- cates the election or defeat of a particular and voter registration and get out the vote junctive suits by the Federal Election Com- candidate or that ‘‘a reasonable person drives), sanctioned and enhanced by rulings mission. And what triggers the application would understand as advocating the election of the Federal Election Commission and ac- of these extensive new controls is any politi- or defeat’’ of a candidate and that is ‘‘made knowledged by the Supreme Court in last cal content which the government might for the purpose of advocating the election or year’s Colorado Republican case. In that case, deem ‘‘express advocacy’’ under the patently defeat of the candidate as shown by . . . a and despite a brief filed by the Brennan Cen- unconstitutional definition of that concept statement or action by the person making ter with charts and graphs detailing large in- contained in this bill. See infra. the communication, the targeting or place- dividual and corporate soft money contribu- Ignoring these serious concerns, the Bren- ment of the communication, or the use by tions to the two major parties and contend- nan Center letter focuses solely on the ques- the person making the communication of ing that ‘‘soft money contributions to local tion of coordination between a party and its polling, demographic, or other similar data political parties have cascaded into a flood candidate. Section 404. But even there the relating to the candidate’s campaign or elec- of dollars from corporations, labor unions, letter ignores the fact that the Colorado Re- tion.’’ Publication of ‘‘box core’’ voting and wealthy donors that threaten the integ- publican case rejected the validity of a con- records would be allowed only if ‘‘limited rity of the Act’s federal contributions re- clusive conclusion of impermissible coordi- solely to providing information about the strictions. . . .’’ (Brief, p. 8) the Court none- nation whenever a party made an expendi- voting record of elected officials on legisla- theless stated: ture in favor of its candidates. Yet S. 25 re- tive matters and that a reasonable person ‘‘We recognize that FECA permits individ- places the rejected automatic conclusion would not understand as advocating the elec- uals to contribute more money ($20,000) to a with an all but conclusive factual presump- party than to a candidate ($1,000) or to other tion or defeat of a particular candidate.’’ tion of coordination and therefore limita- political committees ($5,000). . . We also rec- That’s how incumbents would impede dis- tion. ognize that FECA permits unregulated ‘‘soft semination of information about their voting money’’ contributions to a party for certain C. Issue Advocacy records and official actions. activities, such as electing candidates for S. 25’s worst assault on settled First In an effort to defend these suspect provi- state office . . . or for voter registration and Amendment principles is its efforts to ob- sions, the Brennan Center letter distorts the ‘‘get out the vote’’ drives. But the oppor- scure the bright line test of ‘‘express advo- meaning of the concept of ‘‘independent ex- tunity for corruption posed by these greater cacy’’ that has been fashioned by the courts penditure’’ as defined by the Court. A com- opportunities for contributions is, at best, for 25 years to protect the broad range of munication cannot be defined as an inde- attenuated. Unregulated ‘‘soft money’’ con- issue discussion in America from campaign pendent expenditure because it is ‘‘designed tributions may not be used to influence a finance controls. The Buckley Court could to affect the outcome’’ of a federal election federal campaign, except when used in the not have been more clear about the need for or because the speaker’s ‘‘purpose and effect limited party-building activities specifically that bright line, objective test which focuses was to advocate the election or defeat of an designated by statute.’’ Id. at 2316. solely on the speaker’s words. That test is an identified candidate’’ or because the speak- Accordingly, S. 25’s sweeping and con- integral part of the First Amendment, no er’s ‘‘predominant intent’’ was to do so. The voluted limitations on the amount and less than the ‘‘actual malice’’ rule of New courts have rejected these subjective tests as source of soft money contributions to politi- York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) treacherously dangerous boundary lines to cal parties (Section 211 to 213) and disclosure in defamation cases, or the ‘‘incitement mark First Amendment rights. Under the of soft money disbursements by other orga- test’’ of Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 First Amendment, an independent expendi- nizations (Section 211) are not justified by (1969) in subversive advocacy cases. ture is only one which ‘‘expressly advocates precedent. Disclosure, rather than limita- Indeed, the ACLU’s initial encounter with the election or defeat’’ of a specific can- tion, of large soft money contributions to po- campaign finance laws was to defend against didate. And references to ‘‘so-called ‘issue litical parties, is the appropriate remedy. their very first use to try to muzzle a small Nonetheless, we recognize that during the ads’ ’’ or ‘‘phony ‘issue ads’ ’’ (Letter, pp. 5, 6) handful of dissenters who had published an cannot change that fact. It is not surprising last election cycle, many candidates for fed- advertisement in The New York Times criti- eral office spent as much time responding to that the letter cites no precedent for its sup- cizing the President of the United States. port of a bill which would undue 25 years of issue advertising and independent expendi- The government claimed that the ad was tures as they did campaigning against the bright line protection for issue-oriented ‘‘for the purpose of influencing’’ the outcome speech. advertising emanating from their opponents. of the 1972 Presidential election. The govern- The solution to this problem is not to tamp ment was resoundingly rebuffed, and the S. 25 remains ‘‘fatally and fundamentally down on issue advocacy, independent expend- courts ruled that the campaign finance laws flawed when measured against First Amend- itures or soft money contributions in a could not be used in such an open-ended fash- ment values.’’ It contains 87 pages of tor- vague, overbroard and unconstitutional man- ion to control issue speech. United States v. tured twists and turns seeking more and ner. Rather, Congress should lift the individ- National Committee for Impeachment, 469 F.2d more limits on political funding and there- ual and PAC contribution limits so that can- 1135, 1139–1142 (2d Cir. 1972); see also, Amer- fore on political speech. As we all know, that didates have better control and access to the ican Civil Liberties Union v. Jennings, 366 approach has not worked, and we think it larger sums of money necessary to finance F.Supp. 1041, 1055–57 (D.D.C. 1973, three-judge will not work, politically or constitu- their own campaigns, subject, of course, to court); Buckley v. Valeo, 519 F.2d. 817, 832 tionally. We think it is time instead, to ex- timely and appropriate disclosure. (D.C. Cir. 1975, en banc); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 plore ways to expand political participation B. Independent Expenditures U.S. at 42–45 and 76–80. Instead, ‘‘express ad- and opportunity that do not entail restrict- The Court has repeatedly stated that inde- vocacy’’ would be the bright dividing line be- ing political speech such as meaningful and pendent expenditures are at the core of the tween campaign advocacy and issue speech. constitutional public financing. We look for- First Amendment’s protection because they Now, S. 25 attempts to replace that time- ward to working with you to do so. embody citizen commentary on government, honored concept with the kind of vague and Sincerely, politics, and candidates for elective office. over broad formulas that Buckley and other IRA GLASSER, See Buckley v. Valeo, supra; FEC v. National courts rejected, and the circle has turned full Executive Director. Conservative PAC, 470 U.S. 480 (1985); Colorado round. Buckley said the First Amendment re- LAURA W. MURPHY, Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. quired that the law could only regulate ‘‘ex- Director, Washington FEC, supra. In our initial letter we identified penditures for commutations that in express Office. a number of ways in which S. 25 burdens and terms advocate the election or defeat of a JOEL GORA, restrains these core First Amendment clearly identified candidate for federal of- Professor of Law, rights. fice.’’ Id. at 44, 80. The very language and Brooklyn Law First, S. 25 broadly expands the definition concepts that the Buckley Court rejected as School, and Coun- of ‘‘coordination’’ so that virtually any per- permissible definitions of regulatable elec- sel to the ACLU. S10516 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE October 8, 1997

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, low as $20, is a gross invasion of political pri- short, this scheme does everything possible Washington, DC, February 20, 1997. vacy. to enable the candidate who agrees to spend- Hon. MITCH MCCONNELL, The ban on political contributions by per- ing limits to overwhelm the candidate who U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. sons not eligible to vote is an insult to the does not. That is not a level playing field. DEAR SENATOR MCCONNELL: I am writing First Amendment which guarantees free Lower courts have been quick to invalidate this letter to set forth my views and those of speech to all within our shores. such one-sided, lopsided ‘‘voluntary’’ the American Civil Liberties Union National Last, but by no means least, the new en- schemes. See Shrink Missouri Government PAC Office with respect to the constitutionality forcement powers given to the Federal Elec- v. Maupin, 71 F.3d 1422, 1426 (8th Cir. 1995) of S. 25, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform tion Commission to go to court in the midst (‘‘We are hard-pressed to discern how the in- Act of 1997. A year ago, I presented the oppo- of a campaign to enjoin ‘‘a violation of this terests of good government could possibly be sition of the American Civil Liberties Union Act’’ pose an ominous and sweeping threat of served by campaign expenditure laws that to S. 1219, last year’s campaign finance bill. prior restraint and political censorship. necessarily have the effect of limiting the Once again, you have a bill before you which Let me elaborate briefly on these concerns. quantity of political speech in which can- is fatally and fundamentally flawed when 1. S. 25’s coercive and punitive scheme de- didates for public office are allowed to en- measured against First Amendment values. signed to compel candidates to accept spend- gage.’’); Day v. Holohan, 34 F.2d 1356 (8th Cir. And one again we must oppose it. ing limits in Senate elections and to penalize 1994). The ACLU has long maintained that limi- those who refuse, violates First Amendment 2. The various limitations on PAC con- tations on contributions and expenditures principles. tributions violate freedom of speech and as- used for the purpose of advocating can- Title I of the bill, providing ‘‘spending lim- sociation. didates and causes in the public forum vio- its and benefits’’ for Senate campaigns, is an Section 201 of the bill would ban all politi- late the First Amendment. Under the First attempt to coerce what the law cannot com- cal contributions by political action com- Amendment, as properly construed in Buck- mand, a backdoor effort to impose campaign mittees. This would cut to the heart of the ley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), Congress cannot spending limits—which almost always bene- First Amendment’s protection of freedom of ration or restrict the political funding that fit incumbents—in violation of essential free political speech and association. The bill nourishes and sustains political speech. ‘‘In speech principles and the doctrine of uncon- would give a permanent political monopoly the free society ordained by our Constitution stitutional conditions. The provisions for to political parties and political candidates, it is not the government, but the people—in- ‘‘voluntary’’ expenditure limits and other and would silence all those groups that want dividually as citizens and candidates and col- campaign funding controls, imposed in order to support or oppose those parties and can- lectively as associations and political com- to induce candidates to accept ceilings and didates. PACs come in all sizes and shapes mittees—who must retain control over the restrictions on political speech and penalize and provide vehicles for millions of Ameri- quantity and range of debate on public issues and disadvantage those who will not do so, cans to amplify their voices. There is not a in a political campaign.’’ 424 U.S. at 51. raise serious First Amendment problems. word in Buckley or any case which suggests I was an ACLU staff attorney who helped The receipt of public subsidies or benefits that the Court would uphold a total ban on shape our pleadings and argued before the should never be conditioned on surrendering PAC contributions to federal candidates and Court in the Buckley case, which was a land- First Amendment rights. That would penal- still all those voices. Frankly, this is just po- mark of political freedom. And, as a Profes- ize the exercise of those rights. See Perry v. litical grandstanding. That’s why there is a sor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, I have Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972); FCC v. ‘‘fall back’’ provision which would impose a worked with the ACLU on these issues ever League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364 (1984); $1,000 cap on PAC contributions, which is since. Just last year, the continuing validity Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr, 116 also of very doubtful constitutionality. See of the First Amendment principles recog- S. Ct. 2342 (1996). Since candidates have an Committee Against Rent Control v. Berkeley, 454 nized in Buckley was reaffirmed by the Su- unqualified right to spend as much as they U.S. 290 (1981); Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 preme Court, by a wide 7 to 2 margin, in Col- can to get their message to the voters, and (1988); Carver v. Nixon, 72 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. orado Republican Federal Campaign Committee to spend as much of their own funds as they 1995). In any event, this provision is fatally v. Federal Election Commission, 116 S. Ct. 2309 can, and to raise funds from supporters all overbroad because it treats all PACs alike, (1996), a ruling which struck down limita- over the country, they cannot be made to even those made up only of small contribu- tions on independent expenditures by politi- surrender those rights in order to receive tors. cal parties. public benefits. Likewise, the ban on ‘‘bundling’’ of indi- In a number of critical respects, S. 25 runs In Buckley the Court suggested that Con- vidual PAC contributions would abridge the afoul of these cherished principles. For ex- gress might establish a system where can- freedom of association which the Supreme ample: didates would choose freely and voluntarily Court has recognized as a ‘‘basic constitu- S. 25’s coercive and punitive scheme, de- between public funding with expenditure tional freedom.’’ Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. signed to compel candidates to accept spend- limits and private spending without limits, 51, 57 (1973). As the Court has pointedly ob- ing limits in Senate elections and to penalize so long as the non-participating candidate served, ‘‘the practice of persons sharing com- those who refuse, violates First Amendment remained free to engage in unlimited private mon views banding together to achieve a principles. funding and spending. In that setting, the common end is deeply embedded in the The ban and severe limitations on political purpose of the public financing of Presi- American political process.’’ Citizens Against action committees cuts to the heart of free- dential campaigns was ‘‘not to abridge, re- Rent Control v. Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290, 294 dom of association. strict or censor speech, but rather to use (1981). The unprecedented restrictions and con- public money to facilitate and enlarge public Finally, the cap of 20% on PAC contribu- trols on raising and spending ‘’soft money’’ discussion and participation in the electoral tions that may be received will simply make by political parties and even non-partisan process, goals vital to a self-governing peo- it harder for candidates to raise funds, in- groups trammel the First Amendment rights ple.’’ 424 U.S. at 92–93. trude upon freedom of speech and association of parties and their supporters in a manner S. 25 fails this test, for its overall purpose and act like yet another backdoor effort to well beyond any compelling governmental and effect are to limit speech, not enhance limit overall campaign expenditures, all in interest and violate the ruling in the Colo- it. The bill imposes substantial penalties on violation of Buckley’s core principles. rado Republican case. those disfavored, non-complying candidates 3. The unprecedented controls on ‘‘soft The radically expanded definition of ‘‘co- who will not agree to limit their campaign money’’ are unjustified restraints on politi- ordinated’’ expenditure will improperly re- expenditures, while it confers significant cal parties and other organizations, as are strict the core area of independent electoral fund-raising benefits upon those privileged the restraints on coordinated expenditures. speech and wreak havoc on freedom of asso- candidates who adhere to the limits. Privi- Sections 211, 212, 213 and 221 of the bill ciation. leged candidates get free broadcast time, and would severely limit and restrict the sources Worst of all, the new definitions of what sharply reduced broadcast and mailing rates. and use of soft money by political parties constitutes ‘‘express advocacy’’ are so vague Disfavored candidates must pay double pro- and other organizations. The new sweeping and overbroad that they transgress the great motional costs for the very same commu- limitations and controls on ‘‘soft money’’ Constitutional Divide between partisan elec- nications. The bill contains triggers which contributions to and disbursements by polit- toral advocacy, subject to some regulation, dramatically raise the spending ceilings and ical parties and other organizations, federal, and the absolutely protected sphere of issue the contribution caps for privileged can- state or local, would expand the reaches of discussion, subject to no permissible re- didates whenever disfavored candidates the FECA into unprecedented new areas, far straint. For twenty-five years courts have threaten to mount a serious, well-funded beyond what any compelling interest would fashioned and fostered that bright-line dis- campaign, or whenever independent groups require. The reach of these proposals is tinction in order to protect the core values speak out against a privileged candidate. breathtaking and unprecedented. of the First Amendment. S. 25 seeks to undo In effect, the bill tries to insure that privi- Indeed, just last June, the Court cast grave those carefully crafted categories and oblit- leged candidates will always be able to coun- doubt upon the constitutionality of these erate those constitutionally compelled dis- teract the messages of disfavored candidates various provisions. By a 7 to 2 margin, the tinctions. and their supporters. The law stacks the Court ruled that even candidate-focused, The reduced record keeping threshold for deck against the candidate who will not ‘‘hard money’’ expenditures by political par- contributions and disbursements, from $200 agree to limits, which will usually be the ties were fully protected by First Amend- down to $50, or for ‘‘eligible’’ candidates as challenger trying to defeat an incumbent. In ment principles and the Buckley precedents. October 8, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10517 In Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Re- ‘‘Vote for Smith,’’ ‘‘Vote Against Jones,’’ against giving the Commission additional publican Federal Campaign Committee, supra, ‘‘Elect,’’ ‘‘Defeat’’), a test which the Su- powers to tamper with First Amendment the Court gave full constitutional protection preme Court held was mandated by the First rights. to unlimited party independent expenditures Amendment. Instead, Section 406 of the bill S. 25 is not the way to reform campaign fi- and invalidated the FEC rule that treated all would treat as express advocacy any commu- nance. It is bad constitutional law and bad candidate-focused, independent party ex- nication ‘‘that conveys a message that advo- political reform. True reform would expand penditures as though they were ‘‘coordi- cates the election or defeat of a clearly iden- political participation and funding, without nated’’ with the candidate and therefore sub- tified candidate’’ or, worse, ‘‘that a reason- limits and conditions, not restrict contribu- ject to limitations. In language powerfully able person would understand as advocating tions and expenditures by which groups and relevant here the Court held: ‘‘We do not see the election or defeat or a candidate.’’ A safe individuals communicate their messages to how a Constitution that grants to individ- harbor provision, for a communication that the voters. uals, candidates, and ordinary political com- ‘‘is limited solely to providing information Thank you for the opportunity to set forth mittees the right to make unlimited inde- about the voting record of elected officials these views. pendent expenditures could deny the same on legislative matters and that a reasonable Sincerely, right to political parties.’’ 116 S.Ct. at 2317. person would not understand as advocating JOEL M. GORA, The case for thorough protection for ‘‘soft the election or defeat or a particular can- Professor of Law, money’’ is even stronger, since it is used by didate’’ is circular and no safe harbor at all. Brooklyn Law School. definition for voter registration, get-out-the- Indeed, the prospect of subjecting free speech Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, vote, ‘‘generic’’ advertising like ‘‘Vote rights to the post facto assessment of a ‘‘rea- Democratic’’ and other party-building ac- sonable person’’ test would undo decades of there was an editorial in Friday’s Wall tivities. First Amendment jurisprudence designed to Street Journal entitled ‘‘The Beltway’s Equally significant, the Court squarely re- protest First Amendment rights against the Hale-Bopp’’ with regard to the bill be- jected the sweeping claims that soft money vagueness and uncertainly of such a stand- fore us today. And I ask unanimous spent by political parties was ‘‘corrupting’’ ard. consent that that be printed in the This provision attacking issue ads and leg- the system and had to be stopped: ‘‘We also RECORD. islative advocacy would sweep in the kind of recognize that the FECA permits unregu- There being no objection, the edi- lated ‘soft money’ contributions to a party essential issue advocacy which Buckley and for certain activities. . . . But the oppor- cases predating Buckley by a generation, see torial was ordered to be printed in the tunity for corruption posed by these greater Thomas v. Collins 323 U.S. 516 (1945), have held RECORD, as follows: opportunities for contributions is, at best, immune from government regulation and [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 3, 1997] attenuated.’’ 116 S.Ct. at 2316. control. It seems to be targeted exactly THE BELTWAY’S HALE-BOPP Finally, Section 404, the new provision against the kind of voting record, ‘‘box that tells political parties that they can con- score’’ discussion that emanates from the Campaign finance reform, also known as tinue to make ‘‘coordinated’’ expenditures hundreds and thousands or issue organiza- McCain-Feingold, isn’t merely a legislative on behalf of their candidates only if they for- tions that enrich our public and political proposal. Campaign finance reform is now a feit their Colorado Republican Committee right life. In Buckley, the Court adopted the bright religion. to make independent expenditures support- line test line test of express advocacy in Somehow in the past several years, cam- ing that candidate is yet another example of order to immunize issue advocacy from regu- paign finance reform transmuted from a how this bill coerces the surrender of one lation: ‘‘So long as person or groups eschew cause into a belief system. It is the Belt- constitutional right in order to exercise an- expenditures that in express terms advocate way’s version of the Heaven’s Gate cult, in other. That kind of coercion should be re- the election or defeat of a clearly identified which the powers attributed to the Hale- jected out of hand. candidate, they are free to spends as much as Bopp comet have been transferred to the 4. The new restrictions on independent ex- they want to promote the candidate and his McCain-Feingold bill. It has become the penditures improperly intrude upon that views.’’ Id. at 45. mothership that will transport the American core area of electoral speech and Most significantly, the Act at issue in people away from the failings of modern pol- impermissibly invade the absolutely pro- Buckley contained a similar provision regu- itics and toward a purer system of govern- tected area of issue advocacy. lating issue-oriented groups because of their ment. One can almost hear the pundits’ Two basic truths have emerged with crys- ‘‘box score’’ ratings of public officials and plaintive chorus preparing for the bill’s pas- tal clarity after twenty years of campaign fi- comparable activities. That provision was sage: ‘‘Knock, knock, knockin’ on heaven’s nance decisions. First, independent expendi- unanimously held unconstitutional by the en door.’’ tures for ‘‘express’’ electoral advocacy by banc Court of Appeals, without any further Interestingly, most of the McCain- citizen groups about political candidates lie appeal by the government. See Buckley v. Feingold cult’s adherents aren’t run-aways at the very core of the meaning and purpose Valeo, 519 F.2d 817, 832 (D.C. Cir 1975). Circuit or overworked computer programmers. In- of the First Amendment. Second, issue advo- Judges running the gamut from Bazelon and stead, they hold down jobs in the print and cacy by citizen groups lie totally outside the Wright to Robb and Mackinnon were unani- electronic media. Articles and editorials permissible area of government regulation. mous in their condemnation of that effort to evangelizing for McCain-Feingold pour forth See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. at 14–15, 78–80, control issue speech. The new and expanded like a river. An acquaintance of ours had the First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 definition of ‘‘express advocacy’’ in S. 25 is misfortune of finding herself flying cross- U.S. 765 (1978); FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens similarly, grievously flawed. country recently seated next to a McCain- For Life, 479 U.S. 238, 249 (1986). This bill as- 5. The bill gives unacceptable new powers Feingold fundamentalist. It was an arduous saults both principles. of prior restraint and political censorship to six hours. First, Section 405 of the bill vastly expands the Federal Election Commission. We raise these matters not in a spirit of the concept of ‘‘coordinated’’ expenditures so With all of these problems with the bill, rank partisanship (the Anti-Partisans being that virtually any person who has had any particularly those that pertain to issue advo- another aborning Beltway cult, inciden- interaction with a candidate or a campaign cacy and independent expenditures, giving tally), but out of concern for these loved is therefore barred from making independent the Federal Election Commission sweeping ones. By nature, our media brethren are a expenditures. These definitions and limita- new powers to go to court to seek an injunc- skeptical lot. A managing editor once told us tions embody an impermissible kind of ‘‘gag tion on the allegation of a ‘‘substantial like- that some of his reporters declined his en- order by association.’’ See De Jonge v. Or- lihood that a violation . . . is about to treaties to get involved in the life of their egon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937). Second, if significant occur’’ is fraught with First Amendment local communities because ‘‘it might com- independent expenditures are made ‘‘in sup- peril. promise my objectivity.’’ Normally, except- port of another candidate or against’’ an eli- Where sensitivity to the core constitu- ing the occasional marches on behalf of abor- gible, privileged candidate, the spending lim- tional protection for issue advocacy is con- tion rights, these are hard cases. its of the latter are raised to make it easier cerned, the Commission has, in the words of So how else, other than religious belief, to to counteract the independent. speech. Fi- one appellate judge, ‘‘failed abysmally.’’ See explain why so many have become so at- nally, new and expanded reporting require- Federal Election Commission v. CLITRIM, 616 tached to a legislative proposal that is objec- ments are imposed on independent speakers. F.2d 45, 53-54 (2d Cir. 1980)(Kaufman, C.J. con- tively unconstitutional, that would cheer- All of this is designed to chill and deter core curring). And ever since then, non-partisan, fully allow federal bureaucrats to regulate electoral advocacy. issue-oriented groups like the ACLU, the Na- political speech while shrinking from, as if Worst of all is S. 25’s blunderbuss assault tional Organization for Women, the Chamber from sunlight, the regulation of pornog- on issue-oriented speech. The weapon is an of Commerce, Right-to-Life Committees and raphy? unconstitutional expansion of the definition many others have had to defend themselves One of the two most important compo- of ‘‘express advocacy’’ in order to sweep clas- against charges that their public advocacy nents of McCain-Feingold would explicitly sic issue speech within the zone of regulation rendered them subject to all the FECA’s re- forbid ‘‘issues ads’’ that mention a can- as independent expenditures. The bill aban- strictions, regulations and controls. The didate’s name within 60 days of a federal dons the bright line test of express advocacy kind of ‘‘chilling effect’’ that such enforce- election. The Supreme Court made no dent (words which in express terms advocate the ment authority generates in the core area of with a whole series of decisions starting in election or defeat of a candidate, such as protected speech makes the strongest case 1976 with Buckey v. Valeo, which held that S10518 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE October 8, 1997 the law may be able to limit contributions, law from the tobacco companies. Rep. Linda tighter controls on issue advocacy are bla- but that limits on expenditures, even from Smith, Washington Republican, won her first tant incumbent protection. All the distor- the personal fortune of an actual candidate, election while being hugely outspent by the tions in the current system are results of the violate the Constitution. But the crusade incumbent. She then became the darling of 1974 rules—the 90 percent incumbent re-elec- rolls on even in the face of a Supreme Court campaign finance reformers and almost lost. tion rate, the explosion of issue advocacy decision as recent as last year’s Colorado Re- Lie No. 2: Only wealthy special interests and soft money and the increase of million- publican Party v. Federal Election Commis- have access to members of Congress. Poppy- aires in office, the amount of time can- sion, in which the court struck down limita- cock. The first item on all members’ cal- didates have to spend raising money, the in- tions on official party spending on behalf of endars is, and will always be, constituents. crease in the relative power of the media and its candidates. That is to say the second half Members of Congress meet with lobbyists celebrities. More of the same is not the an- of McCain-Feingold, the ban on ‘‘soft and policy experts all day long and then go swer. money,’’ is also unconstitutional. Justice vote the way they want to. Further, it is Lie No. 7: Buckley was a 5-to-4 decision Breyer wrote for the court: ‘‘The independ- part of every legislative aide’s job to meet and ‘‘a close call,’’ vulnerable to future court ent expression of a political party’s views is with all sides to best prepare their boss for tests. On the contrary—we have years of ‘core’ First Amendment activity.’’ whatever the issue might be. As Senator Bob court decisions reaffirming the central find- Then, of course, there is the phrase with Bennett, Utah Republican, said at a recent ings of the Buckley decision. In the area of which the First Amendment closes, about hearing, ‘‘I’ll tell you who has access to me— issue advocacy alone, in the years since making no law abridging the right ‘‘to peti- anyone registered to vote in the state of Buckley was decided, both the Supreme tion the Government for a redress of griev- Utah.’’ Court and lower courts have, time and time ances.’’ That is, lobbying. Now admittedly Lie No. 3: Banning soft money is the only again, reaffirmed the reasoning and holding the Founding Fathers were rationalists who way to ensure that the scandals of the ’96 of that decision as it pertains to the protec- lived in the shadow of the long-ago Enlight- presidential election don’t happen again. The tion of issue advocacy. The 126 ‘‘constitu- best way to make sure the abuses of ’96 don’t enment. In our newer age no stronger article tional scholars’’ currently said to endorse happen again is to punish those who have of faith abides around the Beltway than that McCain-Feingold do not endorse the issue ad- broken the law. Soft money was banned in anyone who ‘‘lobbies’’ the Congress about vocacy restrictions at all—only the soft the original 1974 rules and the 1976 election their grievances against, say, the Clean Air money and spending limits. In fact, the was run without soft money. Parties were so Act, is corrupting the vestal virgins who in- Fourth Circuit was so disturbed by the FEC’s strapped for cash that traditional activities habit that place. McCain-Feingold, according attempts to redraw the lines defining issue such as bumper stickers and get-out-the-vote to Senator McCain, would thwart the lobbies advocacy that the court demanded in April drives were sharply curtailed. One of the pri- from interfering with the deliberations of that the FEC pay Christian Action Net- mary purposes of the 1979 amendments to Congress. That is to say, the politicians who work’s court costs. federal election law was to restore soft command a third of all the money in the Lie No. 8: Campaign costs are spiraling out money. Traditional party-building activities Gross Domestic Product want to pass laws of control. This ‘‘explosion’’ is outside of are clearly not what the reformers want to against taxpayers trying to influence them. candidate spending. Candidate spending was control. It is the issue ads run by the par- At the end of the day we remain skeptics, virtually flat from 1994 to 1996, with an ex- ties—which are the essence of First Amend- less so of McCain-Feingold than of its advo- plosion of issue ads outside of the campaigns ment protected speech. To eliminate this cates’ professions of nonpartisanship. The themselves. The answer, however, is not to distortion, eliminate the limits on party problem with campaign finance as it exists is trample the First Amendment rights of pri- contributions to their candidates. It is bi- not so much the inevitable corruptions, but vate individuals, but to lift the contribution zarre that political parties cannot give di- that these corruptions are so secret, as the limits on parties and candidates. Let the rectly to their candidates as much as they tortuous hearings of the Thompson Commit- money spent on many of the issue ads flow want. No claims can be made of a corrupting tee have proven. Full disclosure—daily, pub- directly to the candidates. As for the anger relationship between a candidate and his or licly, electronically—of contributions from many members have at private groups ex- her political party. And for those who want whatever source, from cloistered Buddhist pressing their views and—absolutely—trying to open up the political process and loosen nuns to ethanol fanatics, would let voters de- to influence their election: too bad! Politics the grip of incumbents political parties are cide for themselves which imperfect soul and political campaigns belong to the people, the one group that will always support a they wished to vote into office. not to the candidates and certainly not the challenger. federal government. The right to seek to per- Mr. MCCONNELL. Further, Mr. Lie No. 4: You can constitutionally control suade fellow citizens at election time is as President, there was an op-ed piece in issue advocacy. It is often forgotten that in fundamental as the right to vote itself. the Washington Times by Peggy Ellis the original 1974 amendments to the Federal Lie No. 9: Obscene amounts of money are Elections Campaign Act, Congress sought to of the Cato Institute entitled ‘‘10 Big spent in political campaigns. Congressional limit issue ads, just as many do now. The Su- Lies About Campaign Finance Re- candidates spent approximately $740 million preme Court overturned these rules. Nothing form. . . .’’ I ask unanimous consent in 1996. This is only slightly higher than the is more central to the core of what our coun- that it be printed in the RECORD. approximately $700 million spent in 1994. It’s try was founded on than the ability of pri- a lot of money—but not when compared to There being no objection, the mate- vate individuals and groups to discuss, criti- what we spend as a society in other areas. rial was ordered to be printed in the cize and protest their elected officials and These congressional totals average less than RECORD, as follows: those that seek office. A 20-year string of $4 per eligible voter. If you look at every court decisions reaffirm that free and [From the Washington Times, Oct. 7, 1997] race in the country, from dog catcher to unencumbered political speech enjoys the 10 BIG LIES ABOUT CAMPAIGN FINANCE president, the amount spent is less than $10 highest First Amendment protection and REFORM ... per eligible voter. As a society, we spend cannot be regulated by the federal govern- (By Peggy Ellis) more on potato chips, Barbie dolls, yogurt ment. Lie No. 1: The American people are clamor- Lie No. 5: Most issue ads are ‘‘thinly veiled and a host of other commodities than we do ing for campaign finance reform. Outside of campaign ads’’ and, therefore, can and must on politics. While many of us may like Washington and the political elites, cam- be regulated by the Federal Election Com- Barbie dolls and potato chips more than we paign finance reform finishes at the bottom mission. Nothing is more central to the First like politics, only politics has control over of the list of issues people care about (3 per- Amendment than the rights of individuals every aspect of our lives. Lie No. 10: We must control the amount of cent). Most voters believe that whatever re- and groups to participate openly and freely money spent in campaigns because can- forms are passed, politicians will find a way in our nation’s political debate. Reformers didates and members of Congress have to around the new rules (73 percent). By huge and misinformed senators claim that, since spend all their time raising money. It is the margins, voters are less likely to vote for issue ads are clearly intended to influence an ridiculous $1,000 contribution limit that has their member of Congress if they vote for re- election, they should be regulated. Buckley limited the ability of challengers to raise the forms that are unconstitutional (88 percent), vs. Valeo anticipated this argument. Of money they need to mount a successful cam- make it easier for them to get re-elected (71 course, the Court held, these ads are in- paign—and the reason members of Congress percent), make it more difficult for citizens’ tended to influence elections, but our First have to spend so much time raising money. groups to inform voters of candidates’ voting Amendment rights are so central to our po- The answer is not to control the amount can- records (80 percent) or increase the relative litical freedom that unless the words ‘‘vote didates can spend, which would only further power of the media (69 percent) (Tarrance for’’ or ‘‘vote against’’ are used, these ads are entrench incumbents, but to eliminate the Group, June 1997). issue advocacy and cannot be regulated by contribution limits. Let the money flow di- Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky the government. Republican known as the ‘‘Darth Vader of Lie No. 6: McCain-Feingold will open up rectly to the candidates and, with almost-in- campaign finance reform,’’ won re-election the system. In fact, McCain-Feingold could stant electronic disclosure, let the voters de- last year with a 160,000 vote margin—without be renamed the Incumbent Protection Act. cide. the endorsements of the two largest news- The stratospheric incumbent re-election rate Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today at papers because of his stance on ‘‘reform’’ and we have today is a direct result of the 1974 noon, we have another opportunity to with the maximum contributions allowed by rules. Contribution and spending limits and invoke cloture on S. 25, the McCain- October 8, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10519 Feingold campaign finance reform bill, who support reforming the Nation’s union members some say over the po- which I support. I am sorely dis- campaign finance laws. The only hope I litical uses of their money. Today, appointed that yesterday, the Repub- see in passing such reform at a future union dues are used to support or op- lican majority once again successfully date lies with the American voter. It pose particular candidates without any blocked going to the bill. will be up to the people of this great authorization from the dues payers. After yesterday’s two votes, the ma- democracy to demand that their Sen- McCain-Feingold takes a small step to jority leader said that campaign re- ators support campaign finance reform. address this problem, which amounts formers should just give up—that the There will be no campaign finance re- to compulsory contributions to can- bill’s chances for enactment in this ses- form until there is a nationwide move- didates. Under the McCain-Feingold sion of the 105th Congress were dead. ment to stop the campaign finance bill, dues paying, non-union members I do not believe that the American abuses uncovered by the Senate Gov- people should be denied the benefit of would be eligible for a refund if they ernmental Affairs Committee. disagreed with the political uses of campaign finance reform that would, in S. 25, the Bipartisan Campaign Re- their dues. That takes care of an esti- my opinion, level the playing field so form Act of 1997, was modified in good that running for Federal office would faith, in an attempt to craft a bill more mated one million workers, but 16 mil- not be so strongly influenced by acceptable to the opposition. Unfortu- lion union members are left without money. nately, it did not pass muster with any control over the political uses of It is amazing to me that after several those opposing it. In spite of yester- their funds. That seems fundamentally months of public hearings by the Sen- day’s defeats, we have another chance unfair. ate Governmental Affairs Committee to proceed to S. 25 by invoking cloture Senator LOTT’s amendment seeks to that anyone doubts the critical need to today. address this unfairness. According to rewrite our campaign funding laws. Americans deserve a Government the Lott amendment, unions would be Throughout the course of the hearings that works hard for their interests and prohibited from using dues for political we have witnessed example after exam- not just the interests of monied con- ple of the misuse of our campaign fi- purposes, including lobbying, unless in- tributors. Our citizens deserve a more dividuals gave prior written consent. nance laws. responsive, efficient, accountable and And yet there remains a real crisis in As I understand it, the prior consent representative Government. requirement is viewed by opponents to the Senate over our inability to enact Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Sen- be onerous, and, I think, the limitation any campaign finance reform legisla- ate has the opportunity to improve the on lobbying simply doesn’t apply to the tion. Moreover, this wholesale disdain system by which we finance our elec- for ending the money chase through tions. Yesterday, the Senate had before issue at hand—Federal election cam- substantive finance reform fuels the it two proposals: one sponsored by Ma- paigns. As many know, Senator SNOWE distrust held by the American public of jority Leader LOTT and Senator NICK- and others—who feel as I do, that this Congress and their belief that Congress LES; the other sponsored by Senators debate should move forward in an ef- does not wish to clean up its own MCCAIN and FEINGOLD. Much of the dis- fort to find common ground—have been house. cussion of these proposals, both here in working to refine this proposal. A vote Our committee has examined allega- the Senate and in the media, charac- for cloture on the Lott amendment is a tions of foreign money influencing Fed- terized them as mutually exclusive. vote in favor of moving the process for- eral campaigns, the use of Federal fa- For the most part, Republicans were ward. It is a vote in favor of opening up cilities to raise funds, contributors do- expected to support the Lott proposal, the Lott proposal to improvements. nating in another’s name, and access to and all 45 Democrats and a handful of Congress and the White House linked I also voted for cloture on the Republicans were committed to voting to campaign donations. Like my col- McCain-Feingold bill. Senators MCCAIN for McCain-Feingold. and FEINGOLD have made considerable leagues, I support prosecution by the The paramount goals of any true ef- Department of Justice of these allega- improvements to their bill. They have fort to reform the system of financing worked to accommodate the concerns tions if it is appropriate. We have also elections for Federal office must be to of other Senators, particularly Senator had an opportunity to hear from expert reduce the influence of special interest COLLINS who has worked hard to move witnesses on how they would reform money on elected officials and to level this process forward. I continue to have the funding of elections. the playing field between incumbents Mr. President, we can no longer allow concerns about some of the provisions the mad hunt for money to drive our and challengers. The partisan division that has created the procedural situa- of the bill. The treatment of independ- elections. Nor can we ignore the dra- ent expenditures is not wholly satisfac- matic increases in soft money dona- tion in which the Senate found itself yesterday suggests that these goals are tory to me, although Senator MCCAIN tions, the problems associated with un- assures me these provisions were sug- regulated independent expenditures not yet at hand. Although the propos- als before us are not the final resolu- gested by top experts on Federal elec- and issue advocacy, and the improper tions. I filed amendments that I believe use of tax-exempt organizations. tion to the problems that afflict the And yet, despite the tremendous ex- current system of campaign fundrais- could improve the McCain-Feingold plosion in campaign expenditures and ing, they do provide a good starting bill, but, of course, the Senate cannot the dismay over the political system point. get to the point of debating the merits expressed by the voters, there remains I voted for cloture on both the Lott and flaws of the bill unless cloture is steadfast opposition to reforming our proposal and on the underlying invoked. Nation’s campaign finance laws, as evi- McCain-Feingold bill. Do I think that As far as I am concerned, the most denced by yesterday’s votes. the majority leader’s proposal is flaw- important problem to be addressed this I was hopeful, although perhaps too less? Of course I don’t, no more than I year is one that barely existed a few optimistic, to believe that S. 25, the think the McCain-Feingold bill pro- years ago, the explosion of soft money vides all of the solutions to the out- McCain-Feingold campaign finance re- in the process. Not too many years ago, rages of the 1996 elections. But, I also form bill would be embraced by most many of us were here debating whether do not agree with those on the other Members of the Senate. I was wrong. PAC’s, political action committees, With less than 50 percent of voting side who have called the Lott amend- should be able to contribute $5,000 per age Americans going to the polls in the ment a poison pill. The truth is that last election, so much is at stake. The together these proposals establish a candidate, per election. We worried public’s deep distrust of this Nation’s sound starting point for a reasonable that these PAC contributions might elected officials by the voters will con- debate on campaign finance reform. appear to give special interests too tinue if the only thing that comes from It’s time to let the process go forward. much influence. But the soft money ex- the Senate’s investigation into cam- The Lott amendment should be opened plosion has made those amounts seem paign finance abuse allegations and the up to improvements, just as the like pocket change. I believe that if all abbreviated debate on S. 25 is political McCain-Feingold bill should be amend- else fails, we must deal with the soft rhetoric and finger-pointing. able. money problem, and we must take The Republican majority has seen fit As I see it, the goal of the Lott steps, at least, to impose disclosure re- to stifle the efforts of those Senators amendment is meritorious. It is to give quirements on the money that is spent S10520 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE October 8, 1997 on so-called ‘‘issue ads.’’ We also their Government until we begin to Supporters of this bill contend there should seek common ground on the deal with this fundamental issue: Do is too much money in politics. What Lott amendment. The Senate has the the current campaign laws matter they’re saying is, they think there’s opportunity to make these important enough to be enforced or are they just too much free speech, too much in- changes in the current fundraising sys- an arbitrary system that can be fol- volvement by free people expressing tem by invoking cloture on both the lowed or ignored depending on what is their views. But isn’t that exactly what Lott amendment and the underlying convenient for a campaign? The answer we want—more involvement and more McCain-Feingold bill. to this question must be emphatic—the participation? More candidates are Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the key laws that are here to protect our politi- running for office now than ever. Vot- issue in this debate is a simple one: cal system must be enforced vigor- ers now have more options than ever. Will we enforce the campaign laws al- ously. Nothing less is acceptable. Placing further limits on speech will ready on the books or not? Will we con- Mr. President, there is a second rea- effectively drive more citizens from the coct some new layer of confusing and son the voters are dubious about our process. complex rules and regulations to dis- seriousness for cleaning up campaign We should stop this misguided effort tract the voters from the real issue, or finance violations. Many of these vot- and do what the American people real- will we do the right thing? Are we ers are angry that their hard-earned ly want—and that is to enforce the going to insist that campaigns and can- money goes to candidates they don’t laws that have been on the books for didates follow the current rules, or are agree with. This happens through what years. Only by doing so will we restore we going to keep changing the laws essentially is extortion by the unions. their confidence in the political and each time there is a new scandal? If we Many hard-working union workers electoral system that is supposed to can’t—or won’t—even enforce the laws have part of their paycheck sent to po- send us here to do their bidding. we have now, what makes us think litical campaigns they don’t support. Mr. President, I urge all my col- that a new set of laws will be more ef- Yes, by codifying the Beck decision, leagues on both sides of the aisle to fective? this bill tries to make sure that non- make enforcing our current laws the The Senate and the American people union members don’t have their pay- No. 1 priority and put aside this effort have witnessed a flood of testimony in checks extorted for political use. But to construct yet another monstrosity recent weeks and months about illegal union members are left in a position of of bureaucracy and complexity that foreign contributions, influence ped- having to choose between their job or will add to American’s skepticism of dling, and money laundering at the their first amendment right to support Washington. highest levels of our Government. The the candidate of their choice. With Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I Attorney General has finally called for more and more union members voting ask unanimous consent that the an investigation in the face of mount- Republican in recent years, it’s no quorum call time be equally charged to ing evidence that, to many of us, clear- wonder that the liberal union bosses both sides. ly warranted a special investigator are working to make sure this form of The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without months ago. political blackmail is protected. objection, it is so ordered. Now, here we are debating a bill on Some will say this is no different Mr. MCCONNELL. I suggest the ab- the floor of the Senate that will not than PAC’s using their money to sup- sence of a quorum. only add new regulations and restric- port candidates that a contributor may The PRESIDING OFFICER. The tions to the people’s ability to partici- not agree with. Well if the Sierra Club clerk will call the roll. pate in the election of their own rep- or the National Rifle Association or The assistant legislative clerk pro- resentatives, but which ignores the vio- any other similar group uses your ceeded to call the roll. lations of campaign laws that appar- money to support a candidate you dis- Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask ently have already taken place. unanimous consent that the order for How does that play with the Amer- agree with, you can stop giving your ican people? I doubt it goes over too money to that group and its PAC. It’s the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without well. Sure, Americans are distrustful of a voluntary choice. But that’s not pos- objection, it is so ordered. all the money in campaigns. They are sible in a union—at least not without Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how right to be suspicious when they read putting your job at risk. No, Mr. President, this effort does much time remains on our side? about Buddhist nuns being used to fun- nothing to fix what’s broken. There are The PRESIDING OFFICER. There re- nel foreign money into a Presidential all sorts of schemes to make television mains 51⁄2 minutes on each side. campaign or the Lincoln bedroom Mr. DORGAN. If I might, claiming being used to cozy up with big-money stations give candidates free air time, the time remaining on our side, just campaign contributors. and to regulate what can and can’t be And they are also right to be dubious said in political commercials. And make a comment about the pending of what is going on here, because I there are even provisions that would business. think they understand and we are not have the Federal Government estab- We will shortly be casting another tackling the real issue at hand. We are lishing State and local campaign re- vote on cloture on the issue of cam- trying to divert their attention away strictions. All of this adds up to put- paign finance reform. The vote is going from the simple fact that our campaign ting chains around our fundamental to be whether we invoke cloture on the laws are not being enforced. This is the first amendment rights. McCain-Feingold campaign finance re- kind of cynicism that justifies the The courts have repeatedly held that form bill. American people’s distrust and apathy communications which do not ex- Now, it is interesting, as we have toward Washington politicians. pressly advocate the election or defeat been watching this develop over the re- History teaches us that when any law of a candidate are not subject to regu- cent days, we have seen a form of legis- is not enforced, whether campaign law lation by the Government. But the pro- lative cholesterol clogging and plug- or any other law, the people lose con- ponents of this bill would make the ging the system so that at the end fidence in the system, whether it is the Federal Election Commission into the some can say, ‘‘Well, we have consid- criminal justice system or the elec- politics police. They would determine ered campaign finance reform but they toral system. When violations of the whether a reasonable person would have, in effect, killed it.’’ That has law go uninvestigated and unpunished, know that an ad is advocating the elec- been the plan all along. we send the message that the law tion or defeat of a candidate or not. I mentioned yesterday that the great doesn’t matter. We destroy one of the This would send a chill through our po- illusionists in America are those who core principles of our government— litical process. Now the Government can convince people they have seen that we are a nation of laws, not of would decide what is reasonable or not. something that doesn’t exist. We had men—and the law applies equally to ev- It is exactly the kind of temptation to that yesterday in which there was an eryone—not just to some and not oth- tyranny that the Founding Fathers assertion that we were presented with ers. were protecting the American people a debate on campaign finance reform, We aren’t doing anything to restore from when they adopted the first but the debate didn’t really exist be- the American people’s confidence in amendment. cause no one was able to offer any October 8, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10521 amendments on campaign finance re- know we should and what the Amer- you can’t deny the right of a citizen to form. The bill was brought to the floor ican people know we must—reform the speak out, you can’t deny advocacy in by someone who wanted to kill it, so he system by which we finance American a free speech society. This Senate can bound it up with a tight rope—what he campaigns, because the current system talk all of the politics it wants. It can called filling the tree with amend- is broken. line up all of the 30-second sound bites ments, a tree of amendments—so that I yield the floor. it wants, but it cannot violate the Con- no one else could offer any amend- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- stitution nor will the Court allow us ments, and then filed a cloture motion ator from Idaho. to. designed to kill campaign finance re- Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are In this instance, I would love to quiet form. about to vote on a cloture motion on the voice of an advocate who disagreed The fact is this system doesn’t work. what is, without question, a very im- with me, and I had many of them last The campaign finance system in this portant issue to all of us and to the year in my campaign. I had over a country is broken. There is too much country at large. In fact, it is so impor- quarter of a million spent against me, money in campaigns. I have showed the tant that this morning the President of and I will tell you, I don’t think the chart out here on a number of occa- the United States cried out, ‘‘Save me ads were right. In fact, I think they sions when I have spoken about it. The from myself. Save me, please. I’m off were wrong. I think they failed to tell red line on the chart on campaign to Philadelphia to raise money, and if the truth. But in a free society, dog- spending goes straight up. And yet we you don’t save me by passing the new gone it, now and then you have to have people in this Chamber and across law, I may do something wrong, or I’m withstand somebody who doesn’t agree the Capitol who believe the problem is going to have to do what I’m going to with you and you have to withstand we don’t have enough money in poli- do anyway.’’ somebody who may tell a lie about tics, there is not enough money in Well, Mr. President, I’m sorry, but you. If you are in public life, that is a campaigns. What on Earth are they all I ask you to do is to abide by the darn fact, the sureness of what will thinking about? We need to reduce the law that is on the books of the land happen, and we all know that. amount of money in campaigns. today. That is what I do. That is what What is wrong about it? Nothing is One of the issues that is involved in the Senator who just spoke does. I wrong about it. Oh, I could see where this legislation is soft money. We doubt that Senator DORGAN ever has we should adjust some things, but I ought to abolish soft money, the legal attempted to violate campaign law. I will tell you right now, if we are going form of cheating from the old cam- know he hasn’t. He is an honest man. to say to a certain citizen in our soci- paign finance reform. For every rule He makes sure he doesn’t because he ety, ‘‘You are going to provide money there are people who try to figure out hires an attorney and he hires an ac- whether you want to or not, and that how to get around it, over it or under countant and he keeps himself legal be- money is going to make it into the po- it. In soft money, the growth in the ex- cause what we live under today is a litical system whether you want it to plosion of so-called soft money is the well-regulated campaign finance sys- or not,’’ and our colleagues on the growth and explosion of legal cheating tem. other side of the aisle will not allow in campaign finance, and we ought to I am absolutely amazed that when that to happen, they will not allow the change it. the American family sits down at night average citizen to have full, voluntary There are only two sides to this the first topic of the dinner table is not participation, then there will be no re- issue: Those who want to reform the what about that campaign finance re- form for this Senator to vote for. system, and those who are insisting the form they are talking about on the That will not happen if I have the ability of most Senators to block is- current system is just fine. floor of the Senate; I suspect that fam- There are a majority of us in this ily is talking about what happened to sues from coming to the floor. If we are Chamber, we believe, who will vote for the child who was lost on the streets of going to talk about major campaign, McCain-Feingold, for campaign finance America today, or that classmate of we must talk about fairness, we must talk about equity, and we must talk reform, if only we can get it up on the your son or daughter whom you found about the right of the citizen in free floor of the Senate for a vote. I hope out got arrested for drugs, or some today, or perhaps tomorrow if further speech and voluntarism. other issue like that. That makes a So today I stand with pride in my de- votes on cloture occur, that we will heck of a lot more sense to the average fense of the Constitution and the right have an opportunity to demonstrate American than the phenomenal, politi- of the citizen. I will oppose cloture on that, if we can get the bill to the floor cal, and media hype that has been built this bill, not out of an embarrassment of the Senate, it will have a majority over the last 3 or 4 months about cam- or not out of shame, but out of pride vote. paign finance reform. for the system that can work when you On my side of the aisle, 45 Members, Mr. President, if I have heard it once, play by the law. every single Member, has signed a let- I have heard it 100 times, spoken from The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time ter saying we support this kind of cam- the other side of the aisle, ‘‘Oh, they of the Senator has expired. paign finance reform. We had three, all do it.’’ No, we don’t all do it. I just Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me four, five Members on the other side of came out of a campaign and I didn’t just say McCain-Feingold may be dead the aisle who have supported it. If we violate a law nor was I accused of vio- as most people around here seem to be- can get it up for a vote, we will pass lating a law. I raised money legally. lieve. I have always believed the Amer- campaign finance reform. But there are I’m sorry if you have to use a smoke ican people can have anything they those who have tried to ride this into a cloud or subterfuge to argue your polit- want any time they are unified. The box canyon somewhere from which ical point of view. It is wrong. time is fast approaching when the there is no escape because they by de- Mr. President of the United States, it American people are going to demand sign want to kill campaign finance re- is wrong to say that everybody does it, that we change a system that is rotten form because they believe there is not because not everybody does. I am not to the core. McCain-Feingold goes a enough money in politics. They want about to save you, Mr. President, from long way in that direction. It doesn’t more money in American politics. I yourself and from going to Philadel- go nearly far enough to please me per- have no idea where they get that sort phia today to raise money. Last I sonally, but at least it will be a begin- of notion. checked, you touched out of here vol- ning. The American people know better. untarily. You left this city voluntarily. The two things you can do to restore The American people support with an And yet that was the argument that people’s faith in the American Govern- 80-percent margin the need to pass was used by the President of the Unit- ment and Congress, the two things you campaign finance reform by this Con- ed States today. ‘‘Well, the Senate yes- can do that will instill more confidence gress. I urge my colleagues to vote for terday didn’t pass a law so I got to go than anything else would be to balance cloture. Vote for cloture on the do it again.’’ Sorry, Mr. President, that the budget and change the way we fi- McCain-Feingold bill and breathe some isn’t the issue here. nance campaigns. life into campaign finance reform and The Supreme Court yesterday spoke I have heard all the sophistry about let’s do what the American people out very, very clearly when they said the constitutionality of this bill. I just S10522 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE October 8, 1997 want to tell you, when it comes to free NAYS—47 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who speech, you can hang your hat on free Abraham Faircloth Lugar seeks recognition? speech if you want to, but the thing Allard Frist McConnell Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Sen- Ashcroft Gorton Murkowski that makes this system rotten is that a Bennett Gramm Nickles ator yield? guy who can afford to belly up for Bond Grams Roberts Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the $100,000 gets a lot more free speech Brownback Grassley Roth Chair. than some guy giving $25. The reason Burns Gregg Santorum Campbell Hagel Sessions The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- he doesn’t give $25 is because he knows Coats Hatch Shelby ator from New Jersey. it gets him nothing—not even good Cochran Helms Smith (NH) Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if government. Coverdell Hutchinson Smith (OR) we can achieve order in the Chamber, Craig Hutchison Stevens So I plead with my colleagues, for D’Amato Inhofe Thomas it would be easier for us to commu- God’s sake, let’s do something that the DeWine Kempthorne Thurmond nicate. vast majority of the American people Domenici Kyl Warner The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the want us to do—that is, to level the Enzi Lott Senate come to order? playing field for all parties. You don’t NOT VOTING—1 The Senate will come to order. have a democracy when the people we Mack The Senator from New Jersey. elect and the laws we pass depend on The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I how much money we raise for it. vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 47. thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Three-fifths of the Senators duly cho- Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I make a f sen and sworn not having voted in the point of order that the Senate is not in affirmative, the motion is rejected. order. CLOTURE MOTION Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ma- GRAMS). The Senator from Kentucky is The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under jority leader. correct. The Senate is not in order. the previous order, the clerk will re- f The Senator from New Jersey. port the motion to invoke cloture. Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, The assistant legislative clerk read INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANS- once again, I thank you. as follows: PORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF Mr. President, we are about to con- 1997—MOTION TO PROCEED CLOTURE MOTION sider a radical departure from the We, the undersigned Senators, in accord- Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to structure as we have known it to take ance with the provisions of rule XXII of the proceed to Calendar No. 188, S. 1173, the care of our highway and transportation Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby so-called ISTEA legislation. needs for the next 6 years. But I view move to bring to a close the debate on S. 25, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The as modified, the campaign finance reform this approach as somewhat premature bill: question is on the motion. Is there de- and want to discuss what some of the Thomas A. Daschle, Carl Levin, Joseph I. bate? problems are with it. As a member of Lieberman, Wendell Ford, Byron L. Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Environment and Public Works Dorgan, Barbara Boxer, Jack Reed, was that a unanimous-consent request? Committee, and also, Mr. President, as Richard H. Bryan, Daniel K. Akaka, Mr. LOTT. No. Mr. President, if the having been the chairman of the Sen- Christopher J. Dodd, Kent Conrad, Rob- Senator would yield, it is a motion. ate Transportation Subcommittee of ert G. Torricelli Charles S. Robb, Joe But it is debatable. I understood the Appropriations, and currently the Biden, Dale Bumpers, Carol Moseley- Senator from New Jersey intended to Braun, John Kerry. ranking member, I view it from a par- debate the motion. ticular vantage point. CALL OF THE ROLL Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. So I want to use this opportunity to The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SES- Mr. LOTT. Could I inquire of the Sen- alert my colleagues to some of the SIONS). By unanimous consent, the ator from New Jersey how long he problems that I see with the bill and quorum call has been waived. thinks that he would need to do that? those opportunities perhaps to change VOTE Mr. LAUTENBERG. I can speak for it. I know, Mr. President, that when I myself, I think, about the bill that I The PRESIDING OFFICER. The discuss concerns with this bill that I want to explain but I can’t certainly question is, Is it the sense of the Sen- also reflect—— speak for any other colleagues. ate that debate on S. 25, a bill to re- Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Sen- form the financing of Federal elec- Mr. LOTT. I am not asking for a spe- cific hour, just some general—an hour ate is not in order. tions, shall be brought to a close? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the The yeas and nays are required under or two. Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is not my in- Senate please come to order? The Sen- the rule. ator from New Jersey has the floor and The clerk will call the roll. tention to tie the Senate up with this for some indefinite period—not at all— has the right to be heard. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the but I do want to discuss some of the problems that I see with the bill. thank you and the Senator from Mon- Senator from Florida [Mr. MACK] is tana. necessarily absent. Mr. LOTT. Does the Senator think an Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Sen- The result was announced—yeas 52, hour is about what he is thinking ate is still not in order. nays 47, as follows: about? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the [Rollcall Vote No. 270 Leg.] Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am not going to enter into a time agreement. Senator from New Jersey hold for a YEAS—52 Mr. LOTT. I am not asking for an moment? Will those having conversa- Akaka Feinstein McCain agreement—just for the information of tions please take them to the Cloak- Baucus Ford Mikulski room so we can hear the Senator from Biden Glenn Moseley-Braun all Senators so we know when there Bingaman Graham Moynihan might be some further action—just New Jersey? Boxer Harkin Murray some general idea of the time expected. The Senator from New Jersey. Breaux Hollings Reed Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, Bryan Inouye Reid Mr. LAUTENBERG. In fairness to the Bumpers Jeffords Robb majority leader, who I have found to be once again I thank you. I sense that Byrd Johnson Rockefeller an understanding person, I would take the excitement about the comments Chafee Kennedy Sarbanes the time necessary; probably—I do not that I want to make has just overtaken Cleland Kerrey Snowe Collins Kerry Specter know—an hour or so. the Senate and it is hard for people to Conrad Kohl Thompson Mr. LOTT. That would be fine. Will settle down. But if they will settle Daschle Landrieu Torricelli the Senator require a rollcall vote? down and listen, their fondest dreams Dodd Lautenberg Wellstone Mr. LAUTENBERG. No. will be realized. Dorgan Leahy Wyden Durbin Levin Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor, Mr. Mr. President, I think we ought to Feingold Lieberman President. take some time to pause before we talk