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, TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1997 No. 35 Senate The Senate met at 10 a.m., and was ing. That debate will continue until Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I object called to order by the President pro 12:30 today, at which time the Senate to further proceeding in this matter at tempore [Mr. THURMOND]. will recess until the hour of 2:15 for the this time. weekly policy conferences to meet. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint PRAYER When the Senate reconvenes at 2:15, resolution will be placed on the cal- The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John there will be an additional 30 minutes endar. Ogilvie, offered the following prayer: for closing remarks, followed by a roll- Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Lord, forgive us when we envy the call vote on passage of Senate Joint gifts, talents, and success of others Resolution 18. Therefore, Senators can f rather than praise You for all You have anticipate the rollcall vote at approxi- RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME mately 2:45 today. given to each of us. Sometimes we The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under Following that vote, the Senate will covet the opportunities and skills of the previous order, leadership time is resume consideration of Senate Joint others when they seem to exceed our reserved. Resolution 22, the independent counsel own. We admit we miss becoming the f distinctively different persons You resolution. We will be continuing dis- have in mind. A limiting formula re- cussions with the Democratic leader in MORNING BUSINESS sults: Our comparisons multiplied by the hope of reaching a consent agree- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under combative competition, equals the ment to allow us to complete action on the previous order, there will now be a stress of envy. You do not play favor- this resolution. Also this week, it is period for the transaction of morning ites, or pit Your people against one an- possible that the Senate will consider a business until 11:30, with Senators per- other. You are for us and not against resolution regarding Mexico and their mitted to speak therein for up to 5 us. certification in the antidrug effort. In minutes each. You have promised that if we humble addition, the Senate may begin consid- Under the previous order, the Sen- ourselves in Your sight, You will lift us eration of the nuclear waste legislation ator from Colorado is recognized to up. We know You will multiply our po- prior to our adjournment for the speak for up to 15 minutes. tential beyond our wildest expecta- Easter recess. (The remarks of Mr. CAMPBELL per- tions. So we press on with a liberating Again, I remind my colleagues that taining to the introduction of S. 457 are formula: An honest recognition of the since this is the last week of session located in today’s RECORD under assets You have given each of us, mul- prior to the adjournment, I hope all ‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills and tiplied by Your indwelling power, will Senators will continue to cooperate Joint Resolutions.’’) The PRESIDING OFFICER. The equal greater excellence without stress and adjust schedules accordingly as we Chair observes, in my capacity as a today. Thank You dear Lord. Amen. attempt to schedule legislation and votes. I thank my colleagues. Senator from Kansas, the absence of a f quorum. RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING f The clerk will call the roll. MAJORITY LEADER MEASURE PLACED ON THE CAL- The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. ENDAR—HOUSE JOINT RESOLU- The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask able acting majority leader is recog- TION 58 unanimous consent that the order for nized. Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I un- the quorum call be rescinded. Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, thank derstand there is a resolution at the The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. you. desk and it is due for its second read- SMITH of Oregon). Without objection, it I thank the Chaplain, again, for an ing. is so ordered. outstanding opening prayer. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. f f ROBERTS). The Senator is correct. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM SCHEDULE The clerk will read the joint resolu- tion for the second time. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today, The legislative clerk read as follows: not had the opportunity to come to the following morning business, at 11:30, A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 58) disapprov- floor to talk about the pending matter. the Senate will resume consideration ing certification of the President under sec- I want to devote a little time this of Senate Joint Resolution 18, the Hol- tion 490(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of morning to the constitutional amend- lings resolution regarding the constitu- 1961 regarding foreign assistance for Mexico ment offered by the distinguished Sen- tional amendment on campaign fund- during fiscal year 1997. ator from South Carolina, Senator

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

S2377 S2378 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 18, 1997

HOLLINGS. I am a cosponsor of that leg- am in cycle now. I will be running in and get comments about what families islation, and I proudly come to the 1998. My budget, Mr. President, is $5 are thinking about. That education is floor in my advocacy of the passage of million. I have already indicated that. lost when any candidate spends two- his amendment. That is no secret. I will be raising and thirds to three-fourths of his time I give him great credit. He has come spending $5 million to be reelected. doing nothing but dialing for dollars. to the floor for years addressing, in I have heard colleagues on the Senate WENDELL FORD, our distinguished myriad ways, the issue of campaign fi- floor say, ‘‘Well, you know, the nation colleague who sits right at this desk, nance, the problems that we have asso- spends less than $2.7 billion on dog and said fundraising was a major factor in ciated with campaign finance, the dif- cat food, so why should we be worried? his determination not to run for reelec- ficulties, constitutionally and statu- We spend a lot more on dog and cat tion. We are going to lose an able pub- torily, in addressing all of the problems food than we spend in political races.’’ lic servant. When he was first elected that he has so eloquently outlined now I do not think that is a proper com- to the Senate in 1974, his campaign for a long period of time. Year after parison unless we have only 535 dogs cost $450,000. But he estimated he year, in Congress after Congress, fight and cats in this country. If you had 535 would have to raise $4.5 million for the after fight, Senator HOLLINGS has been dogs and cats, that comparison would race in 1998. He said, ‘‘I don’t want to extraordinary in his effort to address work. I tell you, if we were spending raise $4.5 million in Kentucky. I don’t this issue in a consequential and com- $2.7 billion on 535 designated dogs and want to have to go through that. I prehensive way. cats, my sense is we would be outraged. don’t think it is right. I don’t want to I want to talk a little bit about the There would be all kinds of complaints have to sit in some cubicle called a ‘po- circumstances that I see facing all of that dog and cat food is way too high. litical office’ and dial for dollars day us politically right now and my rea- ‘‘I can’t afford to keep a cat or a dog.’’ after day. I don’t want to do that.’’ So sons for supporting the constitutional How is it we can afford a political he is hanging it up. amendment. There are at least four process so denigrated today by prac- How many more WENDELL FORDs, primary reasons why I believe that the tices that we all abhor that we are how many more talented public serv- constitutional amendment needs to be willing to spend $4.5 million per Sen- ants will hang it up or will not even addressed. I am of the view that statu- ator? So, Mr. President, the cost is start? So, Mr. President, this is a very torily we are incapable of adequately something that I think is very clearly serious problem from the point of view addressing every one of the nuances, an issue that we have to address, be- of candidates themselves—Republican every one of the problems that have cause it is only going to get worse. or Democrat. arisen as a result of our efforts to ad- We used the increases in campaign I recruit candidates, and one of the dress meaningful campaign finance re- costs since 1976 to estimate what the hardest things for me is to convince form in the past. I do not have with me cost of an election will be in the year possible candidates to run knowing the record that we have compiled, but 2025. Most of us, hopefully, will still be they have to raise $4.5 to $5.5 million. we have spent hours and days and around. I will not be here, but I will be, You go tell some businessman to give weeks in testimony and in hearings hopefully, living. Our sons and daugh- up his business, give up his family, give over the course of many Congresses ters will be here seeking public office. up his dignity, go tell them that ‘‘you grappling with this issue. Our estimate is that a Senate race ought to do that so you can take a seat As I recall, there have been 49 hear- will cost $145 million in the year 2025. here in the U.S. Senate.’’ Tell them ings on campaign finance reform. Now that is not any magical distortion that. Convince them it is in the public There have been thousands and thou- of the amount. That is simply taking interest. Here in the Senate, we have a sands of pages of reports. There have the inflation rate that we have experi- wonderful opportunity to serve, but to been over a score of filibusters on the enced and costing it out to the year get here you pay a heavy price, too floor keeping this issue from a vote. So 2025—$145 million. We will be raising heavy in the minds of more and more the record in the Congress over the last over $200,000 a day to meet that kind of 10 years has really been abysmal. The people. Too many good people are say- cost in the year 2025. problems continue to mount and the ing no to public life, no to public serv- So do we have a problem? I could rest circumstances continue to worsen and ice because they do not want to do it. my case on that alone. But there are the situation involving Members is Frankly, I do not blame them. other problems that I want to talk In the third category are the implica- compounded. In 1976, the total cost of all Federal about this morning. tions of the money in the system. The I have a friend I have known for 20 elections was $310 million. That is implications of all of this money trou- total. That is what every House Mem- years, who ran for Congress. He is bles me. Every day the front page has ber, every House candidate, every Sen- idealistic, has a wonderful family; and yet another story about White House ator, every Senate candidate, and is extraordinarily helpful. My friend difficulties. Obviously, it is now the every Presidential candidate spent— decided he wanted to run for Congress. subject of an investigation in the Gov- $310 million. In 1996, that amount had He was at that point in life when he ernmental Affairs Committee and the exploded—and I use that word inten- thought he could offer something. He Justice Department. tionally—exploded to $2.7 billion. That cared deeply about the issues, and is We are looking at all of that. We on is $2,100 a day for a Senate candidate. very, very patriotic, an extraordinary the Democratic side have felt that Every day, whether we generate the young man in all respects. many of the abuses the Republicans money all at once or whether we gen- But in order to meet his budget, my may be guilty of have not received ade- erate it day by day, we need to raise friend found himself holed up in a quate attention. $2,100 a day. small cubicle with a desk and a phone The media seem honed in on every- Just yesterday I was over at my po- calling for money about two-thirds to thing that happened in the White litical office. I have a political office. I three-fourths of every day. Was he out House. As a colleague has reminded me have a South Dakota office. I have a there greeting the people sharing his on several occasions, ‘‘Why hunt rab- leadership office. I have three service ideas? No. Was he out there shaking bits when you can hunt bear?’’ Well, offices. But now, without a doubt, one hands, learning from the people? No. A there are some elephants that ought to of the most important parts of any campaign, anybody who has been be hunted, I think, given the cir- Senate infrastructure is the political through one will recognize, is really an cumstances. office. educational experience. There were reports in the Washing- I was over in my political office yes- Of course you impart your thoughts. ton Post on January 23, 1997; the Wall terday dialing for dollars. I do not But what I love about campaigns is Street Journal on January 9; Business know how much I raised, but I made up how much you learn in return—the Week on December 30, 1996; Roll Call on yesterday for the fact that I had not conversations with people in their January 20, 1997; Inside Congress on De- raised $2,100 every day in the previous homes, the opportunity to answer ques- cember 20, 1996, that Republican lead- weeks. tions and hear concerns at Rotaries ers—including Republican National Now the average cost of a Senate and chambers of commerce, the oppor- Committee Chairman Haley Barbour, campaign is $4.5 million per Senator. I tunity to shake hands at a plant gate NEWT GINGRICH, DICK ARMEY, TOM March 18, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2379

DELAY, and JOHN BOEHNER—summoned how it spends the money, as the RNC The decision in Buckley and Colorado business leaders to a dinner to chastise is. This $4.6 million in ‘soft money’ are a threat to the principle of one per- them for donating money to Democrats could be used by ATR directly on be- son, one vote. There are Senators who and suggest that if they continue to do half of federal candidates—which would disagree, and there are many, many so, they would no longer have access to be scored as ‘hard money’ if spent by ways with which to express that dis- Republican leaders. the RNC. Grover Norquist is a close agreement. But I will say this: No one This is a quote—‘‘ ‘Companies that ally of Gingrich and is also registered is guaranteed free money. Mr. Presi- want to have it both ways,’ said one as a foreign agent for the Republic of dent, free speech is not the same as top GOP strategist, ‘no longer will be Seychelles, and Jonas Savimbi, rebel free money. It is no more right for us involved in Republican decisionmaking leader of the National Union for the to stand up in indignation with all of or invited to our cocktail parties.’ Total Independence of Angola.’’ these problems and to say there is no They also demanded that the company Mr. President I could go on and on. problem, or that if there is a problem, fire all of its Democratic lobbyists and Perhaps I will end with this one just we cannot address it because of the free replace them with Republicans. A GOP received yesterday: 1997 RNC Annual speech argument on this issue. leadership insider said, ‘If companies Gala, May 13, 1997. Cochairman—for a Mr. President, we have limited send lobbyists to Republican offices, $250,000 fundraising requirement, you speech in other ways. We have limited they will have GOP credentials or they get ‘‘Breakfast and a Photo Oppor- even the right of advertising in ways won’t be allowed in the room.’ NRCC tunity with Senate Majority Leader that have been demonstrated to be con- Chairman John Linder said, ‘We’re Trent Lott and Speaker of the House stitutional. When was the last time going to track where the money Newt Gingrich on May 13, 1997.’’ You you saw a cigarette ad on television? goes.’ ’’ get a luncheon with ‘‘Republican Sen- When was the last time you saw ads for Mr. President, what does that mean? ate and House leadership and the Re- drugs on television? Obviously, there What are the implications of ‘‘money’’? publican Senate and House Committee are restrictions on free speech. We all What do they mean when they say Chairmen of your choice.’’ know that you cannot falsely yell business leaders who contribute to I am still reading from the document. ‘‘fire’’ in a crowded theater. Mr. Presi- Democrats will no longer be involved You get a luncheon with the chairmen dent, I do not buy the argument that in Republican decisionmaking? of your choice if you are willing to do- we cannot carefully restrict speech, be- Here’s another passage from Roll nate $250,000. If you only donate cause we restrict speech all the time. Call, October 30, 1995. $100,000, you still get a luncheon with I am out of time, and I know the dis- Upon winning control of the 104th Con- the chairmen of your choice, and you tinguished Senator from West Virginia gress, Congressman John Boehner, chair of still get a breakfast and photo oppor- is about to speak as is required by the the House Republican Conference, organized tunity with ‘‘Senate Majority Leader order. We will return to this issue a leadership/lobbyist operation to help pass Trent Lott and Speaker of the House again. the Republicans’ budget plan. Business lob- Let me close by saying we also know byists contributed at least $2,000 toward an Newt Gingrich.’’ You do not get dais seating. For $45,000, amazingly, you are that this legislation, this amendment, advertising campaign to support the Repub- is not going to pass. But we also know lican budget. ‘‘In exchange, they got a seat still entitled to lunch with the chair- in the inner circle that met every Monday in men of your choice. that there will be another day. There one of the Capitol’s . . . meeting rooms.’’ Mr. President, we do not need that. will be another day to offer bipartisan So $2,000 for a seat in the inner circle We do not need that in this institution campaign reform legislation from a meeting every Monday in the Capitol’s or in our political system. This has to statutory perspective. I intend to be as meeting rooms. end. This will not go on without ulti- aggressively supportive of that as I can Here’s another example from Time mately and directly affecting the qual- be. Let me say that this issue will not go magazine, March 27, 1995. Mr. Boehner ity and the historic standing of this in- away, not when our sons and daughters also organized the Thursday group of stitution. ‘‘lobbyists representing some of the Now let me address the last issue, will be spending $145 million in the year 2025 just to walk in this door and richest special interests in the coun- and that is the constitutional issue. vote. try.’’ The Republican leadership let Mr. President, I have to say it is the I yield the floor. these lobbyists use congressional office hardest one. It is the hardest because The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under space and official resources to conduct there are a lot of people whose judg- the previous order, the hour of 11 a.m. their bill drafting and lobbying activi- ment I respect who are not willing to has arrived. The Senator from West ties. The Thursday group served as go as far as I am. But it is hard for me Virginia is recognized to speak up to 30 command central for a million dollar to understand what the Supreme Court minutes. campaign to enact items in the Con- said in Buckley versus Valeo. On the Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank tract With America. On tort reform, one hand, they said it is all right to the Chair. I commend our leader who the group’s efforts included ‘‘daily limit how much you give; on the other has just spoken. I agree with him, as I meetings of dozens of lobbyists on the hand, it is not all right to limit how shall elaborate at this point. seventh floor of the Longworth House much you spend. Why? If we are wor- f Office Building, a budget of several ried about free speech, why is it appro- million dollars raised under the guid- priate to limit giving but not limit THE HOLLINGS CAMPAIGN EX- ance of a General Motors executive, spending? What is the constitutional PENDITURE CONSTITUTIONAL and a vote-counting operation that was premise that allows us to say we can AMENDMENT led by former top lobbyists for Ronald limit how much you give, but we can- Mr. BYRD. Ralph Waldo Emerson, in Reagan and George Bush.’’ not limit how much you spend? It an oration delivered on August 31, 1867, Here is yet another example, this seems to me that once they decided to said: time from the Washington Post and limit how much you give, they set This time, like all times, is a very good Legal Times, dated October 29, 1996, themselves up, as well, for limiting one, if we but know what to with it. and September 16, 1996, respectively: how much you spend. ‘‘This time, like all times, is a very ‘‘Gingrich ally and foreign agent Gro- New York University law professor good one, if we but know what to do ver Norquist’s Americans for Tax Re- Ronald Dworkin and 40 other scholars with it.’’ form received a $4.6 million contribu- wrote in a joint statement, ‘‘We believe As the Senate considers the proposed tion from the RNC in October,’’ 1 that the Buckley decision is wrong and constitutional amendment offered by month before the election, ‘‘in October should be overturned. The decision did our distinguished colleague from South 1996 * * * the RNC contributed $4.6 mil- not declare a valuable principle that Carolina, Senator HOLLINGS, it is my lion to the tax-exempt Americans for we should hesitate to challenge. On the fervent hope that each of us takes heed Tax Reform, which is headed by Ging- contrary, it misunderstood not only of Emerson’s portentous words. rich ally Grover Norquist. Because it is what free speech really is but what it We have an opportunity to take an not structured as a political commit- really means for free people to govern important step in the direction of re- tee, ATR is not required to disclose themselves.’’ storing the people’s faith in our ability S2380 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 18, 1997 to rise above partisanship and really do days. We didn’t have political consult- chase and to put anything but vol- something about our present system of ants. And so we ran on a war chest of untary spending limits on Federal cam- financing Federal campaigns. It is rot- $50,000. But the average cost of a U.S. paigns. This basic inflexibility makes ten. It is putrid. It stinks. The danger, Senate race today is $4.5 million. It can any legislation intended to control the as always, is that we will ‘‘circle the cost $10 million or $20 million or more cancerous effects of too much money in wagons,’’ and avoid taking legal action to run for the Senate in some parts of politics complicated and convoluted. aimed at meaningful reform. the country today. The contortions such legislation has to Mr. President, as each day dawns, the Now, how in the future can a poor resort to, simply because we cannot public is confronted with new and in- boy from back in the sticks of West mandate spending limits, create new creasingly garish allegations concern- Virginia, or any other State, hope to opportunities for abuse as fast as we ing the campaign financing practices become a United States Senator? How attempt to close down the old ones. that have become a way of life in our can a former welder in a shipyard, a How do we pass any statute—any Nation. former meatcutter in a coal mining statute of consequence, that is—when Mr. President, we may be able to fool community, a former produce sales- the Supreme Court has told us that ourselves, but the time has come for all man, a former groceryman—how can spending equals speech? Spending of us to stop trying to fool the Amer- one hope to ascend the ladder to the equals speech. Well, if that is the case, ican people. They are more than aware high office of United States Senator? It I don’t have the equality of free speech that both political parties—both politi- will be beyond the means of such per- that many Members in this body pro- cal parties, not just one—abuse the sons. fess. current system and that both political The American people believe that the How do we place any kind of reason- parties fear to change because they way to gain access and influence on able limit on fundraising and spending don’t want to lose their own perceived Capitol Hill is through money. And the when the law of the land says that to advantages. One party perceives cer- American people are exactly right. The do so violates the first amendment of tain advantages, and the other party way to gain access on Capitol Hill, the the Constitution? How do we end $40 perceives different advantages to its way to get the attention of Members of million Senate campaigns and $400 mil- cause. But the insidious system of cam- this body is through money. The Bible lion Presidential campaigns when the paign fundraising and the increasing says, ‘‘The love of money is the root of Supreme Court tells us that those awareness by the people of our unwill- all evil.’’ This campaign system that amounts are constitutionally pro- ingness to change it, will eventually we now have bears that out. tected? How do we really reform the lead to the destruction of our very sys- Anyone who reads the daily news- system within the bounds of that judi- tem of Government. For our own sakes paper would have no trouble coming to cial interpretation? The plain truth is and for the sake of our people we must the conclusion that the best way to that it cannot be done effectively un- find ways to stop this political minuet, gain access to the White House is to be less we do amend the Constitution. and come to grips with the fact that we a so-called ‘‘fat cat contributor.’’ Now, We can tinker around the edges, of can’t have it both ways. We can’t con- who can fault such logic? It is as plain course. But we cannot enact com- tinue to launch broadsides at each as the nose on your face. We have to prehensive legislation that will get at other and refuse to admit that we all stop this madness. We must put an end the heart of the problem. We cannot, bear the blame—all of us, in both par- to the seemingly limitless escalation of consistent with the Court’s ruling in ties. We have it in our power to change campaign costs and their pervasive in- Buckley versus Valeo, put an end to things and the excuses we creatively fluence of the special interests and the the hundreds of millions of dollars that craft to duck that responsibility are wealthy. We must act to put the Unit- are raised in ‘‘soft money’’ contribu- utterly hollow and quite transparent. ed States Senate, the House of Rep- tions, or the hundreds of millions of The incessant money chase that cur- resentatives, and the Presidency of the dollars that are spent through so-called rently permeates every crevice of our United States back within the reach of ‘‘independent expenditures.’’ I wish we political system is like an unending anyone with the brains, the spirit, the could. But the fact is that we cannot circular marathon. And it is a race guts, and the desire to want to serve. get the kind of legislation we really that sends a clear message to the peo- And the proposed constitutional need unless we first pass an amend- ple that it is money—money—money, amendment before us today is a nec- ment to the Constitution which nul- not ideas, not principles, but money essary step on the way to accomplish- lifies Buckley versus Valeo. that reigns supreme in American poli- ing that goal. We have heard the first amendment tics. No longer are candidates judged Now, I am aware that opponents of invoked in Buckley. We have heard the fit for office first and foremost by their this measure—and they have a right to argument that we must not infringe positions on the issues. No longer are their opinion—would say that it would upon freedom of speech. I believe that they judged by their experience and be wrong to amend the Constitution in a continued failure to control cam- their capabilities. Instead, potential this fashion. They will say that, al- paign costs is actually what is injuri- candidates are judged by their ability though I may be right about the need ous to free speech for all in political to raise the millions, and tens of mil- for change in our current fundraising campaigns. Money has become the lions of dollars, and even hundreds of system, I am just wrong about this pro- great ‘‘unequalizer’’—the great millions of dollars that it takes to run posed amendment. I am very reluctant ‘‘unequalizer’’—in political campaigns. an effective campaign. to amend the Constitution, but I am Money talks. Money talks, and a lot of The average cost of a U.S. Senate not above amending it. The Constitu- money talks louder than a little race is $4.5 million. When I first ran for tion contains a provision, as we all money. Would anyone claim that the the U.S. Senate in 1958, I ran with Jen- know, that was included by the framers average citizen or the small contribu- nings Randolph, as the two candidates of that document that points the way tor has the same access to, the same for the Senate. We were two candidates and is the guide, the roadmap to influence with, politicians as the major for two different Senate seats from amending the Constitution. It is well contributor or the big PAC representa- West Virginia. Jennings Randolph ran known that I believe that we tinker tive? Well, take it from me, he doesn’t. for the 2-year term, the unexpired term with the careful checks and balances of Whose opinions are heard? Whose free of the late Matthew Mansfield Neely. I that document at our peril. But a Su- speech is heard? Whose ‘‘speech″ gets ran for the 6-year term. Each of us won preme Court decision in Buckley versus through to the people who count in the nomination, and then after the pri- Valeo, a decision which I believe to be Washington? mary we joined together and we mar- flawed, has all but doomed the pros- In the case of elections, who is more shaled our monetary forces, which pects for comprehensive legislative re- likely to win but the candidate who amounted to something like $50,000— form of this campaign finance system can buy more TV time, the candidate $50,000 for two Senators. And that was otherwise. By equating campaign ex- who can afford more publicity, a bigger more than had earlier been necessary penditures with free speech, Buckley staff? So much for free speech. When it in campaigns in West Virginia. We versus Valeo has made it impossible for comes to our political system, speech didn’t have much television in those us to control the ever-spiraling money is very, very, very expensive indeed. March 18, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2381 In a very real sense, Buckley versus ated, evidenced or carried out by of the corporate boardrooms and the Valeo disenfranchised those of mod- means of language, spoken, written or country clubs. erate and less than moderate means printed.’’ Fear is a very terrible thing. It is ter- from having their views heard and So, Mr. President, when it comes to rible because it paralyzes. Fear clouds weighted equally with those who can modern political campaigns, it is only judgment. Fear of losing advantage is afford to contribute huge sums. when there are no mandated expendi- what has driven both parties’ reluc- Who would stand here on the floor ture limits that an inequality in free tance to enact meaningful campaign fi- and tell me that the money that a poor speech arises. The only real way to cor- nance reform in the past, and that coal miner is able to contribute will rect that inequity is to mandate limits same fear is what is driving the current entitle that coal miner to the same on campaign expenditures. If the rules reluctance. But the fixation with main- freedom of speech and the same influ- of the game are equal for all and fair to taining advantage is blinding us to a ence with his representatives in Wash- all, then no one is at a disadvantage much greater and more serious peril: ington as the wealthy can enjoy? simply because of purchasing power. the total loss of credibility. Credibility In a very real sense, Buckley versus Mr. HOLLINGS’ amendment would is a precious commodity. We politi- Valeo, as I say, disenfranchised those begin to correct the mechanistic, ster- cians have collectively squandered our of moderate means, the individual who ile jurisprudence that has reared its credibility over the last several years works with his hands, who earns his head in recent Court decisions regard- because of the unchecked rise of the in- bread by the sweat of his brow. He ing the first amendment and set us on fluence of money in politics. Already can’t speak loudly enough to be heard a more correct course. The various in- our people do not vote. They do not in the corridors of his representatives genious forms of modern campaigning vote because they think politicians are in Washington. with their outlandish expenditures all the same and that an individual The influence of money has com- were never contemplated by James vote does not matter anymore. Politi- pletely contorted the intent of the first Madison and the other framers of the cians are not trusted because all that amendment when it comes to our polit- Constitution—never contemplated. concerns them, at least to the percep- ical system. And Buckley versus Valeo Only a blatant disregard for the ob- tion of the average citizen, is money has written that contortion into our scene disadvantage which money can and winning the next election. organic law. convey when not controlled in a politi- I served as majority leader from the Additionally, Buckley versus Valeo cal campaign could cause one to turn a years 1977 through 1980 and again in the further disenfranchised those who blind eye to the need to respond to vio- years 1987 and 1988, and I served as mi- might endeavor to run for political of- lence done to our Republic by a contin- nority leader during the 6 years in be- fice because it makes it practically im- ued failure to put some limitations on tween. It was a constant problem to be possible for most individuals to afford campaign expenditures. a leader and to program the Senate and to run for office themselves unless they Mr. President, the time has come to to operate the Senate, and became in- are either independently wealthy or a stop. We have tried the legislative creasingly a problem because of the well-financed incumbent. What is that course. When I was majority leader money needs, the needs of the money but an effective denial of the basic during the 100th Congress, I tried eight chase. Senators had to go here; they right of any capable, motivated citizen times—eight times—to break a fili- had to go there; they had to raise to stand for Federal office? And what is buster against campaign spending re- money; they had to go for lunch; they that but the setting up of classes of form. had to go for dinner; they had to spend citizens, some of whom have more Robert Bruce, the great leader of the overnight. And it was virtually impos- basic rights, some of whom have more Scots, tried seven times, and it was sible to schedule votes at any time freedom of speech because they have after the seventh time—as he had lain that would please any and everybody. more money than others? It is nonsen- in the loft of a barn and seen the spider The thing that seemed to be most sical. attempt to spin his web from rafter to needful in this Senate during those I believe that the Court in recent rafter, it was on the seventh time that years that I was the leader of my party years, beginning with Buckley versus the spider was successful in reaching was money, running around the coun- Valeo, has been far too dogmatic when the rafter—we are told that gave Rob- try with a tin cup in one’s hand raising it comes to the first amendment. First ert Bruce the spirit and the inspiration money for a little, measly $134,000-a- amendment rights are not absolute. and the faith he could try the seventh year job. It is the most demeaning as- Ever since Mr. Justice Holmes wrote time and win. Well, I tried eight times. pect of our lives as Senators, to have to that the right of freedom of speech I was not successful in breaking the fil- run around and raise money. And it is does not include the right to falsely ibuster. I tried more times to invoke getting worse. shout ‘‘fire’’—it is all right to shout cloture than any leader has ever tried. The very fiber of what holds a Repub- ‘‘fire’’ in a crowded theater if there is It would not work. It is not going to lic like ours together—trust—is ripping a fire. So there is a distinction. The work the next time. audibly with each new scandal, each right of freedom of speech does not in- The time has come to stop. It is time new revelation in the press. And so I clude the right to falsely shout ‘‘fire’’ to set aside the partisan bickering, the ask my colleagues to turn away from in a crowded theater. Ever since Mr. constant sniping, the ceaseless one- that course. We can start today. We Justice Holmes wrote that, we have re- upmanship, and the incessant covering, can use what appears to be a low point alized that there must and can be cer- and do something that will give us the in American politics to take an impor- tain limitations on free speech. Cer- powers necessary to get at the root of tant step toward the good. We can re- tainly when there is a compelling Gov- the problem. Hiding behind the first move this obstacle to real reform, ernment interest in the prevention of amendment will not work. If we con- crafted by a wrongheaded Supreme corruption or the appearance of corrup- tinue to try to hide behind the first Court decision, and restore some pre- tion, the Court has generally under- amendment, we are going to destroy cious equality to our political system. stood that limitations can be imposed. the trust of the people in our Govern- Mr. President, I compliment the dis- There could be few instances in which ment, in our system of Government. tinguished Senator from South Caro- a compelling governmental interest in That is a system that is based on the lina, who is our leader in this effort. preventing corruption is more obvious people’s trust. We probably won’t win today. But it than the example of the bedrock of our It is not valid to hide behind the first will be to the American people’s loss. representative democracy—fair elec- amendment. This is about allowing ‘‘This is a good time,’’ as Ralph Waldo tions. more freedom of speech than less. It is Emerson said, ‘‘if only we know what As the Court said in Gibney versus about returning Government to the to do with it.’’ Let us not squander an Empire Storage and Ice Co., ’’. . . It has man in the street, to the woman who opportunity to begin to fix this thor- never been deemed an abridgement of rocks the cradle and makes a home. oughly rotten campaign finance system freedom of speech or press to make a Give them freedom of speech. It is once and for all. Let us not continue to course of conduct illegal merely be- about returning Government to that disappoint the American people out cause the conduct was in part initi- man and that woman and getting it out there. S2382 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 18, 1997 I urge my colleagues to take a stand around the disjointed Buckley deci- appearance of corruption’’ and that and support this proposed amendment sion. Again and again, Congress has this interest ‘‘outweighs considerations to the Constitution. failed. of free speech.’’ Mr. President, I yield the floor. Let us resolve not to repeat the mis- I have never been able to fathom why f takes of past campaign finance reform that same test—the governmental in- efforts, which have become bogged terest in preventing corruption and the CONCLUSION OF MORNING down in partisanship as Democrats and appearance of corruption—does not BUSINESS Republicans each tried to gore the oth- overwhelmingly justify limits on cam- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning er’s sacred cows. During the 103d Con- paign spending. The Court made a huge business is now closed. gress there was a sign that we could mistake. The fact is, spending limits in f move beyond this partisan bickering, Federal campaigns would act to restore when the Senate in a bipartisan fash- the free speech that has been eroded by CAMPAIGN FINANCE AMENDMENT ion expressed its support for a con- the Buckley decision. TO THE CONSTITUTION stitutional amendment to limit cam- After all, as a practical reality, what The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under paign expenditures. In May 1993, a non- Buckley says is: Yes, if you have a the previous order, the Senate will now binding sense-of-the-Senate resolution fundraising advantage or personal resume consideration of S.J. Res. 18, was agreed to which advocated the wealth, then you have access to tele- which the clerk will report. adoption of a constitutional amend- vision, radio and other media and you The assistant legislative clerk read ment empowering Congress and States have freedom of speech. But if you do as follows: to limit campaign expenditures. not have a fundraising advantage or A joint resolution (Senate Joint Resolu- Now it is time to take the next step. personal wealth, then you are denied tion 18) proposing an amendment to the Con- We must strike the decisive blow access. Instead of freedom of speech, stitution of the United States relating to against the anything-goes fundraising you have only the freedom to say noth- contributions and expenditures intended to and spending tolerated by both politi- ing. affect elections. cal parties. Looking beyond the cur- So let us be done with this phony The Senate resumed consideration of rent headlines regarding the source of charge that spending limits are some- the joint resolution. these funds, the massive amount of how an attack on freedom of speech. As The PRESIDING OFFICER. There money spent is astonishing and serves Justice Byron White points out, clear will now be 1 hour equally divided be- only to cement the commonly held be- as a bell, in his dissent, both contribu- tween the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. lief that our elections are nothing tion limits and spending limits are MCCONNELL] and the Senator from more than auctions and that our politi- neutral as to the content of speech and South Carolina [Mr. HOLLINGS]. cians are up for sale. It is time to put are not motivated by fear of the con- The Senator from South Carolina is a limit on the amount of money slosh- sequences of the political speech in recognized. ing around campaign war chests. It is general. Mr. President, every Senator realizes Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let time to adopt a constitutional amend- that television advertising is the name me first thank Senator BYRD our resi- ment to limit campaign spending—a of the game in modern American poli- dent Senate historian. I do not say that simple, straightforward, nonpartisan lightly—because the distinguished Sen- tics. In warfare, if you control the air, solution. you control the battlefield. In politics, ator from West Virginia has been mas- As Prof. Gerald G. Ashdown has writ- if you control the airwaves, you con- terful in his analysis and been very, ten in the New England Law Review, trol the tenor and focus of a campaign. very cautious and careful. He has stood amending the Constitution to allow many a time for not amending the Con- Probably 80 percent of campaign Congress to regulate campaign expend- communications take place through stitution, that we don’t do this, willy- itures is ‘‘the most theoretically at- nilly, for any and every problem. But, the medium of television. And most of tractive of the approaches-to-reform that TV airtime comes at a dear price. after 20 years, thousands of speeches since, from a broad free speech perspec- In South Carolina, you’re talking be- and hours and effort made, he has tive, the decision in Buckley is mis- tween $1,000 and $2,000 for 30 seconds of given a very masterful analysis of the guided and has worsened the campaign primetime advertising. In New York need for this amendment. The Senate finance atmosphere.’’ Adds Professor City, it’s anywhere from $30,000 to and the Nation are indebted to him. Ashdown: ‘‘If Congress could constitu- $40,000 for the same 30 seconds. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- tionally limit the campaign expendi- The hard fact of life for a candidate sent that Senator DODD, of Connecti- tures of individuals, candidates, and is that if you’re not on TV, you’re not cut, be added as a cosponsor. committees, along with contributions, truly in the race. Wealthy challengers The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without most of the troubles * * * would be as well as incumbents flushed with objection, it is so ordered. eliminated.’’ money go directly to the TV studio. Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, al- Right to the point, back in 1974, Con- Those without a fundraising advantage though I commend the efforts of the gress responded to the public’s outrage or personal wealth are sidetracked to minority leader and others seeking to over the Watergate scandals by pass- the time-consuming pursuit of cash. statutorily reform our campaign fi- ing, on a bipartisan basis, a com- The Buckley decision created a dou- nance laws, I am convinced the only prehensive campaign finance law. The ble bind. It upheld restrictions on cam- way to solve the chronic problems sur- centerpiece of this reform was a limita- paign contributions, but struck down rounding campaign financing is reverse tion on campaign expenditures. Con- restrictions on how much candidates the Supreme Court’s flawed decision in gress recognized that spending limits with deep pockets can spend. The Court Buckley versus Valeo by adopting a were the only rational alternative to a ignored the practical reality that if my constitutional amendment granting system that essentially awarded office opponent has only $50,000 to spend in a Congress the right to limit campaign to the highest bidder or wealthiest can- race and I have $1 million, then I can spending. didate. effectively deprive him of his speech. We all know the score—we are ham- Unfortunately, the Supreme Court By failing to respond to my advertis- strung by that decision and the ever in- overturned these spending limits in its ing, my cash-poor opponent will appear creasing cost of a competitive cam- infamous Buckley versus Valeo deci- unwilling to speak up in his own de- paign. With the total cost for congres- sion of 1976. The Court mistakenly fense. sional elections, just general elections, equated a candidate’s right to spend Justice Thurgood Marshall zeroed in skyrocketing from $403 million in 1990 unlimited sums of money with his on this disparity in his dissent to to over $626 million in 1996, the need for right to free speech. In the face of spir- Buckley. By striking down the limit on limits on campaign expenditures is ited dissents, the Court came to the what a candidate can spend, Justice more urgent than ever. For nearly a conclusion that limits on campaign Marshall said, ‘‘It would appear to fol- quarter of a century, Congress has contributions but not spending low that the candidate with a substan- tried to tackle runaway campaign furthered ‘‘* * * the governmental in- tial personal fortune at his disposal is spending with bills aimed at getting terest in preventing corruption and the off to a significant head start.’’ March 18, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2383 Indeed, Justice Marshall went fur- total spending. For instance, my 1992 campaign expenditures and allow ther: He argued that by upholding the opponent’s direct expenditures were States to do the same with regard to limitations on contributions but strik- supplemented by hundreds of thou- State and local elections. ing down limits on overall spending, sands of dollars in expenditures by Such a reform would have four im- the Court put an additional premium independent organizations and by the portant impacts. First, it would end on a candidate’s personal wealth. State and local Republican Party. the mindless pursuits of ever-fatter Justice Marshall was dead right and When you total up spending from all campaign war chests. Second, it would Ross Perot and Steve Forbes have sources, my challenger and I spent free candidates from their current ob- proved it. Massive spending of their roughly the same amount in 1992. session with fundraising and allow personal fortunes immediately made And incidentally, Mr. President, let’s them to focus more on issues and ideas; them contenders. Our urgent task is to be done with the canard that spending once elected to office, we wouldn’t right the injustice of Buckley versus limits would be a boon to incumbents, have to spend 20 percent of our time Valeo by empowering Congress to place who supposedly already have name rec- raising money to keep our seats. Third, caps on Federal campaign spending. We ognition and standing with the public it would curb the influence of special are all painfully aware of the uncon- and therefore begin with a built-in ad- interests. And fourth, it would create a trolled escalation of campaign spend- vantage over challengers. Nonsense. I more level playing field for our Federal ing. The average cost of a winning Sen- hardly need to remind my Senate col- campaigns—a competitive environment ate race was $1.2 million in 1980, rising leagues of the high rate of mortality in where personal wealth does not give to $2.9 million in 1984, and skyrocket- upper chamber elections. And as to the candidates an insurmountable advan- ing to $3.1 million in 1986, $3.7 million alleged invulnerability of incumbents tage. in 1988, and up to $4.3 in 1996. To raise in the House, I would simply note that Finally, Mr. President, a word about that kind of money, the average Sen- well over 50 percent of the House mem- the advantages of the amend-the-Con- ator must raise over $13,800 a week, bership has been replaced since the 1990 stitution approach that I propose. Re- every week of his or her 6-year term. elections and just 3 weeks ago we swore cent history amply demonstrates the Overall spending in congressional races in 15 new Senators. practicality and viability of this con- increased from $446 million in 1990 to I can tell you from experience that stitutional route. Certainly, it is not more than $724 million in 1994—almost any advantages of incumbency are coincidence that five of the last seven a 70-percent increase in 4 short years. I more than counterbalanced by the ob- amendments to the Constitution have predict that when the final FEC re- vious disadvantages of incumbency, dealt with Federal election issues. In ports are compiled for 1996, that figure specifically the disadvantage of defend- elections, the process drives and shapes will go even higher. ing hundreds of controversial votes in the end result. Election laws can skew This obsession with money distracts Congress. election results, whether you’re talk- us from the people’s business. It cor- Moreover, Mr. President, I submit ing about a poll tax depriving minori- rupts and degrades the entire political that once we have overall spending ties of their right to vote, or the ab- process. Fundraisers used to be ar- limits, it will matter little whether a sence of campaign spending limits giv- ranged so they didn’t conflict with the candidate gets money from industry ing an unfair advantage to wealthy Senate schedule; nowadays, the Senate groups or from PAC’s or from individ- candidates. These are profound issues schedule is regularly shifted to accom- uals. It is still a reasonable amount which go to the heart of our democ- modate fundraisers. any way you cut it. Spending will be racy, and it is entirely appropriate I have run for statewide office 16 under control, and we will be able to that they be addressed through a con- times in South Carolina. You establish account for every dollar going out. stitutional amendment. a certain campaign routine, say, shak- On the issue of PAC’s, Mr. President, And let’s not be distracted by the ar- ing hands at a mill shift in Greer, visit- let me say that I have never believed gument that the amend-the-Constitu- ing a big country store outside of that PAC’s per se are an evil in the tion approach will take too long. Take Belton, and so on. Over the years, they current system. On the contrary, PAC’s too long? We have been dithering on look for you and expect you to come are a very healthy instrumentality of this campaign finance issue since the around. But in recent years, those mill politics. PAC’s have brought people early 1970’s, and we haven’t advanced visits and dropping by the country into the political process: nurses, edu- the ball a single yard. All-the-while the store have become a casualty of the cators, small business people, senior Supreme Court continues to strike system. There is very little time for citizens, unionists, you name it. They down campaign limit after campaign them. We’re out chasing dollars. permit people of modest means and limit. It has been a quarter of a cen- During my 1992 reelection campaign, limited individual influence to band to- tury, and no legislative solution has I found myself raising money to get on gether with others of mutual interest done the job. TV to raise money to get on TV to so their message is heard and known. Except for the 27th amendment, the raise money to get on TV. It’s a vicious For years we have encouraged these last five constitutional amendments cycle. people to get involved, to participate. took an average of 17 months to be I remember Senator Richard Russell Yet now that they are participating, adopted. There is no reason why we saying: ‘‘They give you a 6-year term we turn around and say, ‘‘Oh, no, your cannot pass this joint resolution, sub- in this U.S. Senate: two years to be a influence is corrupting, your money is mit it to the States for a vote, and rat- statesman, the next 2 years to be a pol- tainted.’’ This is wrong. The evil to be ify the amendment in time for it to itician, and the last 2 years to be a corrected is not the abundance of par- govern the 1998 election. Once passed demagogue.’’ Regrettably, we are no ticipation but the superabundance of by the Congress, the joint resolution longer afforded even 2 years as states- money. The culprit is runaway cam- goes directly to the States for ratifica- men. We proceed straight to politics paign spending. tion. Once ratified, it becomes the law and demagoguery right after the elec- To a distressing degree, elections are of the land, and it is a Supreme Court tion because of the imperatives of rais- determined not in the political mar- challenge. ing money. ketplace but in the financial market- And, by the way, I reject the argu- My proposed constitutional amend- place. Our elections are supposed to be ment that if we were to pass and ratify ment would change all this. It would contests of ideas, but too often they de- this amendment, Democrats and Re- empower Congress to impose reason- generate into megadollar derbies, publicans would be unable to hammer able spending limits on Federal cam- paper chases through the board rooms out a mutually acceptable formula of paigns. For instance, we could impose a of corporations and special interests. campaign expenditure limits. A Demo- limit of, say, $800,000 per Senate can- Mr. President, I repeat, campaign cratic Congress and Republican Presi- didate in a small State like South spending must be brought under con- dent did exactly that in 1974, and we Carolina—a far cry from the millions trol. The constitutional amendment can certainly do it again. spent by my opponent and me in 1992. Senator SPECTER and I have proposed Mr. President, this amendment will And bear in mind that direct expendi- would permit Congress to impose fair, address the campaign finance mess di- tures account for only a portion of responsible, workable limits on Federal rectly, decisively, and with finality. S2384 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 18, 1997 The Supreme Court has chosen to ig- Let me talk about the California Yale and all those expensive schools. nore the overwhelming importance of race. Today, a Senate candidate in My schooling was free, from kinder- media advertising in today’s cam- California can expect to have to raise garten all the way through college. It paigns. In the Buckley decision, it pre- up to $10,000 a day, including Saturday is the American way, to give us all scribed a bogus if-you-have-the-money- and Sunday, 365 days a year, for 6 full that level playing field. We do not have you-can-talk version of free speech. In years. Imagine, $10,000 a day, 7 days a a level playing field if we have to live its place, I urge the Congress to move week, 365 days a year, for a full 6 years. with Buckley versus Valeo. It is an un- beyond these acrobatic attempts at That is too much time away from American decision. It is wrong. It is legislating around the Buckley deci- work, too much time away from doing elitist. Ideas should prevail because of sion. As we have all seen, no matter the kinds of things that we want to do their inherent worth, not because they how sincere, these plans are doomed to here, making life better for people. I were able to be hyped in 30-second com- fail. The solution rests in fixing the resent it. And I am so proud to be able mercials. Buckley decision. It is my hope that as to support this constitutional amend- By the way, sometimes these com- the campaign financing debate unfolds, ment. Anyone who supports reform, mercials are not even ideas, they are the majority leader will provide us therefore, has to support this. Because terrible attacks on other candidates. with an opportunity to vote on this of the Supreme Court decision, we can- So they are not even ideas, but some- resolution—it is the only solution. not control spending unless we pass how they are worth so much because an I now yield 5 minutes to the distin- this Hollings amendment. The Supreme individual may have the money. guished colleague from California, Sen- Court decision discriminates against ‘‘Money is speech’’ subverts the no- ator BOXER. potential candidates who do not have a tion that ideas, not commercials, are The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- lot of personal wealth. The talent pool the heart of the expression that the ator from California is recognized to for the House and Senate is declining first amendment protects. speak for 5 minutes. because of the amount of money that is My colleague, Senator HOLLINGS, who Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am needed to be raised. has been so eloquent and so persuasive proud to stand with Senator HOLLINGS I want to talk a minute about the in this debate was right when he said— and Senator BYRD and many other Sen- Supreme Court decision—which I know and I quote—‘‘Our democracy must be ators today in support of Senate Joint my colleagues, who are attorneys, who saved from this excess.’’ Resolution 18. This measure proposes a understand it, perhaps, in a deeper Mr. President, it is time to go back constitutional amendment to allow the fashion, have already done—but I want to the original meaning of the first Congress to limit the amount of money to talk about it from a commonsense amendment, overturn Buckley versus that is spent on campaigns. I treasure point of view, and as someone who Valeo and allow Congress to set spend- the Constitution of the United States loves this Constitution. I think the Su- ing limits that are fair for all congres- of America and never have I stood on preme Court was just completely sional races. I can think of no more im- the floor of the Congress supporting wrong on this Buckley versus Valeo de- portant issue than this one to be deal- such a measure, except for the equal cision that said that Congress could ing with at this time as the furor rights amendment and this measure. It not put a cap on campaign spending. swirls around all these large campaign is very rare that I stand to amend this Freedom of speech is the most precious contributions. Well, folks, those are Constitution. But we are about to lose and most important of all the rights the rules. Those are the rules. We allow our democracy. It is that serious. I guaranteed in our Constitution. But, it it in the current system. We need to think what Senator HOLLINGS has come seems to me, if you equate money with change the current system. To do that up with here is a way to save this de- speech you are demeaning speech. You we need to pass the Hollings resolu- mocracy. So, I am so proud to be a co- are demeaning speech. Not everything tion. sponsor of his measure. can be equated with the dollar. Free I thank you very much and I yield Total campaign spending for general speech goes far beyond that. And what the floor. election congressional races has in- about the speech of the candidates who Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair. creased more than sixfold in the past 20 do not have personal wealth? What The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- years. The total amount of money about their speech? When someone ator from South Carolina. raised by Republicans and Democrats comes in who is worth $200 million, $300 Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me thank the in 1996 was almost $900 million. In my million, and throws $30, $40 million distinguished colleague from Califor- own reelection campaign, I believe that into a race—we have had that in Cali- nia. She has spoken to the reality of it could cost at least $20 million. I fornia. What happens to the people who what we really are confronting. come from California. We have 33 mil- cannot afford to put their own money I do not know how you run a race in lion people. And $20 million would ac- in a race? What happens to their the State of California. Mr. Huffington, tually be less than what was spent sev- speech? of your State, spent $30 million of his eral years ago to win a U.S. Senate So, it seems to me what the Court own money to run for Senate and lost. seat. It is an unbelievable amount. has done in Buckley is to support the Last week the Senator from Nevada So it is undeniable that there is an speech of the wealthy candidates, not suggested that all Mr. Huffington needs extraordinary amount of money in po- the speech of those of us who cannot to do would be come to Nevada. In Ne- litical campaigns. The amounts are afford to put those millions of dollars vada he could run a fine campaign for growing and unfortunately, in my into place. $10 million. He could move, saving $20 view, some partisan observers of our The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time million of his money, down to the political system do not even see it as a of the Senator from California has ex- State of Nevada and win, so to speak, problem. I have heard responses such pired. with the $10 million. We know we know as, ‘‘So what?’’ Or, ‘‘Money is the Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for as in warfare, he who rules the air con- American way.’’ Or ‘‘The problem isn’t 2 additional minutes. trols the battlefield. And he who rules too much money, it is too little Mr. HOLLINGS. I so yield. the airwaves in politics controls the money.’’ And the most ludicrous I The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- election. thought, ‘‘We spend more advertising ator from California is recognized for 2 And it is just that cold, hard reality dollars on yogurt than we do on cam- additional minutes. that the Senator from California has paigns.’’ I strongly disagree with the Mrs. BOXER. If money is speech, as spoken to. I am most grateful for her notion that money in politics is not a the Supreme Court says, then more leadership on this particular score. problem. It is a serious problem, under- money must be more persuasive Going right back, Mr. President, to mining our democracy, depressing speech, and those ideas with the most 1974 and the passage of the Federal voter turnout, and, frankly, depressing money behind them will tend to pre- Election Campaign Act, in the after- the American people who should be de- vail. math of Watergate. We acted to- pressed that their elected officials have This is un-American. I am a product gether—Republicans and Democrats to spend so much time away from their of public schools. I go toe to toe here and said with a strong vote that we official duties. with people who went to Harvard and shall not have the Government up for March 18, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2385 sale and that we had to limit spending So after trying for 10 years I intro- [From the Washington Post, Mar.