Summary:

All articles in Senate section

BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1997--CLOTURE MOTION
(Senate - October 08, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S10501-S10522] BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1997--CLOTURE MOTION The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). Under the previous order, there will now be 1 hour equally divided in the usual form, prior to the cloture vote on S. 25. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, am I correct that the 1 hour between now and the vote at 12 is equally divided? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to yield to the Senator from Arkansas such time as he may desire, and take this opportunity to come preside while he speaks. (Mr. McCONNELL assumed the chair.) Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for yielding time. Yesterday I voted to invoke cloture on the McCain-Feingold bill. Today I will oppose that effort. I voted for cloture because I want campaign finance reform. I want an opportunity to amend McCain-Feingold, which I believe is a seriously flawed bill. I want a chance to vote on a reform bill and I want to ban or limit soft money. But it is now clear that there is no consensus in support of McCain-Feingold, and if we are to have serious and meaningful reform, we will and must take a different direction. I absolutely do not support the current version of McCain-Feingold. In my opinion, and I have expressed it both publicly and privately, McCain-Feingold contains provisions that threaten free speech and pose serious constitutional problems, especially in the area of issue advocacy. These groups, which play such an important part in the political process, regardless of their affiliation, deserve to play that important role. And we must not in any way place a chill on their right of free expression and their ability to criticize their public officials. There have been abuses, no doubt about that. But it is far better for us to err on the side of freedom and to err on the side of liberty and to err on the side of the Constitution than to take a chance of passing a misguided, though popular right now, reform bill that would in fact begin that erosion of those liberties and freedoms and the right of free expression that we cherish as Americans and that we always should. It is clear there is no consensus on McCain-Feingold and will not be. It is equally clear that repeated cloture votes on McCain-Feingold is a part of a political strategy to portray opponents of McCain-Feingold as opponents of reform. As unfortunate as it is for the American people, the McCain-Feingold bill has become so politicized that even supporters of campaign finance reform, like myself, are disgusted with the political tactics that have been used in this debate. You have to question the sincerity of a strategy that disrupts Senate business and distracts the Senate from other important business such as ISTEA, the transportation funding bill, fast track, appropriation conference reports and judicial nominations, all of these vitally important [[Page S10502]] things, pressing business of the American people, and to set that aside so we can hold press conferences to portray opponents of McCain- Feingold as opponents of reform, which is not true and is not fair. If supporters of McCain-Feingold truly wanted to put forth a serious effort to enact reform, they would take a different approach by working to find consensus, by working to find agreement, rather than attempting to score political points. I will not be a part of these partisan guerrilla warfare tactics. I fully and completely support campaign finance reform. I think we have need to address it. I think we need to reform the system and particularly deal with that area in which there has been abuse, in the area of soft money. But I will not again vote to invoke cloture on S. 25 and be a part of a political game that is more concerned about portraying political opponents in a certain bad light than enacting meaningful and real and significant reform. I thank again the Senator from Kentucky for his leadership and for his genuine deep convictions in defense of the first amendment and the right of free expression. I yield the floor. (Mr. HUTCHINSON assumed the chair.) The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I listened with keen interest to the comments of the Senator from Arkansas and want to congratulate him for his decision. With his decision there is an excellent chance that today we will reach a historic high in opposition to measures similar to McCain-Feingold. So I commend the Senator from Arkansas for his conviction and thank him for his support in defense of the first amendment. I think he has done the courageous and correct thing. I want to make a few brief observations this morning. There is not a whole lot left to say in this debate. But I wanted to refer to a few articles over the last few days that I think ought to be noted and printed in the Record. A USA Today column on Monday, by Richard Benedetto, is worth noting, in terms of the attitude of the press on this issue. Americans have every right to expect that the press will not take sides on an issue off of the editorial page. Here is Mr. Benedetto's column of Monday, that I think is noteworthy, in USA Today. He says: If you think the news media are providing the straight story on efforts to revise campaign finance laws, look closer. Much of the reporting is tilted toward voices in favor of wholesale reform. Those who take an opposing view are mostly portrayed as either corrupt or partisan. Little space or time is devoted to sober, broad looks at arguments on all sides of the issue. Instead, coverage is often emotional and selective. Reporting usually begins from the premise that the McCain-Feingold reform bill now before the Senate is good, and that any attempt to slow it, stop it or change it is bad. Proponents say the fate of our democracy hangs on reform. And given a predisposition of many in the media to agree, that message is hammered home and almost daily. * * * * * CNN gives its position away in the title of a show on campaign finance it will air Tuesday: The Money Trail; Democracy for Sale. This was ostensibly an objective piece by CNN on campaign finance, an issue which the occupant of the chair has just said is largely about the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Benedetto goes on: Thanks to coverage such as that, it's no surprise polls show that a majority of Americans want Congress to pass legislation to tighten the rules under which politicians and political parties collect money. Never one to misread a popular trend, President Clinton has enlisted on the side of reform. Never mind that it was alleged abuses of current law by Clinton and Vice President Gore in 1996 that intensified calls for change in the first place. He's now a believer. Just a couple of other comments from his column, Mr. Benedetto's column in USA Today of Monday: Media conduct on this one is not pure liberal bias. It's another example of what Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson calls ``pack journalism run amok.'' ``We media types fancy ourselves independent and skeptical thinkers,'' he recently wrote. ``Just the opposite is often true. We're patsies for the latest social crusade or intellectual fad.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Mr. Benedetto's column in USA Today be printed in the Record at this point. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From USA Today, Oct. 6, 1997] Media Too Quick To Buy Into Campaign Reform (By Richard Benedetto) If you think the news media are providing the straight story on efforts to revise campaign finance laws, look closer. Much of the reporting is tilted toward voices in favor of wholesale reform. Those who take an opposing view are mostly portrayed as either corrupt or partisan. Little space or time is devoted to sober, broad looks at arguments on all sides of the issue. Instead, coverage is often emotional and selective. Reporting usually begins from the premise that the McCain-Feingold reform bill now before the Senate is good, and that any attempt to slow it, stop it or change it is bad. Proponents say the fate of our democracy hangs on reform. And given a predisposition of many of the media to agree, that message is hammered home almost daily. Consider this opening sentence from an Associated Press wire story last week: ``Virginia's candidates for governor are taking full advantage of one of the nation's most liberal campaign finance laws, raking in more than $10 million through August.'' In one sentence, readers are given two negative cues on campaign finance. The first: that Virginia law is ``one of the nation's most liberal.'' The second: the loaded phrase ``raking in.'' CNN gives its position away in the title of a show on campaign finance it will air Tuesday: The Money Trail: Democracy for Sale. Thanks to coverage such as that, it's no surprise polls show that a majority of Americans want Congress to pass legislation to tighten the rules under which politicians and political parties collect money. Never one to misread a popular trend, President Clinton has enlisted on the side of reform. Never mind that it was alleged abuses of current law by Clinton and Vice President Gore in 1996 that intensified calls for change in the first place. He's now a believer. While reform may be needed, there are several arguments for moving carefully. For example, enacting limits on contributions could run afoul of the Constitution. In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that campaign contributions are the equivalent of speech and that attempts to limit them could violate First Amendment rights. How thoroughly has that issue been aired? Not very. The focus of most reporting is on procedural maneuvering of opponents. When Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., introduced an amendment last week to require labor unions to get permission of members before spending dues money for political purposes, news reports said he was ``muddying the water.'' Opponents called it ``a poison pill.'' Newspaper editorials denounced the move as shamefully partisan. The charge: Republicans want to hamper unions' ability to raise money because the millions of dollars they raise for campaigns go mostly to Democrats. But if that's legitimate cause for denouncing the amendment, why is it not similarly legitimate to question the motive of Democrats seeking to ban ``soft money?'' Those are unlimited contributions that go to political parties and are supposed to help pay for party-building activities such as get-out-the-vote efforts. Republicans collect more soft money than Democrats. So it would seem in the Democrats' interest to get rid of that GOP advantage. Yet, few raise that point. According to the prevailing wisdom, soft money must go--period. Media conduct on this one is not pure liberal bias. It's another example of what Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson calls ``pack journalism run amok.'' ``We media types fancy ourselves independent and skeptical thinkers,'' he recently wrote. ``Just the opposite is often true. We're patsies for the latest social crusade or intellectual fad.'' The anti-smoking campaign is a recent example of the media buying in with few reservations. Global warming, too. Now it's campaign finance reform. Mr. McCONNELL. Also there was a recent and interesting survey conducted by Rasmussen Research, out of North Carolina. Most Americans think that friendly reporters are more important to a successful political campaign than money, according to a Rasmussen Research survey of 1000 adults. By a 3-to-1 margin (61 percent to 19 percent) Americans believe that if reporters like one candidate more than another, that candidate is likely to win--even if the other candidate raised more money in a campaign. I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record as well. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Reporters More Influential Than Campaign Cash?--Most Americans Say Yes! Waxhaw, NC.--Most Americans think that friendly reporters are more important to a successful political campaign that money, according to a Rasmussen Research survey of 1,000 adults. By a 3-to-1 margin (61% to [[Page S10503]] 19%) Americans believe that if reporters like one candidate more than another, that candidate is likely to win--even if the other candidate raised more money in the campaign. ``This finding raises basic questions about the types of reform that it will take to restore voter confidence in representative democracy,'' noted Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Research. ``Campaign contributions that buy special favors are viewed by the American people as a problem that needs to be addressed. However, most also think that much more serious reform will be needed to solve our nation's electoral problems.'' Earlier surveys by Rasmussen Research have found the most Americans think the passage of new campaign finance laws will not end corruption in government. The consensus view is that new laws would simply encourage politicians to find new ways of obtaining money in exchange for votes or other favors. Nine-out-of-ten Americans believe that members of Congress do exchange votes for campaign cash. Americans are also generally suspicious of reporters. More than seven-out-of-ten registered voters believe that the personal biases of reporters affect their coverage of stories, issues, and campaigns. Additional survey information on campaign finance reform and other issues can be found at www.PortraitoAmerica.com, a web site maintained by Rasmussen Research. Rasmussen Research is a public opinion polling firm that conducts independent surveys on events in the news and other topics. The survey of 1,000 adults was conducted September 27-28, 1997. The survey has a margin of sampling error of +/ -3 percentage points, with a 95% level of confidence. Mr. McCONNELL. Also, there was a fascinating column by Robert Samuelson in Newsweek of October 6, Monday of this week. The headline says, ``Making Pols Into Crooks--Campaign-Finance `Reform' Criminalizes Politics and Deepens Public Cynicism.'' Let me just take a few excerpts out of this article, because I think it really is excellent, and sums up the nature of this debate. Bob Samuelson says: The ``reformers'' claim they're trying to lower public cynicism by cleansing politics of the evils of money. Actually, they're doing the opposite: by putting so many unrealistic restrictions on legitimate political activity, the ``reformers'' ensure that more people--politicians, campaign workers, advocacy groups--will run afoul of the prohibitions. Public cynicism rises as politics is criminalized. Mr. Samuelson goes on: There is no easy way to curb the role of money in politics without curbing free expression. If I favor larger (smaller) government, I should be able to support like-minded candidates by helping them win. Campaign ``reformers''--who would like to replace private contributions with public subsidies and impose strict spending limits--reject this basic principles. Money, they say, is corrupting politics. It isn't. Campaign spending isn't out of control or outlandish. In the 1996 election, campaign spending at all levels-- At all levels, Federal, State and local-- totaled $4 billion, says political scientist Herbert Alexander of the Citizens' Research Foundation. That was one twentieth of one percent of the gross domestic product of $7.6 trillion. Americans spend about $20 billion a year on laundry and dry cleaning. Is the price of politics really too steep? Robert Samuelson asks. Further in the article he says: More menacing are the artificial limits that ``reformers'' have imposed on political expression---- Something the Senator from Arkansas was just referring to a few moments ago in his speech---- What's been created is a baffling maze of election laws and rules that, once codified, establish new types of criminal or quasi-criminal behavior. Anyone tiptoeing around the rules is said to be ``skirting the law.'' And there are violations. In the futile effort to regulate politics, the ``reformers'' have manufactured most of the immorality, illegality and cynicism that they deplore. Today's ``abuses'' stem mostly from the 1974 ``reforms'' enacted after Watergate. Congress then limited the amount individuals could give a candidate to $1,000 per election; total giving to all candidates (directly, through parties or committees) was limited to $25,000 a year. What happened? The limits inspired evasions. Suppressing contributions to candidates encouraged new political-action committees. People gave to PACs, which give to candidates. In 1974, there were 608 PACs; now there are 4,000. Another evasion is ``independent spending'': groups (the Supreme Court says) can promote a candidate by themselves if they don't ``coordinate'' with a candidate. The present evasion of concern is ``soft money'': contributions to parties for ``party-building'' activities like voter registration. ``Soft money'' contributions have no limits; so Tamraz could give $300,000. But ``soft money'' can also be used for general TV ads that mention candidates as long as they don't use such words as ``vote for.'' Does any of this make any sense? Not really. Ordinary people can't grasp all the obscure, illogical distinctions. And he is talking, Mr. President, about current law, even before we talk about making it more complicated. No matter. The failure of past ``reforms'' is no barrier to future ``reforms.'' The latest effort is the McCain-Feingold bill now before the Senate. Samuelson says: Most of the bill flouts the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From Newsweek, Oct. 6, 1997] Making Pols Into Crooks--Campaign-Finance ``Reform'' Criminalizes Politics and Deepens Public Cynicism (By Robert J. Samuelson) The prospect that an independent counsel will be named to investigate the alleged campaign-law violations of President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore exposes a central contradiction of ``campaign-finance reform.'' The ``reformers'' claim they're trying to lower public cynicism by cleansing politics of the evils of money. Actually, they're doing the opposite: by putting so many unrealistic restrictions on legitimate political activity, the ``reformers'' ensure that more people--politicians, campaign workers, advocacy groups--will run afoul of the prohibitions. Public cynicism rises as politics is criminalized. The distasteful reality is that politics requires money. To compete, candidates must communicate; and to communicate, they need cash. Someone has to pay for all the ads, direct mail and polls. There is no easy way to curb the role of money in politics without curbing free expression. If I favor larger (smaller) government, I should be able to support like-minded candidates by helping them win. Campaign ``reformers''--who would like to replace private contributions with public subsidies and impose strict spending limits--reject this basic principle. Money, they say, is corrupting politics. It isn't. Campaign spending isn't out of control or outlandish. In the 1996 election campaign spending at all levels totaled $4 billion, says political scientist Herbert Alexander of the Citizens' Research Foundation. That was one twentieth of one percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) of $7.6 trillion. Americans spend about $20 billion a year on laundry and dry cleaning. Is the price of politics really too steep? Nor have contributions hijacked legislation. Consider the tax code. It's perforated with tax breaks, many undesirable. Some tax breaks benefit wealthy constituents who sweetened their lobbying with generous campaign contributions. But the largest tax breaks stem mostly from politicians' desire to pander to masses of voters. In the 1997 tax bill, Clinton and Congress provided huge tax breaks for college tuition. Does anyone think these passed because Harvard's president is a big contributor? The media coverage and congressional hearings of today's alleged campaign-finance ``abuses'' have, of course, revealed the frenzied and demeaning efforts of politicians of both parties to raise money. But there hasn't been much evidence of serious influence buying. The worst we've heard is of President Clinton's, in effect, subletting the Lincoln Bedroom to big contributors and of businessman Roger Tamraz's giving $300,000 to Democrats in the hope of winning government support for an oil pipeline. All Tamraz got was a brief chat with Clinton and no blessing for the project. This sort of preferential ``access'' isn't dangerous. More menacing are all the artificial limits that ``reformers'' have imposed on political expression. What's been created is a baffling maze of election laws and rules that, once codified, establish new types of criminal or quasi-criminal behavior. Anyone tiptoeing around the rules is said to be ``skirting the law.'' And there are violations. In the futile effort to regulate politics, the ``reformers'' have manufactured most of the immorality, illegally and cynicism they deplore. Today's ``abuses'' stem mostly from the 1974 ``reforms'' enacted after Watergate. Congress then limited the amount individuals give a candidate to $1,000 per election; total giving to all candidates (directly, through parties or committees) was limited to $25,000 a year. What happened? The limits inspired evasions. Suppressing contributions to candidates encouraged new political-action committees. People give to PACs, which give to candidates. In 1974, there were 608 PACs; now there are nearly 4,000. Another evasion is ``independent spending'': groups (the Supreme Court says) can promote a candidate by themselves if they don't ``coordinate'' with a candidate. The present evasion of concern is ``soft money'': contributions to parties for ``party-building'' activities like voter registration. ``Soft money'' contributions have no limits; so Tamraz could give $300,000. But ``soft money'' can also be used for general TV ads that mention candidates as long as they don't use such words as ``vote for.'' Does any of this make sense? Not really. Ordinary people can't grasp all the obscure, illogical distinctions. No matter. The failure of past ``reforms'' is no barrier to future ``reforms.'' The latest effort is the McCain-Feingold bill now before [[Page S10504]] the Senate. Named after its sponsors (Republican John McCain of Arizona and Democrat Russell Feingold of Wisconsin), it would outlaw ``soft money'' and try to ban ``issue advocacy'' ads in the 60 days before an election (``Issue advocacy'' ads favor or oppose candidates; the distinction between them and ``independent spending'' cannot briefly be explained.) Most of the bill flouts the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment: ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'' The connection between campaign ``reform'' and the Clinton- Gore predicament has emerged, ironically, in the complaints of some ``reformers'' that the president and vice president are being unfairly targeted. In The Washington Post, Elizabeth Drew says that Gore behaved like a ``klutz,'' but ``klutziness isn't a federal crime.'' The 1883 law that he and the president may have violated (soliciting contributions from federal property), argues Drew, aimed to protect civil servants from being shaken down by politicians. In The New York Times, former deputy attorney general Philip Heymann says the campaign against Gore aims only to ``destroy the Democratic front runner for president.'' All this is true. But it misses the larger point: the campaign-finance laws are so arbitrary and complex that they invite ``criminality'' or its appearance. Bad laws should be discarded. Rep. John Doolittle of California sensibly suggests abandoning all contribution limits and enacting tougher disclosure laws. The best defense against the undue influence of money is to let candidates raise it from as many sources as possible--and to let the public see who's giving. That would be genuine reform. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, also in the Wall Street Journal of October 1, there was a piece by Jonathan Rauch, who is a contributing editor to the National Journal. I want to read a few parts of that. Mr. Rauch said: The McCain-Feingold bill being debated in the Senate this week has become the default option for campaign-finance reformers: If you are an editorialist who needs to suggest something better than today's tumbledown system, you press the McCain-Feingold button on our word processor. Well, the system today is rotten, and radical change is needed. But McCain-Feingold, for all its good press and good intentions, is a bad bill. It would do nothing to end the failures of the past 20 years. Indeed, it would unflinchingly compound them. At the core of today's troubles are two realities that will not yield to any amount of legislative or lawyerly cleverness. The first is that private money--a lot of it--is a fact of life in politics, and if you push it out of one part of the system it tends to re-enter somewhere else, usually deeper in shadow. The second is that money spent to communicate with voters cannot be regulated without impinging on the very core of the First Amendment, which was written to protect political discourse above all. That is what they were thinking about when they wrote the first amendment, political discourse. We got into today's mess by defying both of these principles, with predictable results. When reformers placed limits on money spent to support or defeat candidates, lobbies simply shifted to ad campaigns that omitted explicit requests to vote for or against candidates: ``issue advocacy,'' which the courts have ruled is constitutionally protected. And when reformers placed tight limits on contributions to candidates, donors began giving to political parties instead: ``soft money.'' The distinctions between ``hard'' and ``soft'' money, and between ``express advocacy'' and ``issue advocacy,'' are grounded in legalistic mumbo-jumbo, and so the attempts to enforce them have made campaign law bewilderingly complex without accomplishing any of the law's goals. Campaigns are neither cheaper nor fairer nor less dependent on private money than, say, 30 years ago--just the opposite, in fact. One conclusion you might draw is that the 1970s-style, money- regulating model is bankrupt. Another is that a horse- doctor's dose of the old medicine will finally heal the patient. Enter Sens. John McCain and Russell Feingold. Among many things their bill would do, two are paramount. First, it would ban ``soft money'' given to political parties. Second, to make the ``soft money'' ban work, it would also restrict independent ``issue advocacy.'' Voila--no more money, right? Wrong. Lots and lots of money, but in different places. Ban soft money, and lobbies would bypass the parties and conduct their own campaign blitzes. Candidates and parties are already losing control of their messages as lobbies--which, unlike candidates and parties, are not accountable to voters--run independent advocacy campaigns. Mr. President, I see that my friend from Wisconsin is here. I am going to reserve the remainder of my time and ask that the entire Jonathan Rauch article that I just was reading from be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:] [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 1, 1997] Vote Against McCain, Wait, Can I Say That? (By Jonathan Rauch) The McCain-Feingold bill being debated in the Senate this week has become the default option for campaign-finance reformers: If you are an editorialist who needs to suggest something better than today's tumbeldown system, you press the McCain-Feingold button on your word processor. Well, the system today is rotten, and radical change is needed. But McCain-Feingold, for all its good press and good intentions, is a bad bill. It would do nothing to end the failures of the past 20 years. Indeed, it would unflinchingly compound them. At the core of today's troubles are two realities that will not yield to any amount of legislative or lawyerly cleverness. The first is that private money--a lot of it-- is a fact of life in politics, and if you push it out of one part of the system it tends to re-enter somewhere else, usually deeper in shadow. The second is that money spent to communicate with voters cannot be regulated without impinging on the very core of the First Amendment, which was written to protect political discourse above all. We got into today's mess by defying both of these principles, with predictable results. When reformers placed limits on money spent to support or defeat candidates, lobbies simply shifted to ad campaigns that omitted explicit requests to vote for or against candidates: ``issue advocacy,'' which the courts have ruled is constitutionally protected. And when reformers placed tight limits on contributions to candidates, donors began giving to political parties instead: ``soft money.'' The distinctions between ``hard'' and ``soft'' money, and between ``express advocacy'' and ``issue advocacy,'' are grounded in legalistic mumbo-jumbo, and so that attempts to enforce them have made campaign law bewilderingly complex without accomplishing any of the law's goals. Campaigns are neither cheaper not fairer nor less dependent on private money than, say, 30 years ago--just the opposite, in fact. One conclusion you might draw is that the 1970s-style, money- regulating model is bankrupt. Another is that a horse- doctor's dose of the old medicine will finally heal the patient. Enter Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D., Wis.). Among many things their bill would do, two are paramount. First, it would ban ``soft money'' given to political parties. Second, to make the ``soft money'' ban work, it would also restrict independent ``issue advocacy.'' Voila--no more money, right? Wrong. Lots and lots of money, but in different places. Ban soft money, and lobbies would bypass the parties and conduct their own campaign blitzes. Candidates and parties are already losing control of their messages as lobbies--which, unlike candidates and parties, are not accountable to voters--run independent advocacy campaigns. The McCain- Feingold bill would accelerate the alienation of politicians from their own campaigns, and, for good measure, it could also starve the parties of funds. The sponsors are aware that independent advertising might replace soft money: thus the bill's remarkable new limits on all ads that mention candidates within 60 days of an election. In the words of Sen. McCain: ``Ads could run which advocate any number of causes. Pro-life ads, pro-choice ads, antilabor ads, pro-wilderness ads, pro-Republican Party ads, pro-Democrat Party ads--all could be aired in the last 60 days. However, ads mentioning the candidates could not.'' So, for example, I might commit a federal crime by taking out an ad in this newspaper criticizing Sen. McCain for supporting his bill. The Founders would have run screaming from such a notion, and rightly so: You cannot improve the integrity of any political system by letting politicians restrict political speech. In real life the courts are likely to strike down McCain- Feingold's speech controls, in which case, of course, the limits would not work. But even if the limits were allowed to stand, they still would not work: Everybody would race to game the system by dressing up political expression in absurd costumes, whose legitimacy would be contested ad nauseam in the courts. Maybe my ad couldn't say ``Vote against McCain and Feingold,'' but could it say ``Show the promoters of the dangerous McCain-Feingold bill how you feel''? Who would decide? The potential for speech micromanagement is endless. Imagine the fun lawyers could have with the bill's exception for ``voter guides''--a permissible voter guide being (hold on tight, now) any printed matter written in an ``educational manner'' about two or more candidates that (1) is not coordinated with a candidate, (2) gives all candidates an equal opportunity to respond to any questionnaires, (3) gives no candidate any greater prominence than any other, and (4) does not contain a phrase ``such as'' (my italics), ``vote for,'' ``re-elect,'' ``support,'' ``defeat,'' ``reject'' or other ``words which in context can have no reasonable meaning other than to urge the election or defeat of one or more candidates.'' Is that clear? So, after McCain-Feingold, campaign law would become even more complex and mystifying. Politicians would remain mendicants, forced by low contribution limits to beg every day and in every way for donations. Our already weak parties would lose their main source of funds, becoming weaker still. If the speech controls were upheld, political discussion would be both chilled and [[Page S10505]] contorted. And if the speech controls were struck down, political campaigns would be run by lobbies (``independent expenditures'') rather than by candidates and parties. Quite a reform. Even total deregulation would be better than McCain- Feingold, provided disclosure were retained. For that matter, doing nothing would be better. Best by a very long measure, however, would be a combination of deregulation, disclosure and generous public financing for candidates who forgo private fund-raising--a plan which, instead of trying to eliminate or micromanage private money, would give voters an alternative to it, and make the acceptance of private donations an issue in every campaign. Alas, all of those admittedly imperfect ideas are bitterly opposed by the anti-money crusaders who gave us the system we have now, and who still predominate in the ``reform community.'' To change their minds, campaign-finance law will probably have to be made worse before it can be made better. That task, at least, McCain-Feingold would perform admirably. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me, first of all, congratulate the occupant of the chair for his vote yesterday. I heard his comments this morning. The occupant of the chair did the right thing yesterday. He voted for cloture and joined 52 other Senators--a Senator we had not in the past known for sure whether or not he was going to vote for cloture on any occasion, and I very much appreciate that. I realize that his words are sincere. He does, in fact, support campaign finance reform. It is important that, again, the Senator from Arizona and I signal what we have signaled in the past, and that is that we are very eager to negotiate, whether on the floor or off the floor, to make a bill that would be more palatable to Members on both sides of the aisle. I think the Senator from Arkansas has indicated some excellent ideas in the past. That is the signal I want to give, despite whatever indications one might feel from the press accounts, which, of course, all of us have to take with a grain of salt on both sides of the issue. The fact is that many of us really would like to change this system, and I believe the Senator who occupies the chair is one of them. Let me reiterate our offer, which I think we have made good on time and time again, that if modifications need to be made to pass this terribly important bill, we are ready to do it. That is how the junior Senator from Maine became such a tremendous advocate for our cause. She had some ideas that were better than ours, and we incorporated them and moved on to make the bill even better. So I look forward to working with the occupant of the chair so that, once again, he can feel comfortable voting for cloture as we continue to press this issue on the floor, which we will do until we get the result that the American people demand. Let me also suggest, this is a point that seems to be missed in this debate frequently. The Senator from Kentucky speaks frequently and eloquently about the first amendment. But the way our system is established, surely if you pass a bill in the Congress, a piece of legislation, a statute, it doesn't amend the Constitution. There is more to the process. The President has to sign the bill, and it has to go up to the United States Supreme Court, unless nobody challenges it. And I have a sneaking suspicion that somebody might challenge this bill if it became law. So what is the worst-case scenario? The worst-case scenario is that if, in fact, there is a shred of our bill that is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will say so and strike it down. They know how to do their job. If we do our job, they will do their job. That is exactly what they did in the very famous case of Buckley versus Valeo. They determined that some elements of the bill were constitutional, despite the claim of the ACLU and others that they were not, and they said they were OK. For example, having a limitation on contributions. It is, obviously, the law now, and the Senator from Kentucky cannot dispute that it is the law, that right now somebody can't give more than $2,000 in the course of 6 years to a U.S. Senate candidate in hard money. That is a limitation. The Supreme Court said it is OK. On the other hand, in Buckley versus Valeo, the Court said you can't have overall mandatory spending limits because that, in their view, would be a violation of the first amendment. So what is the threat to the first amendment of passing a piece of legislation about which we have a good-faith disagreement as to its constitutionality? I happen to think it is clear that the major provisions of our bill are constitutional. I would be the first to concede that the closest case would be the one that the Senator from Kentucky has focused most of his firepower on in this debate, and that is the issue of what I like to call phony issue ads. But I can see that would be something the Supreme Court would have to take a long and hard look at, and I think they should. That is why, Mr. President, I don't support a constitutional amendment to get this done. The first amendment is too sacred. So, I want to address your concern about the first amendment to tell you that I was, I believe, the first or second Member of the U.S. Senate to come out here and oppose something called the Communications Decency Act. People fell all over each other voting for that bill that would have censored the Internet. I came out here and said, ``Look, on the face of this, even though I am not a leading constitutional expert but I have looked at the Constitution, on the face of it, this is unconstitutional.'' Yet, I believe 84 Members of this body, including the Senator from Kentucky, voted for it, sent it up to the Supreme Court and, guess what? Unanimously that Supreme Court--of which a majority of the Members were appointed by the majority party Presidents--unanimously ruled that that was unconstitutional. Mr. President, both with regard to your concern that we be flexible and open to other people's ideas, which I think you and I have established a good record on, and with regard to the issue of the first amendment to the Constitution, not only couldn't I agree with you more, but I believe we have a lot to talk about and work together on to achieve campaign finance reform. Since the Senator from Kentucky continues in his steadfast way to make a record, which I hope one day will get before the Supreme Court-- he hopes it won't get that far--let me address a couple of other issues and put a few things of concern to me in the Record. The Senator from Kentucky has been proudly suggesting that the McCain-Feingold bill is dead, and yet we are out here today debating it again, and we will be debating it again. That is because it is not going away. It is because it is not simply a question of various elements of the media saying that the McCain-Feingold bill is a good idea. There are others who are not in the media who, I think, are not easily duped by the media who think we ought to enact some of the things that are in the McCain-Feingold bill. Let me just put a few of those items in the Record. First, I ask unanimous consent that letters from former Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George Bush endorsing a soft money ban--a soft money ban, which is the centerpiece of the McCain-Feingold proposal--be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Houston, TX, June 19, 1997. Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Kassebaum: First, let me commend you and the former Vice President, Ambassador Mondale, for taking a leadership role in trying to bring about campaign reform. I hope the current Congress will enact Campaign Reform legislation. We must encourage the broadest possible participation by individuals in financing elections. Whatever reform is enacted should go the extra mile in demanding fullest possible disclosure of all campaign contributions. I would favor getting rid of so called ``soft money'' contributions but this principle should be applied to all groups including Labor. I congratulate you for working for better campaign finance law enforcement. With my respects to you and Vice President Mondale I am, sincerely, George Bush. ______ July 17, 1997. To Vice President Walter Mondale: I am pleased to join former Presidents Bush and Ford in expressing hope that this Congress will enact meaningful campaign finance reform legislation. For the future of [[Page S10506]] our democracy, and as our experience may be emulated by other nations, prompt and fundamental repair of our system for financing federal elections is required. The most basic and immediate step should include an end to ``soft money,'' whether in the form of corporate or union treasury contributions to federal campaigns, or large and unregulated contributions from individuals. The initial step should also include measures that provide for complete and immediate disclosures of political contributions and expenses. To accomplish these and other reforms and to lay the basis for future ones, we also need to develop a strong national consensus about the objectives of reform. It will take more than just the action of this Congress, but fundamental reform is essential to the task of repairing public trust in government in our leaders. We must take significant steps to assure voters that public policy is determined by the exercise of their franchise rather than a broken and suspect campaign finance system. Please extend to Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker my appreciation for the work that she has undertaken with you to advance the essential cause of bipartisan campaign finance reform. Sincerely, Jimmy Carter. ____ July 10, 1997. Dear Senator Kassebaum: Our system of financing federal election campaigns is in serious trouble. To remedy these failings requires prompt action by the President and the House and Senate. I strongly hope the Congress in cooperation with the White House will enact Campaign Reform legislation by the forthcoming elections in 1998. Public officials and concerned citizens. Republicans and Democrats alike, have aleady identified important areas of agreement. These include (1) the need to end huge uncontrolled ``soft money'' contributions to the national parties and their campaign committees, and to bar solicitation of ``soft money'' from all persons, parties and organized labor by federal officeholders and candidates for any political organizations; (2) the need to provide rapid and comprehensive discount of contributions and expenditures in support of, or opposition to, candidates for federal office; and (3) the need to repair the system of campaign finance law enforcement by assuring that it is effective and independent of politics. A significant bi-partisan effort across party lines can achieve a legislative consensus in campaign reforms that will help to restore the confidence of our citizens in their federal government. I commend you and former Vice President Mondale for your leadership on behalf of campaign reform. Sincerely, Gerald R. Ford. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to mention just a sentence from President Bush's letter, who I don't think is usually considered a pawn of the liberal media. He says: I would favor getting rid of so called ``soft money'' contributions but this principle should be applied to all groups including Labor. Of course, our soft money ban in our bill is comprehensive and includes labor. A letter from President Carter also indicates as follows: The most basic and immediate step should include an end to ``soft money,'' whether in the form of corporate or union treasury contributions to federal campaigns, or large and unregulated contributions from individuals. From President Carter. President Ford indicated in a letter: . . . the need to end huge uncontrolled ``soft money'' contributions to the national parties and their campaign committees, and to bar solicitation from ``soft money'' from all persons, parties and organized labor by federal officeholders and candidates for any political organizations . . . Mr. President, how can these three Presidents, two from the Republican Party and one from the Democratic Party, be considered pawns of a solely Democratic effort to pass campaign finance reform? On its face it is absurd to suggest a bill led by the Senator from Arizona, a strong Republican, is such a bill. But here are two Republican Presidents saying we should ban soft money. Yet, the effort to kill this bill would prevent the core element of our bill to ban soft money. Let me add, it is not just former Presidents, Mr. President, it is also former Members of this body and of the other body. Former Members of Congress have endorsed our bipartisan campaign finance reform bill and the end of soft money. I ask unanimous consent that a statement of former Members of Congress, dated September 29, 1997, be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Statement of Former Members of Congress We are pleased to join former Presidents Bush, Carter and Ford in expressing the hope that the current Congress enact meaningful bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation. The distinguished former Presidents have identified the indispensable core of reform: (1) a ban on ``soft money'' contributions to the national parties and their campaign organizations, applied equally to contributions of corporate and union treasury funds, as well as to large individual contributions in excess of those permitted by law; (2) complete and rapid disclosure of political contributions and expenses; and (3) effective and politically independent enforcement of campaign finance laws. Some of us favor additional proposals, including provisions to assure that a ban on ``soft money'' is not circumvented through campaign advertisements that are thinly disguised as ``issue advocacy.'' Together we believe it is time to test the merits of different or competing ideas through debate and votes, but that any disagreement over further reforms should not delay enactment of essential measures, beginning with a ban on soft money, where agreement is within reach. Our democracy will be strengthened when the Congress acts to assure the American public that the nation's campaign finance system honors our nation's ideals. Nancy Kassebaum Baker (R-KS), Howard H. Baker, Jr. (R- TN), David L. Boren (D-OK), John C. Danforth (R-MO), Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR), Abner J. Mikva (D-IL), Patricia S. Schroeder (D-CO), Walter F. Mondale (D-MN), Henry Bellmon (R-OK), Bill Bradley (D-NJ), Thomas F. Eagleton (D-MO), Robert H. Michel (R-IL), Sam Nunn (D- GA), Alan K. Simpson (R-WY). The original signers of the statement are joined by: Bella Abzug (D-NY), Wendell Anderson (D-MN), Mark Andrews (R-ND), Bob Bergland (D-MN), Rudy Boschwitz (R-MN), John Brademas (D-IN), William Brock (R-TN), , Clarence Brown (R- OH), Jim Broyhill (R-NC), Beverly Byron (D-MD), Rod Chandler (R-WA), Dick Clark (D-IA), Tony Coelho (D-CA), Barber Conable (R-NY), Alan Cranston (D-CA), John Culver (D-IA), Hal Daub (R-NE), John Dellenback (R-OR), Butler Derrick (D-SC), Tom Downey (D-NY), Don Edwards (D-CA), Mickey Edwards (R-OK), Robert Ellsworth (R-KS), Karan English (D-AZ), James Exon (D- NE), Dante Fascell (D-FL), Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY), Sheila Frahm (R-KS), Bill Frenzel (R-MN), Clifford Hansen (R-WY), Fred Harris (D-OK), Thomas Hartnett (R-SC), Howell Heflin (D- AL), Peter Hoagland (D-NE), Carroll Hubbard (D-KY), Walter Huddleston (D-KY). Martha Keys (D-KS), Melvin Laird (R-WI), Russell Long (D- LA), Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (D- PA), Charles Mathias (R-MD), Ron Mazzoli (D-KY), Paul McCloskey (R-CA), John Melcher (D-MT), Howard Metzenbaum (D- OH), John Miller (R-WA), George Mitchell (D-ME), Frank (Ted) Moss (D-UT), Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), Dick Nichols (R-KS), Leon Panetta (D-CA), Claiborne Pell (D-RI), David Pryor (D-AR), Albert Quie (R-MN), John Rhodes III (R-AZ), Matthew Rinaldo (R-NJ), Peter Rodino (D-NJ), Warrent Rudman (R-NH), Lynn Schenk (D-CA), Richard Schweiker (R-PA), Philip Sharp (D-IN), Paul Simon (D-IL), Jim Slattery (D-KS), W.B. Spong (D-VA), Robert Stafford (R-VT), Al Swift (D-WA). Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in that letter, a number of our former colleagues from both Houses of the Congress state: We are pleased to join former Presidents Bush, Carter and Ford in expressing the hope that the current Congress enact meaningful bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation. This includes the names of people like the distinguished former Member Nancy Kassebaum Baker, former Senator from Kansas; Howard Baker, Jr., former leader and Senator from Tennessee; former Republican Senator John Danforth of Missouri, who I had the honor to serve with briefly; former Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon; former Senator Walter Mondale and former Vice President; former Senator Bill Bradley from New Jersey; former minority leader of the other body, Robert Michel; former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn; former Senator Al Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming with whom I disagreed frequently on the floor of the Senate who was among the toughest and most clever opponents you could have on the floor, but he cosponsored the McCain-Feingold bill last session after he made his retirement announcement, and he still supports it. And the list goes on. Mr. President, I do not think these folks are merely pawns of the media. These folks have been here; they have seen it; they have done it. And they know that spending a tremendous amount of your time in raising money is the corrupting of this process. And many of them, as they announced their retirements, said they were sick and tired of spending their time as Members of Congress raising money. The [[Page S10507]] killing of the bill, the vain attempt to kill this bill, as it turns out, would prevent the first efforts to get our attention away from raising money and back to the business we were elected to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an op-ed piece that appeared in the July 18, 1997, Washington Post authored by former Republican Senator Nancy Kassebaum, Baker, and former Vice President Walter Mondale calling for bipartisan campaign finance reform and a ban on soft money. There being no objection, the material was ordered to printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Washington Post, July 18, 1997] Campaign Finance: Fix It (By Nancy Kassebaum Baker and Walter F. Mondale) President Clinton has challenged Congress to ``make this summer a time not of talk but of action'' in fixing our broken system of campaign financing. We agree wholeheartedly. Earlier this year the president asked the two of us, a Republican and a Democrat, to assist in the cause of bipartisan campaign finance reform. Although pessimism about the will of Congress to reform campaign finance laws is widespread, we are optimistic that the task can be achieved through a clear focus on necessary and achievable reforms, leadership and determination. Last month, we submitted an Open Letter to the President and Congress recommending four areas in which to begin, without delay, the task of ensuring that our nation's campaign finance system serves, rather than undermines, the interests of American democracy. First, Congress should promptly ban ``soft money,'' the huge uncontrolled contributions to national parties and their campaign organizations that have so dismayed the public. This prohibition would do much to slow the flood of campaign money and enable the nation to adhere to the justified premise of earlier reforms, that massive amounts of money from powerful sources distort elections and government. Second, we must ensure that ``soft money'' not continue its corrosive work under the this disguise of ``issue advocacy.'' The election law should be tightened to distinguish clearly between media advertisements that are campaign endorsements or attacks and those that genuinely debate issues. to make a ``soft money'' ban fully meangingful the election law should establish consistent rules for the financing of all electioneering advertisements. Third, disclosure rules should be broadened to ensure that voters know who is responsible for the accuracy and fairness of campaign advertisements. Increasingly, candidates are bystanders in their own campaigns, not knowing the identity of sponsors of messages that dominate the airwaves close to elections. Also, with today's technology, even last-minute contributions and expenditures can be revealed before Election Day. Fourth, no reform will be worth much without effective enforcement. The Federal Election Commission must be strengthened. This should include the appointment of knowledgeable and independent-minded commissioners. Additionally, changes are needed to allow for the full and timely resolution of issues through the courts when the commission is deadlocked or cannot act because of lack of funds. Significant majorities might be found for other reforms. As the debate goes forward, Congress should be encouraged to consider further steps to provide relief from the incessant treadmill of fund-raising. However, we should not delay action on those measures that can pass now. Time is of the essence. Congressional elections are coming up next year. The presidential campaign for the year 2000 will begin soon after. Each day these elections draw closer, the passage of reform becomes even more difficult. Now is the best time to advance legislation that will provide the American people with a more effective and more equitable election process. It is no secret that the Senate will be the first battleground for reform. There are honest differences that warrant debate there but also votes on their merits. We are confident that the Senate's leadership will recognize its responsibility to schedule campaign finance reform for early and full debate. And speaking plainly, we further believe that the American public will deem unacceptable any tactic that prevents a majority of the Senate from coming to a final vote. We appreciate the value of Senate rules on debate. But campaign finance issues are well known to every member. Whatever any senator's individual views on campaign finance issues may be, all senators should unite in one conviction. The future of our democracy requires them to address their differences in public debate on the Senate floor and for their votes on final passage to be recorded. Most important is to set aside attempts to gain or maintain partisan advantage. The time is now to come together to address the integrity of our national government. Restoring that integrity demands honest, bipartisan campaign finance reform. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an opinion piece from last Sunday's Washington Post coauthored by former Presidents Carter and Ford, who actually ran against each other in 1976, calling for campaign finance reform and the end of the soft money system. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Washington Post, Oct. 5, 1997] And the Power of the Ballot (By Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford) When we ran against each other in 1976, the modern campaign finance system was in its infancy; it was the first presidential election governed by strict limits and public financing. Looking back, it is easy to recognize why the reforms of the 1970s were so essential. Today it is disheartening to witness changes that have distorted those reforms and shaken Americans' faith in their democracy. We have watched as elections have grown more controversial, more expensive, riddled with soft money and less understandable to the average voter. We have watched as participation in presidential elections has declined-- plummeting during the last election to the lowest levels since 1924. Less than half of the voting-age population cast their ballots for president in 1996, and while there are many factors that might contribute to this disturbing figure, we believe that a lack of public trust in government and in our system of democratic elections is a major part of the problem.

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1997--CLOTURE MOTION
(Senate - October 08, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S10501-S10522] BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1997--CLOTURE MOTION The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). Under the previous order, there will now be 1 hour equally divided in the usual form, prior to the cloture vote on S. 25. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, am I correct that the 1 hour between now and the vote at 12 is equally divided? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to yield to the Senator from Arkansas such time as he may desire, and take this opportunity to come preside while he speaks. (Mr. McCONNELL assumed the chair.) Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for yielding time. Yesterday I voted to invoke cloture on the McCain-Feingold bill. Today I will oppose that effort. I voted for cloture because I want campaign finance reform. I want an opportunity to amend McCain-Feingold, which I believe is a seriously flawed bill. I want a chance to vote on a reform bill and I want to ban or limit soft money. But it is now clear that there is no consensus in support of McCain-Feingold, and if we are to have serious and meaningful reform, we will and must take a different direction. I absolutely do not support the current version of McCain-Feingold. In my opinion, and I have expressed it both publicly and privately, McCain-Feingold contains provisions that threaten free speech and pose serious constitutional problems, especially in the area of issue advocacy. These groups, which play such an important part in the political process, regardless of their affiliation, deserve to play that important role. And we must not in any way place a chill on their right of free expression and their ability to criticize their public officials. There have been abuses, no doubt about that. But it is far better for us to err on the side of freedom and to err on the side of liberty and to err on the side of the Constitution than to take a chance of passing a misguided, though popular right now, reform bill that would in fact begin that erosion of those liberties and freedoms and the right of free expression that we cherish as Americans and that we always should. It is clear there is no consensus on McCain-Feingold and will not be. It is equally clear that repeated cloture votes on McCain-Feingold is a part of a political strategy to portray opponents of McCain-Feingold as opponents of reform. As unfortunate as it is for the American people, the McCain-Feingold bill has become so politicized that even supporters of campaign finance reform, like myself, are disgusted with the political tactics that have been used in this debate. You have to question the sincerity of a strategy that disrupts Senate business and distracts the Senate from other important business such as ISTEA, the transportation funding bill, fast track, appropriation conference reports and judicial nominations, all of these vitally important [[Page S10502]] things, pressing business of the American people, and to set that aside so we can hold press conferences to portray opponents of McCain- Feingold as opponents of reform, which is not true and is not fair. If supporters of McCain-Feingold truly wanted to put forth a serious effort to enact reform, they would take a different approach by working to find consensus, by working to find agreement, rather than attempting to score political points. I will not be a part of these partisan guerrilla warfare tactics. I fully and completely support campaign finance reform. I think we have need to address it. I think we need to reform the system and particularly deal with that area in which there has been abuse, in the area of soft money. But I will not again vote to invoke cloture on S. 25 and be a part of a political game that is more concerned about portraying political opponents in a certain bad light than enacting meaningful and real and significant reform. I thank again the Senator from Kentucky for his leadership and for his genuine deep convictions in defense of the first amendment and the right of free expression. I yield the floor. (Mr. HUTCHINSON assumed the chair.) The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I listened with keen interest to the comments of the Senator from Arkansas and want to congratulate him for his decision. With his decision there is an excellent chance that today we will reach a historic high in opposition to measures similar to McCain-Feingold. So I commend the Senator from Arkansas for his conviction and thank him for his support in defense of the first amendment. I think he has done the courageous and correct thing. I want to make a few brief observations this morning. There is not a whole lot left to say in this debate. But I wanted to refer to a few articles over the last few days that I think ought to be noted and printed in the Record. A USA Today column on Monday, by Richard Benedetto, is worth noting, in terms of the attitude of the press on this issue. Americans have every right to expect that the press will not take sides on an issue off of the editorial page. Here is Mr. Benedetto's column of Monday, that I think is noteworthy, in USA Today. He says: If you think the news media are providing the straight story on efforts to revise campaign finance laws, look closer. Much of the reporting is tilted toward voices in favor of wholesale reform. Those who take an opposing view are mostly portrayed as either corrupt or partisan. Little space or time is devoted to sober, broad looks at arguments on all sides of the issue. Instead, coverage is often emotional and selective. Reporting usually begins from the premise that the McCain-Feingold reform bill now before the Senate is good, and that any attempt to slow it, stop it or change it is bad. Proponents say the fate of our democracy hangs on reform. And given a predisposition of many in the media to agree, that message is hammered home and almost daily. * * * * * CNN gives its position away in the title of a show on campaign finance it will air Tuesday: The Money Trail; Democracy for Sale. This was ostensibly an objective piece by CNN on campaign finance, an issue which the occupant of the chair has just said is largely about the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Benedetto goes on: Thanks to coverage such as that, it's no surprise polls show that a majority of Americans want Congress to pass legislation to tighten the rules under which politicians and political parties collect money. Never one to misread a popular trend, President Clinton has enlisted on the side of reform. Never mind that it was alleged abuses of current law by Clinton and Vice President Gore in 1996 that intensified calls for change in the first place. He's now a believer. Just a couple of other comments from his column, Mr. Benedetto's column in USA Today of Monday: Media conduct on this one is not pure liberal bias. It's another example of what Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson calls ``pack journalism run amok.'' ``We media types fancy ourselves independent and skeptical thinkers,'' he recently wrote. ``Just the opposite is often true. We're patsies for the latest social crusade or intellectual fad.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Mr. Benedetto's column in USA Today be printed in the Record at this point. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From USA Today, Oct. 6, 1997] Media Too Quick To Buy Into Campaign Reform (By Richard Benedetto) If you think the news media are providing the straight story on efforts to revise campaign finance laws, look closer. Much of the reporting is tilted toward voices in favor of wholesale reform. Those who take an opposing view are mostly portrayed as either corrupt or partisan. Little space or time is devoted to sober, broad looks at arguments on all sides of the issue. Instead, coverage is often emotional and selective. Reporting usually begins from the premise that the McCain-Feingold reform bill now before the Senate is good, and that any attempt to slow it, stop it or change it is bad. Proponents say the fate of our democracy hangs on reform. And given a predisposition of many of the media to agree, that message is hammered home almost daily. Consider this opening sentence from an Associated Press wire story last week: ``Virginia's candidates for governor are taking full advantage of one of the nation's most liberal campaign finance laws, raking in more than $10 million through August.'' In one sentence, readers are given two negative cues on campaign finance. The first: that Virginia law is ``one of the nation's most liberal.'' The second: the loaded phrase ``raking in.'' CNN gives its position away in the title of a show on campaign finance it will air Tuesday: The Money Trail: Democracy for Sale. Thanks to coverage such as that, it's no surprise polls show that a majority of Americans want Congress to pass legislation to tighten the rules under which politicians and political parties collect money. Never one to misread a popular trend, President Clinton has enlisted on the side of reform. Never mind that it was alleged abuses of current law by Clinton and Vice President Gore in 1996 that intensified calls for change in the first place. He's now a believer. While reform may be needed, there are several arguments for moving carefully. For example, enacting limits on contributions could run afoul of the Constitution. In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that campaign contributions are the equivalent of speech and that attempts to limit them could violate First Amendment rights. How thoroughly has that issue been aired? Not very. The focus of most reporting is on procedural maneuvering of opponents. When Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., introduced an amendment last week to require labor unions to get permission of members before spending dues money for political purposes, news reports said he was ``muddying the water.'' Opponents called it ``a poison pill.'' Newspaper editorials denounced the move as shamefully partisan. The charge: Republicans want to hamper unions' ability to raise money because the millions of dollars they raise for campaigns go mostly to Democrats. But if that's legitimate cause for denouncing the amendment, why is it not similarly legitimate to question the motive of Democrats seeking to ban ``soft money?'' Those are unlimited contributions that go to political parties and are supposed to help pay for party-building activities such as get-out-the-vote efforts. Republicans collect more soft money than Democrats. So it would seem in the Democrats' interest to get rid of that GOP advantage. Yet, few raise that point. According to the prevailing wisdom, soft money must go--period. Media conduct on this one is not pure liberal bias. It's another example of what Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson calls ``pack journalism run amok.'' ``We media types fancy ourselves independent and skeptical thinkers,'' he recently wrote. ``Just the opposite is often true. We're patsies for the latest social crusade or intellectual fad.'' The anti-smoking campaign is a recent example of the media buying in with few reservations. Global warming, too. Now it's campaign finance reform. Mr. McCONNELL. Also there was a recent and interesting survey conducted by Rasmussen Research, out of North Carolina. Most Americans think that friendly reporters are more important to a successful political campaign than money, according to a Rasmussen Research survey of 1000 adults. By a 3-to-1 margin (61 percent to 19 percent) Americans believe that if reporters like one candidate more than another, that candidate is likely to win--even if the other candidate raised more money in a campaign. I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record as well. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Reporters More Influential Than Campaign Cash?--Most Americans Say Yes! Waxhaw, NC.--Most Americans think that friendly reporters are more important to a successful political campaign that money, according to a Rasmussen Research survey of 1,000 adults. By a 3-to-1 margin (61% to [[Page S10503]] 19%) Americans believe that if reporters like one candidate more than another, that candidate is likely to win--even if the other candidate raised more money in the campaign. ``This finding raises basic questions about the types of reform that it will take to restore voter confidence in representative democracy,'' noted Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Research. ``Campaign contributions that buy special favors are viewed by the American people as a problem that needs to be addressed. However, most also think that much more serious reform will be needed to solve our nation's electoral problems.'' Earlier surveys by Rasmussen Research have found the most Americans think the passage of new campaign finance laws will not end corruption in government. The consensus view is that new laws would simply encourage politicians to find new ways of obtaining money in exchange for votes or other favors. Nine-out-of-ten Americans believe that members of Congress do exchange votes for campaign cash. Americans are also generally suspicious of reporters. More than seven-out-of-ten registered voters believe that the personal biases of reporters affect their coverage of stories, issues, and campaigns. Additional survey information on campaign finance reform and other issues can be found at www.PortraitoAmerica.com, a web site maintained by Rasmussen Research. Rasmussen Research is a public opinion polling firm that conducts independent surveys on events in the news and other topics. The survey of 1,000 adults was conducted September 27-28, 1997. The survey has a margin of sampling error of +/ -3 percentage points, with a 95% level of confidence. Mr. McCONNELL. Also, there was a fascinating column by Robert Samuelson in Newsweek of October 6, Monday of this week. The headline says, ``Making Pols Into Crooks--Campaign-Finance `Reform' Criminalizes Politics and Deepens Public Cynicism.'' Let me just take a few excerpts out of this article, because I think it really is excellent, and sums up the nature of this debate. Bob Samuelson says: The ``reformers'' claim they're trying to lower public cynicism by cleansing politics of the evils of money. Actually, they're doing the opposite: by putting so many unrealistic restrictions on legitimate political activity, the ``reformers'' ensure that more people--politicians, campaign workers, advocacy groups--will run afoul of the prohibitions. Public cynicism rises as politics is criminalized. Mr. Samuelson goes on: There is no easy way to curb the role of money in politics without curbing free expression. If I favor larger (smaller) government, I should be able to support like-minded candidates by helping them win. Campaign ``reformers''--who would like to replace private contributions with public subsidies and impose strict spending limits--reject this basic principles. Money, they say, is corrupting politics. It isn't. Campaign spending isn't out of control or outlandish. In the 1996 election, campaign spending at all levels-- At all levels, Federal, State and local-- totaled $4 billion, says political scientist Herbert Alexander of the Citizens' Research Foundation. That was one twentieth of one percent of the gross domestic product of $7.6 trillion. Americans spend about $20 billion a year on laundry and dry cleaning. Is the price of politics really too steep? Robert Samuelson asks. Further in the article he says: More menacing are the artificial limits that ``reformers'' have imposed on political expression---- Something the Senator from Arkansas was just referring to a few moments ago in his speech---- What's been created is a baffling maze of election laws and rules that, once codified, establish new types of criminal or quasi-criminal behavior. Anyone tiptoeing around the rules is said to be ``skirting the law.'' And there are violations. In the futile effort to regulate politics, the ``reformers'' have manufactured most of the immorality, illegality and cynicism that they deplore. Today's ``abuses'' stem mostly from the 1974 ``reforms'' enacted after Watergate. Congress then limited the amount individuals could give a candidate to $1,000 per election; total giving to all candidates (directly, through parties or committees) was limited to $25,000 a year. What happened? The limits inspired evasions. Suppressing contributions to candidates encouraged new political-action committees. People gave to PACs, which give to candidates. In 1974, there were 608 PACs; now there are 4,000. Another evasion is ``independent spending'': groups (the Supreme Court says) can promote a candidate by themselves if they don't ``coordinate'' with a candidate. The present evasion of concern is ``soft money'': contributions to parties for ``party-building'' activities like voter registration. ``Soft money'' contributions have no limits; so Tamraz could give $300,000. But ``soft money'' can also be used for general TV ads that mention candidates as long as they don't use such words as ``vote for.'' Does any of this make any sense? Not really. Ordinary people can't grasp all the obscure, illogical distinctions. And he is talking, Mr. President, about current law, even before we talk about making it more complicated. No matter. The failure of past ``reforms'' is no barrier to future ``reforms.'' The latest effort is the McCain-Feingold bill now before the Senate. Samuelson says: Most of the bill flouts the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From Newsweek, Oct. 6, 1997] Making Pols Into Crooks--Campaign-Finance ``Reform'' Criminalizes Politics and Deepens Public Cynicism (By Robert J. Samuelson) The prospect that an independent counsel will be named to investigate the alleged campaign-law violations of President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore exposes a central contradiction of ``campaign-finance reform.'' The ``reformers'' claim they're trying to lower public cynicism by cleansing politics of the evils of money. Actually, they're doing the opposite: by putting so many unrealistic restrictions on legitimate political activity, the ``reformers'' ensure that more people--politicians, campaign workers, advocacy groups--will run afoul of the prohibitions. Public cynicism rises as politics is criminalized. The distasteful reality is that politics requires money. To compete, candidates must communicate; and to communicate, they need cash. Someone has to pay for all the ads, direct mail and polls. There is no easy way to curb the role of money in politics without curbing free expression. If I favor larger (smaller) government, I should be able to support like-minded candidates by helping them win. Campaign ``reformers''--who would like to replace private contributions with public subsidies and impose strict spending limits--reject this basic principle. Money, they say, is corrupting politics. It isn't. Campaign spending isn't out of control or outlandish. In the 1996 election campaign spending at all levels totaled $4 billion, says political scientist Herbert Alexander of the Citizens' Research Foundation. That was one twentieth of one percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) of $7.6 trillion. Americans spend about $20 billion a year on laundry and dry cleaning. Is the price of politics really too steep? Nor have contributions hijacked legislation. Consider the tax code. It's perforated with tax breaks, many undesirable. Some tax breaks benefit wealthy constituents who sweetened their lobbying with generous campaign contributions. But the largest tax breaks stem mostly from politicians' desire to pander to masses of voters. In the 1997 tax bill, Clinton and Congress provided huge tax breaks for college tuition. Does anyone think these passed because Harvard's president is a big contributor? The media coverage and congressional hearings of today's alleged campaign-finance ``abuses'' have, of course, revealed the frenzied and demeaning efforts of politicians of both parties to raise money. But there hasn't been much evidence of serious influence buying. The worst we've heard is of President Clinton's, in effect, subletting the Lincoln Bedroom to big contributors and of businessman Roger Tamraz's giving $300,000 to Democrats in the hope of winning government support for an oil pipeline. All Tamraz got was a brief chat with Clinton and no blessing for the project. This sort of preferential ``access'' isn't dangerous. More menacing are all the artificial limits that ``reformers'' have imposed on political expression. What's been created is a baffling maze of election laws and rules that, once codified, establish new types of criminal or quasi-criminal behavior. Anyone tiptoeing around the rules is said to be ``skirting the law.'' And there are violations. In the futile effort to regulate politics, the ``reformers'' have manufactured most of the immorality, illegally and cynicism they deplore. Today's ``abuses'' stem mostly from the 1974 ``reforms'' enacted after Watergate. Congress then limited the amount individuals give a candidate to $1,000 per election; total giving to all candidates (directly, through parties or committees) was limited to $25,000 a year. What happened? The limits inspired evasions. Suppressing contributions to candidates encouraged new political-action committees. People give to PACs, which give to candidates. In 1974, there were 608 PACs; now there are nearly 4,000. Another evasion is ``independent spending'': groups (the Supreme Court says) can promote a candidate by themselves if they don't ``coordinate'' with a candidate. The present evasion of concern is ``soft money'': contributions to parties for ``party-building'' activities like voter registration. ``Soft money'' contributions have no limits; so Tamraz could give $300,000. But ``soft money'' can also be used for general TV ads that mention candidates as long as they don't use such words as ``vote for.'' Does any of this make sense? Not really. Ordinary people can't grasp all the obscure, illogical distinctions. No matter. The failure of past ``reforms'' is no barrier to future ``reforms.'' The latest effort is the McCain-Feingold bill now before [[Page S10504]] the Senate. Named after its sponsors (Republican John McCain of Arizona and Democrat Russell Feingold of Wisconsin), it would outlaw ``soft money'' and try to ban ``issue advocacy'' ads in the 60 days before an election (``Issue advocacy'' ads favor or oppose candidates; the distinction between them and ``independent spending'' cannot briefly be explained.) Most of the bill flouts the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment: ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'' The connection between campaign ``reform'' and the Clinton- Gore predicament has emerged, ironically, in the complaints of some ``reformers'' that the president and vice president are being unfairly targeted. In The Washington Post, Elizabeth Drew says that Gore behaved like a ``klutz,'' but ``klutziness isn't a federal crime.'' The 1883 law that he and the president may have violated (soliciting contributions from federal property), argues Drew, aimed to protect civil servants from being shaken down by politicians. In The New York Times, former deputy attorney general Philip Heymann says the campaign against Gore aims only to ``destroy the Democratic front runner for president.'' All this is true. But it misses the larger point: the campaign-finance laws are so arbitrary and complex that they invite ``criminality'' or its appearance. Bad laws should be discarded. Rep. John Doolittle of California sensibly suggests abandoning all contribution limits and enacting tougher disclosure laws. The best defense against the undue influence of money is to let candidates raise it from as many sources as possible--and to let the public see who's giving. That would be genuine reform. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, also in the Wall Street Journal of October 1, there was a piece by Jonathan Rauch, who is a contributing editor to the National Journal. I want to read a few parts of that. Mr. Rauch said: The McCain-Feingold bill being debated in the Senate this week has become the default option for campaign-finance reformers: If you are an editorialist who needs to suggest something better than today's tumbledown system, you press the McCain-Feingold button on our word processor. Well, the system today is rotten, and radical change is needed. But McCain-Feingold, for all its good press and good intentions, is a bad bill. It would do nothing to end the failures of the past 20 years. Indeed, it would unflinchingly compound them. At the core of today's troubles are two realities that will not yield to any amount of legislative or lawyerly cleverness. The first is that private money--a lot of it--is a fact of life in politics, and if you push it out of one part of the system it tends to re-enter somewhere else, usually deeper in shadow. The second is that money spent to communicate with voters cannot be regulated without impinging on the very core of the First Amendment, which was written to protect political discourse above all. That is what they were thinking about when they wrote the first amendment, political discourse. We got into today's mess by defying both of these principles, with predictable results. When reformers placed limits on money spent to support or defeat candidates, lobbies simply shifted to ad campaigns that omitted explicit requests to vote for or against candidates: ``issue advocacy,'' which the courts have ruled is constitutionally protected. And when reformers placed tight limits on contributions to candidates, donors began giving to political parties instead: ``soft money.'' The distinctions between ``hard'' and ``soft'' money, and between ``express advocacy'' and ``issue advocacy,'' are grounded in legalistic mumbo-jumbo, and so the attempts to enforce them have made campaign law bewilderingly complex without accomplishing any of the law's goals. Campaigns are neither cheaper nor fairer nor less dependent on private money than, say, 30 years ago--just the opposite, in fact. One conclusion you might draw is that the 1970s-style, money- regulating model is bankrupt. Another is that a horse- doctor's dose of the old medicine will finally heal the patient. Enter Sens. John McCain and Russell Feingold. Among many things their bill would do, two are paramount. First, it would ban ``soft money'' given to political parties. Second, to make the ``soft money'' ban work, it would also restrict independent ``issue advocacy.'' Voila--no more money, right? Wrong. Lots and lots of money, but in different places. Ban soft money, and lobbies would bypass the parties and conduct their own campaign blitzes. Candidates and parties are already losing control of their messages as lobbies--which, unlike candidates and parties, are not accountable to voters--run independent advocacy campaigns. Mr. President, I see that my friend from Wisconsin is here. I am going to reserve the remainder of my time and ask that the entire Jonathan Rauch article that I just was reading from be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:] [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 1, 1997] Vote Against McCain, Wait, Can I Say That? (By Jonathan Rauch) The McCain-Feingold bill being debated in the Senate this week has become the default option for campaign-finance reformers: If you are an editorialist who needs to suggest something better than today's tumbeldown system, you press the McCain-Feingold button on your word processor. Well, the system today is rotten, and radical change is needed. But McCain-Feingold, for all its good press and good intentions, is a bad bill. It would do nothing to end the failures of the past 20 years. Indeed, it would unflinchingly compound them. At the core of today's troubles are two realities that will not yield to any amount of legislative or lawyerly cleverness. The first is that private money--a lot of it-- is a fact of life in politics, and if you push it out of one part of the system it tends to re-enter somewhere else, usually deeper in shadow. The second is that money spent to communicate with voters cannot be regulated without impinging on the very core of the First Amendment, which was written to protect political discourse above all. We got into today's mess by defying both of these principles, with predictable results. When reformers placed limits on money spent to support or defeat candidates, lobbies simply shifted to ad campaigns that omitted explicit requests to vote for or against candidates: ``issue advocacy,'' which the courts have ruled is constitutionally protected. And when reformers placed tight limits on contributions to candidates, donors began giving to political parties instead: ``soft money.'' The distinctions between ``hard'' and ``soft'' money, and between ``express advocacy'' and ``issue advocacy,'' are grounded in legalistic mumbo-jumbo, and so that attempts to enforce them have made campaign law bewilderingly complex without accomplishing any of the law's goals. Campaigns are neither cheaper not fairer nor less dependent on private money than, say, 30 years ago--just the opposite, in fact. One conclusion you might draw is that the 1970s-style, money- regulating model is bankrupt. Another is that a horse- doctor's dose of the old medicine will finally heal the patient. Enter Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D., Wis.). Among many things their bill would do, two are paramount. First, it would ban ``soft money'' given to political parties. Second, to make the ``soft money'' ban work, it would also restrict independent ``issue advocacy.'' Voila--no more money, right? Wrong. Lots and lots of money, but in different places. Ban soft money, and lobbies would bypass the parties and conduct their own campaign blitzes. Candidates and parties are already losing control of their messages as lobbies--which, unlike candidates and parties, are not accountable to voters--run independent advocacy campaigns. The McCain- Feingold bill would accelerate the alienation of politicians from their own campaigns, and, for good measure, it could also starve the parties of funds. The sponsors are aware that independent advertising might replace soft money: thus the bill's remarkable new limits on all ads that mention candidates within 60 days of an election. In the words of Sen. McCain: ``Ads could run which advocate any number of causes. Pro-life ads, pro-choice ads, antilabor ads, pro-wilderness ads, pro-Republican Party ads, pro-Democrat Party ads--all could be aired in the last 60 days. However, ads mentioning the candidates could not.'' So, for example, I might commit a federal crime by taking out an ad in this newspaper criticizing Sen. McCain for supporting his bill. The Founders would have run screaming from such a notion, and rightly so: You cannot improve the integrity of any political system by letting politicians restrict political speech. In real life the courts are likely to strike down McCain- Feingold's speech controls, in which case, of course, the limits would not work. But even if the limits were allowed to stand, they still would not work: Everybody would race to game the system by dressing up political expression in absurd costumes, whose legitimacy would be contested ad nauseam in the courts. Maybe my ad couldn't say ``Vote against McCain and Feingold,'' but could it say ``Show the promoters of the dangerous McCain-Feingold bill how you feel''? Who would decide? The potential for speech micromanagement is endless. Imagine the fun lawyers could have with the bill's exception for ``voter guides''--a permissible voter guide being (hold on tight, now) any printed matter written in an ``educational manner'' about two or more candidates that (1) is not coordinated with a candidate, (2) gives all candidates an equal opportunity to respond to any questionnaires, (3) gives no candidate any greater prominence than any other, and (4) does not contain a phrase ``such as'' (my italics), ``vote for,'' ``re-elect,'' ``support,'' ``defeat,'' ``reject'' or other ``words which in context can have no reasonable meaning other than to urge the election or defeat of one or more candidates.'' Is that clear? So, after McCain-Feingold, campaign law would become even more complex and mystifying. Politicians would remain mendicants, forced by low contribution limits to beg every day and in every way for donations. Our already weak parties would lose their main source of funds, becoming weaker still. If the speech controls were upheld, political discussion would be both chilled and [[Page S10505]] contorted. And if the speech controls were struck down, political campaigns would be run by lobbies (``independent expenditures'') rather than by candidates and parties. Quite a reform. Even total deregulation would be better than McCain- Feingold, provided disclosure were retained. For that matter, doing nothing would be better. Best by a very long measure, however, would be a combination of deregulation, disclosure and generous public financing for candidates who forgo private fund-raising--a plan which, instead of trying to eliminate or micromanage private money, would give voters an alternative to it, and make the acceptance of private donations an issue in every campaign. Alas, all of those admittedly imperfect ideas are bitterly opposed by the anti-money crusaders who gave us the system we have now, and who still predominate in the ``reform community.'' To change their minds, campaign-finance law will probably have to be made worse before it can be made better. That task, at least, McCain-Feingold would perform admirably. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me, first of all, congratulate the occupant of the chair for his vote yesterday. I heard his comments this morning. The occupant of the chair did the right thing yesterday. He voted for cloture and joined 52 other Senators--a Senator we had not in the past known for sure whether or not he was going to vote for cloture on any occasion, and I very much appreciate that. I realize that his words are sincere. He does, in fact, support campaign finance reform. It is important that, again, the Senator from Arizona and I signal what we have signaled in the past, and that is that we are very eager to negotiate, whether on the floor or off the floor, to make a bill that would be more palatable to Members on both sides of the aisle. I think the Senator from Arkansas has indicated some excellent ideas in the past. That is the signal I want to give, despite whatever indications one might feel from the press accounts, which, of course, all of us have to take with a grain of salt on both sides of the issue. The fact is that many of us really would like to change this system, and I believe the Senator who occupies the chair is one of them. Let me reiterate our offer, which I think we have made good on time and time again, that if modifications need to be made to pass this terribly important bill, we are ready to do it. That is how the junior Senator from Maine became such a tremendous advocate for our cause. She had some ideas that were better than ours, and we incorporated them and moved on to make the bill even better. So I look forward to working with the occupant of the chair so that, once again, he can feel comfortable voting for cloture as we continue to press this issue on the floor, which we will do until we get the result that the American people demand. Let me also suggest, this is a point that seems to be missed in this debate frequently. The Senator from Kentucky speaks frequently and eloquently about the first amendment. But the way our system is established, surely if you pass a bill in the Congress, a piece of legislation, a statute, it doesn't amend the Constitution. There is more to the process. The President has to sign the bill, and it has to go up to the United States Supreme Court, unless nobody challenges it. And I have a sneaking suspicion that somebody might challenge this bill if it became law. So what is the worst-case scenario? The worst-case scenario is that if, in fact, there is a shred of our bill that is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will say so and strike it down. They know how to do their job. If we do our job, they will do their job. That is exactly what they did in the very famous case of Buckley versus Valeo. They determined that some elements of the bill were constitutional, despite the claim of the ACLU and others that they were not, and they said they were OK. For example, having a limitation on contributions. It is, obviously, the law now, and the Senator from Kentucky cannot dispute that it is the law, that right now somebody can't give more than $2,000 in the course of 6 years to a U.S. Senate candidate in hard money. That is a limitation. The Supreme Court said it is OK. On the other hand, in Buckley versus Valeo, the Court said you can't have overall mandatory spending limits because that, in their view, would be a violation of the first amendment. So what is the threat to the first amendment of passing a piece of legislation about which we have a good-faith disagreement as to its constitutionality? I happen to think it is clear that the major provisions of our bill are constitutional. I would be the first to concede that the closest case would be the one that the Senator from Kentucky has focused most of his firepower on in this debate, and that is the issue of what I like to call phony issue ads. But I can see that would be something the Supreme Court would have to take a long and hard look at, and I think they should. That is why, Mr. President, I don't support a constitutional amendment to get this done. The first amendment is too sacred. So, I want to address your concern about the first amendment to tell you that I was, I believe, the first or second Member of the U.S. Senate to come out here and oppose something called the Communications Decency Act. People fell all over each other voting for that bill that would have censored the Internet. I came out here and said, ``Look, on the face of this, even though I am not a leading constitutional expert but I have looked at the Constitution, on the face of it, this is unconstitutional.'' Yet, I believe 84 Members of this body, including the Senator from Kentucky, voted for it, sent it up to the Supreme Court and, guess what? Unanimously that Supreme Court--of which a majority of the Members were appointed by the majority party Presidents--unanimously ruled that that was unconstitutional. Mr. President, both with regard to your concern that we be flexible and open to other people's ideas, which I think you and I have established a good record on, and with regard to the issue of the first amendment to the Constitution, not only couldn't I agree with you more, but I believe we have a lot to talk about and work together on to achieve campaign finance reform. Since the Senator from Kentucky continues in his steadfast way to make a record, which I hope one day will get before the Supreme Court-- he hopes it won't get that far--let me address a couple of other issues and put a few things of concern to me in the Record. The Senator from Kentucky has been proudly suggesting that the McCain-Feingold bill is dead, and yet we are out here today debating it again, and we will be debating it again. That is because it is not going away. It is because it is not simply a question of various elements of the media saying that the McCain-Feingold bill is a good idea. There are others who are not in the media who, I think, are not easily duped by the media who think we ought to enact some of the things that are in the McCain-Feingold bill. Let me just put a few of those items in the Record. First, I ask unanimous consent that letters from former Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George Bush endorsing a soft money ban--a soft money ban, which is the centerpiece of the McCain-Feingold proposal--be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Houston, TX, June 19, 1997. Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Kassebaum: First, let me commend you and the former Vice President, Ambassador Mondale, for taking a leadership role in trying to bring about campaign reform. I hope the current Congress will enact Campaign Reform legislation. We must encourage the broadest possible participation by individuals in financing elections. Whatever reform is enacted should go the extra mile in demanding fullest possible disclosure of all campaign contributions. I would favor getting rid of so called ``soft money'' contributions but this principle should be applied to all groups including Labor. I congratulate you for working for better campaign finance law enforcement. With my respects to you and Vice President Mondale I am, sincerely, George Bush. ______ July 17, 1997. To Vice President Walter Mondale: I am pleased to join former Presidents Bush and Ford in expressing hope that this Congress will enact meaningful campaign finance reform legislation. For the future of [[Page S10506]] our democracy, and as our experience may be emulated by other nations, prompt and fundamental repair of our system for financing federal elections is required. The most basic and immediate step should include an end to ``soft money,'' whether in the form of corporate or union treasury contributions to federal campaigns, or large and unregulated contributions from individuals. The initial step should also include measures that provide for complete and immediate disclosures of political contributions and expenses. To accomplish these and other reforms and to lay the basis for future ones, we also need to develop a strong national consensus about the objectives of reform. It will take more than just the action of this Congress, but fundamental reform is essential to the task of repairing public trust in government in our leaders. We must take significant steps to assure voters that public policy is determined by the exercise of their franchise rather than a broken and suspect campaign finance system. Please extend to Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker my appreciation for the work that she has undertaken with you to advance the essential cause of bipartisan campaign finance reform. Sincerely, Jimmy Carter. ____ July 10, 1997. Dear Senator Kassebaum: Our system of financing federal election campaigns is in serious trouble. To remedy these failings requires prompt action by the President and the House and Senate. I strongly hope the Congress in cooperation with the White House will enact Campaign Reform legislation by the forthcoming elections in 1998. Public officials and concerned citizens. Republicans and Democrats alike, have aleady identified important areas of agreement. These include (1) the need to end huge uncontrolled ``soft money'' contributions to the national parties and their campaign committees, and to bar solicitation of ``soft money'' from all persons, parties and organized labor by federal officeholders and candidates for any political organizations; (2) the need to provide rapid and comprehensive discount of contributions and expenditures in support of, or opposition to, candidates for federal office; and (3) the need to repair the system of campaign finance law enforcement by assuring that it is effective and independent of politics. A significant bi-partisan effort across party lines can achieve a legislative consensus in campaign reforms that will help to restore the confidence of our citizens in their federal government. I commend you and former Vice President Mondale for your leadership on behalf of campaign reform. Sincerely, Gerald R. Ford. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to mention just a sentence from President Bush's letter, who I don't think is usually considered a pawn of the liberal media. He says: I would favor getting rid of so called ``soft money'' contributions but this principle should be applied to all groups including Labor. Of course, our soft money ban in our bill is comprehensive and includes labor. A letter from President Carter also indicates as follows: The most basic and immediate step should include an end to ``soft money,'' whether in the form of corporate or union treasury contributions to federal campaigns, or large and unregulated contributions from individuals. From President Carter. President Ford indicated in a letter: . . . the need to end huge uncontrolled ``soft money'' contributions to the national parties and their campaign committees, and to bar solicitation from ``soft money'' from all persons, parties and organized labor by federal officeholders and candidates for any political organizations . . . Mr. President, how can these three Presidents, two from the Republican Party and one from the Democratic Party, be considered pawns of a solely Democratic effort to pass campaign finance reform? On its face it is absurd to suggest a bill led by the Senator from Arizona, a strong Republican, is such a bill. But here are two Republican Presidents saying we should ban soft money. Yet, the effort to kill this bill would prevent the core element of our bill to ban soft money. Let me add, it is not just former Presidents, Mr. President, it is also former Members of this body and of the other body. Former Members of Congress have endorsed our bipartisan campaign finance reform bill and the end of soft money. I ask unanimous consent that a statement of former Members of Congress, dated September 29, 1997, be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Statement of Former Members of Congress We are pleased to join former Presidents Bush, Carter and Ford in expressing the hope that the current Congress enact meaningful bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation. The distinguished former Presidents have identified the indispensable core of reform: (1) a ban on ``soft money'' contributions to the national parties and their campaign organizations, applied equally to contributions of corporate and union treasury funds, as well as to large individual contributions in excess of those permitted by law; (2) complete and rapid disclosure of political contributions and expenses; and (3) effective and politically independent enforcement of campaign finance laws. Some of us favor additional proposals, including provisions to assure that a ban on ``soft money'' is not circumvented through campaign advertisements that are thinly disguised as ``issue advocacy.'' Together we believe it is time to test the merits of different or competing ideas through debate and votes, but that any disagreement over further reforms should not delay enactment of essential measures, beginning with a ban on soft money, where agreement is within reach. Our democracy will be strengthened when the Congress acts to assure the American public that the nation's campaign finance system honors our nation's ideals. Nancy Kassebaum Baker (R-KS), Howard H. Baker, Jr. (R- TN), David L. Boren (D-OK), John C. Danforth (R-MO), Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR), Abner J. Mikva (D-IL), Patricia S. Schroeder (D-CO), Walter F. Mondale (D-MN), Henry Bellmon (R-OK), Bill Bradley (D-NJ), Thomas F. Eagleton (D-MO), Robert H. Michel (R-IL), Sam Nunn (D- GA), Alan K. Simpson (R-WY). The original signers of the statement are joined by: Bella Abzug (D-NY), Wendell Anderson (D-MN), Mark Andrews (R-ND), Bob Bergland (D-MN), Rudy Boschwitz (R-MN), John Brademas (D-IN), William Brock (R-TN), , Clarence Brown (R- OH), Jim Broyhill (R-NC), Beverly Byron (D-MD), Rod Chandler (R-WA), Dick Clark (D-IA), Tony Coelho (D-CA), Barber Conable (R-NY), Alan Cranston (D-CA), John Culver (D-IA), Hal Daub (R-NE), John Dellenback (R-OR), Butler Derrick (D-SC), Tom Downey (D-NY), Don Edwards (D-CA), Mickey Edwards (R-OK), Robert Ellsworth (R-KS), Karan English (D-AZ), James Exon (D- NE), Dante Fascell (D-FL), Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY), Sheila Frahm (R-KS), Bill Frenzel (R-MN), Clifford Hansen (R-WY), Fred Harris (D-OK), Thomas Hartnett (R-SC), Howell Heflin (D- AL), Peter Hoagland (D-NE), Carroll Hubbard (D-KY), Walter Huddleston (D-KY). Martha Keys (D-KS), Melvin Laird (R-WI), Russell Long (D- LA), Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (D- PA), Charles Mathias (R-MD), Ron Mazzoli (D-KY), Paul McCloskey (R-CA), John Melcher (D-MT), Howard Metzenbaum (D- OH), John Miller (R-WA), George Mitchell (D-ME), Frank (Ted) Moss (D-UT), Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), Dick Nichols (R-KS), Leon Panetta (D-CA), Claiborne Pell (D-RI), David Pryor (D-AR), Albert Quie (R-MN), John Rhodes III (R-AZ), Matthew Rinaldo (R-NJ), Peter Rodino (D-NJ), Warrent Rudman (R-NH), Lynn Schenk (D-CA), Richard Schweiker (R-PA), Philip Sharp (D-IN), Paul Simon (D-IL), Jim Slattery (D-KS), W.B. Spong (D-VA), Robert Stafford (R-VT), Al Swift (D-WA). Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in that letter, a number of our former colleagues from both Houses of the Congress state: We are pleased to join former Presidents Bush, Carter and Ford in expressing the hope that the current Congress enact meaningful bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation. This includes the names of people like the distinguished former Member Nancy Kassebaum Baker, former Senator from Kansas; Howard Baker, Jr., former leader and Senator from Tennessee; former Republican Senator John Danforth of Missouri, who I had the honor to serve with briefly; former Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon; former Senator Walter Mondale and former Vice President; former Senator Bill Bradley from New Jersey; former minority leader of the other body, Robert Michel; former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn; former Senator Al Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming with whom I disagreed frequently on the floor of the Senate who was among the toughest and most clever opponents you could have on the floor, but he cosponsored the McCain-Feingold bill last session after he made his retirement announcement, and he still supports it. And the list goes on. Mr. President, I do not think these folks are merely pawns of the media. These folks have been here; they have seen it; they have done it. And they know that spending a tremendous amount of your time in raising money is the corrupting of this process. And many of them, as they announced their retirements, said they were sick and tired of spending their time as Members of Congress raising money. The [[Page S10507]] killing of the bill, the vain attempt to kill this bill, as it turns out, would prevent the first efforts to get our attention away from raising money and back to the business we were elected to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an op-ed piece that appeared in the July 18, 1997, Washington Post authored by former Republican Senator Nancy Kassebaum, Baker, and former Vice President Walter Mondale calling for bipartisan campaign finance reform and a ban on soft money. There being no objection, the material was ordered to printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Washington Post, July 18, 1997] Campaign Finance: Fix It (By Nancy Kassebaum Baker and Walter F. Mondale) President Clinton has challenged Congress to ``make this summer a time not of talk but of action'' in fixing our broken system of campaign financing. We agree wholeheartedly. Earlier this year the president asked the two of us, a Republican and a Democrat, to assist in the cause of bipartisan campaign finance reform. Although pessimism about the will of Congress to reform campaign finance laws is widespread, we are optimistic that the task can be achieved through a clear focus on necessary and achievable reforms, leadership and determination. Last month, we submitted an Open Letter to the President and Congress recommending four areas in which to begin, without delay, the task of ensuring that our nation's campaign finance system serves, rather than undermines, the interests of American democracy. First, Congress should promptly ban ``soft money,'' the huge uncontrolled contributions to national parties and their campaign organizations that have so dismayed the public. This prohibition would do much to slow the flood of campaign money and enable the nation to adhere to the justified premise of earlier reforms, that massive amounts of money from powerful sources distort elections and government. Second, we must ensure that ``soft money'' not continue its corrosive work under the this disguise of ``issue advocacy.'' The election law should be tightened to distinguish clearly between media advertisements that are campaign endorsements or attacks and those that genuinely debate issues. to make a ``soft money'' ban fully meangingful the election law should establish consistent rules for the financing of all electioneering advertisements. Third, disclosure rules should be broadened to ensure that voters know who is responsible for the accuracy and fairness of campaign advertisements. Increasingly, candidates are bystanders in their own campaigns, not knowing the identity of sponsors of messages that dominate the airwaves close to elections. Also, with today's technology, even last-minute contributions and expenditures can be revealed before Election Day. Fourth, no reform will be worth much without effective enforcement. The Federal Election Commission must be strengthened. This should include the appointment of knowledgeable and independent-minded commissioners. Additionally, changes are needed to allow for the full and timely resolution of issues through the courts when the commission is deadlocked or cannot act because of lack of funds. Significant majorities might be found for other reforms. As the debate goes forward, Congress should be encouraged to consider further steps to provide relief from the incessant treadmill of fund-raising. However, we should not delay action on those measures that can pass now. Time is of the essence. Congressional elections are coming up next year. The presidential campaign for the year 2000 will begin soon after. Each day these elections draw closer, the passage of reform becomes even more difficult. Now is the best time to advance legislation that will provide the American people with a more effective and more equitable election process. It is no secret that the Senate will be the first battleground for reform. There are honest differences that warrant debate there but also votes on their merits. We are confident that the Senate's leadership will recognize its responsibility to schedule campaign finance reform for early and full debate. And speaking plainly, we further believe that the American public will deem unacceptable any tactic that prevents a majority of the Senate from coming to a final vote. We appreciate the value of Senate rules on debate. But campaign finance issues are well known to every member. Whatever any senator's individual views on campaign finance issues may be, all senators should unite in one conviction. The future of our democracy requires them to address their differences in public debate on the Senate floor and for their votes on final passage to be recorded. Most important is to set aside attempts to gain or maintain partisan advantage. The time is now to come together to address the integrity of our national government. Restoring that integrity demands honest, bipartisan campaign finance reform. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an opinion piece from last Sunday's Washington Post coauthored by former Presidents Carter and Ford, who actually ran against each other in 1976, calling for campaign finance reform and the end of the soft money system. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Washington Post, Oct. 5, 1997] And the Power of the Ballot (By Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford) When we ran against each other in 1976, the modern campaign finance system was in its infancy; it was the first presidential election governed by strict limits and public financing. Looking back, it is easy to recognize why the reforms of the 1970s were so essential. Today it is disheartening to witness changes that have distorted those reforms and shaken Americans' faith in their democracy. We have watched as elections have grown more controversial, more expensive, riddled with soft money and less understandable to the average voter. We have watched as participation in presidential elections has declined-- plummeting during the last election to the lowest levels since 1924. Less than half of the voting-age population cast their ballots for president in 1996, and while there are many factors that might contribute to this disturbing figure, we believe that a lack of public trust in government and in our system of democratic elections is a major part of the

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1997--CLOTURE MOTION
(Senate - October 08, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S10501-S10522] BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1997--CLOTURE MOTION The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). Under the previous order, there will now be 1 hour equally divided in the usual form, prior to the cloture vote on S. 25. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, am I correct that the 1 hour between now and the vote at 12 is equally divided? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to yield to the Senator from Arkansas such time as he may desire, and take this opportunity to come preside while he speaks. (Mr. McCONNELL assumed the chair.) Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for yielding time. Yesterday I voted to invoke cloture on the McCain-Feingold bill. Today I will oppose that effort. I voted for cloture because I want campaign finance reform. I want an opportunity to amend McCain-Feingold, which I believe is a seriously flawed bill. I want a chance to vote on a reform bill and I want to ban or limit soft money. But it is now clear that there is no consensus in support of McCain-Feingold, and if we are to have serious and meaningful reform, we will and must take a different direction. I absolutely do not support the current version of McCain-Feingold. In my opinion, and I have expressed it both publicly and privately, McCain-Feingold contains provisions that threaten free speech and pose serious constitutional problems, especially in the area of issue advocacy. These groups, which play such an important part in the political process, regardless of their affiliation, deserve to play that important role. And we must not in any way place a chill on their right of free expression and their ability to criticize their public officials. There have been abuses, no doubt about that. But it is far better for us to err on the side of freedom and to err on the side of liberty and to err on the side of the Constitution than to take a chance of passing a misguided, though popular right now, reform bill that would in fact begin that erosion of those liberties and freedoms and the right of free expression that we cherish as Americans and that we always should. It is clear there is no consensus on McCain-Feingold and will not be. It is equally clear that repeated cloture votes on McCain-Feingold is a part of a political strategy to portray opponents of McCain-Feingold as opponents of reform. As unfortunate as it is for the American people, the McCain-Feingold bill has become so politicized that even supporters of campaign finance reform, like myself, are disgusted with the political tactics that have been used in this debate. You have to question the sincerity of a strategy that disrupts Senate business and distracts the Senate from other important business such as ISTEA, the transportation funding bill, fast track, appropriation conference reports and judicial nominations, all of these vitally important [[Page S10502]] things, pressing business of the American people, and to set that aside so we can hold press conferences to portray opponents of McCain- Feingold as opponents of reform, which is not true and is not fair. If supporters of McCain-Feingold truly wanted to put forth a serious effort to enact reform, they would take a different approach by working to find consensus, by working to find agreement, rather than attempting to score political points. I will not be a part of these partisan guerrilla warfare tactics. I fully and completely support campaign finance reform. I think we have need to address it. I think we need to reform the system and particularly deal with that area in which there has been abuse, in the area of soft money. But I will not again vote to invoke cloture on S. 25 and be a part of a political game that is more concerned about portraying political opponents in a certain bad light than enacting meaningful and real and significant reform. I thank again the Senator from Kentucky for his leadership and for his genuine deep convictions in defense of the first amendment and the right of free expression. I yield the floor. (Mr. HUTCHINSON assumed the chair.) The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I listened with keen interest to the comments of the Senator from Arkansas and want to congratulate him for his decision. With his decision there is an excellent chance that today we will reach a historic high in opposition to measures similar to McCain-Feingold. So I commend the Senator from Arkansas for his conviction and thank him for his support in defense of the first amendment. I think he has done the courageous and correct thing. I want to make a few brief observations this morning. There is not a whole lot left to say in this debate. But I wanted to refer to a few articles over the last few days that I think ought to be noted and printed in the Record. A USA Today column on Monday, by Richard Benedetto, is worth noting, in terms of the attitude of the press on this issue. Americans have every right to expect that the press will not take sides on an issue off of the editorial page. Here is Mr. Benedetto's column of Monday, that I think is noteworthy, in USA Today. He says: If you think the news media are providing the straight story on efforts to revise campaign finance laws, look closer. Much of the reporting is tilted toward voices in favor of wholesale reform. Those who take an opposing view are mostly portrayed as either corrupt or partisan. Little space or time is devoted to sober, broad looks at arguments on all sides of the issue. Instead, coverage is often emotional and selective. Reporting usually begins from the premise that the McCain-Feingold reform bill now before the Senate is good, and that any attempt to slow it, stop it or change it is bad. Proponents say the fate of our democracy hangs on reform. And given a predisposition of many in the media to agree, that message is hammered home and almost daily. * * * * * CNN gives its position away in the title of a show on campaign finance it will air Tuesday: The Money Trail; Democracy for Sale. This was ostensibly an objective piece by CNN on campaign finance, an issue which the occupant of the chair has just said is largely about the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Benedetto goes on: Thanks to coverage such as that, it's no surprise polls show that a majority of Americans want Congress to pass legislation to tighten the rules under which politicians and political parties collect money. Never one to misread a popular trend, President Clinton has enlisted on the side of reform. Never mind that it was alleged abuses of current law by Clinton and Vice President Gore in 1996 that intensified calls for change in the first place. He's now a believer. Just a couple of other comments from his column, Mr. Benedetto's column in USA Today of Monday: Media conduct on this one is not pure liberal bias. It's another example of what Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson calls ``pack journalism run amok.'' ``We media types fancy ourselves independent and skeptical thinkers,'' he recently wrote. ``Just the opposite is often true. We're patsies for the latest social crusade or intellectual fad.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Mr. Benedetto's column in USA Today be printed in the Record at this point. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From USA Today, Oct. 6, 1997] Media Too Quick To Buy Into Campaign Reform (By Richard Benedetto) If you think the news media are providing the straight story on efforts to revise campaign finance laws, look closer. Much of the reporting is tilted toward voices in favor of wholesale reform. Those who take an opposing view are mostly portrayed as either corrupt or partisan. Little space or time is devoted to sober, broad looks at arguments on all sides of the issue. Instead, coverage is often emotional and selective. Reporting usually begins from the premise that the McCain-Feingold reform bill now before the Senate is good, and that any attempt to slow it, stop it or change it is bad. Proponents say the fate of our democracy hangs on reform. And given a predisposition of many of the media to agree, that message is hammered home almost daily. Consider this opening sentence from an Associated Press wire story last week: ``Virginia's candidates for governor are taking full advantage of one of the nation's most liberal campaign finance laws, raking in more than $10 million through August.'' In one sentence, readers are given two negative cues on campaign finance. The first: that Virginia law is ``one of the nation's most liberal.'' The second: the loaded phrase ``raking in.'' CNN gives its position away in the title of a show on campaign finance it will air Tuesday: The Money Trail: Democracy for Sale. Thanks to coverage such as that, it's no surprise polls show that a majority of Americans want Congress to pass legislation to tighten the rules under which politicians and political parties collect money. Never one to misread a popular trend, President Clinton has enlisted on the side of reform. Never mind that it was alleged abuses of current law by Clinton and Vice President Gore in 1996 that intensified calls for change in the first place. He's now a believer. While reform may be needed, there are several arguments for moving carefully. For example, enacting limits on contributions could run afoul of the Constitution. In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that campaign contributions are the equivalent of speech and that attempts to limit them could violate First Amendment rights. How thoroughly has that issue been aired? Not very. The focus of most reporting is on procedural maneuvering of opponents. When Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., introduced an amendment last week to require labor unions to get permission of members before spending dues money for political purposes, news reports said he was ``muddying the water.'' Opponents called it ``a poison pill.'' Newspaper editorials denounced the move as shamefully partisan. The charge: Republicans want to hamper unions' ability to raise money because the millions of dollars they raise for campaigns go mostly to Democrats. But if that's legitimate cause for denouncing the amendment, why is it not similarly legitimate to question the motive of Democrats seeking to ban ``soft money?'' Those are unlimited contributions that go to political parties and are supposed to help pay for party-building activities such as get-out-the-vote efforts. Republicans collect more soft money than Democrats. So it would seem in the Democrats' interest to get rid of that GOP advantage. Yet, few raise that point. According to the prevailing wisdom, soft money must go--period. Media conduct on this one is not pure liberal bias. It's another example of what Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson calls ``pack journalism run amok.'' ``We media types fancy ourselves independent and skeptical thinkers,'' he recently wrote. ``Just the opposite is often true. We're patsies for the latest social crusade or intellectual fad.'' The anti-smoking campaign is a recent example of the media buying in with few reservations. Global warming, too. Now it's campaign finance reform. Mr. McCONNELL. Also there was a recent and interesting survey conducted by Rasmussen Research, out of North Carolina. Most Americans think that friendly reporters are more important to a successful political campaign than money, according to a Rasmussen Research survey of 1000 adults. By a 3-to-1 margin (61 percent to 19 percent) Americans believe that if reporters like one candidate more than another, that candidate is likely to win--even if the other candidate raised more money in a campaign. I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record as well. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Reporters More Influential Than Campaign Cash?--Most Americans Say Yes! Waxhaw, NC.--Most Americans think that friendly reporters are more important to a successful political campaign that money, according to a Rasmussen Research survey of 1,000 adults. By a 3-to-1 margin (61% to [[Page S10503]] 19%) Americans believe that if reporters like one candidate more than another, that candidate is likely to win--even if the other candidate raised more money in the campaign. ``This finding raises basic questions about the types of reform that it will take to restore voter confidence in representative democracy,'' noted Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Research. ``Campaign contributions that buy special favors are viewed by the American people as a problem that needs to be addressed. However, most also think that much more serious reform will be needed to solve our nation's electoral problems.'' Earlier surveys by Rasmussen Research have found the most Americans think the passage of new campaign finance laws will not end corruption in government. The consensus view is that new laws would simply encourage politicians to find new ways of obtaining money in exchange for votes or other favors. Nine-out-of-ten Americans believe that members of Congress do exchange votes for campaign cash. Americans are also generally suspicious of reporters. More than seven-out-of-ten registered voters believe that the personal biases of reporters affect their coverage of stories, issues, and campaigns. Additional survey information on campaign finance reform and other issues can be found at www.PortraitoAmerica.com, a web site maintained by Rasmussen Research. Rasmussen Research is a public opinion polling firm that conducts independent surveys on events in the news and other topics. The survey of 1,000 adults was conducted September 27-28, 1997. The survey has a margin of sampling error of +/ -3 percentage points, with a 95% level of confidence. Mr. McCONNELL. Also, there was a fascinating column by Robert Samuelson in Newsweek of October 6, Monday of this week. The headline says, ``Making Pols Into Crooks--Campaign-Finance `Reform' Criminalizes Politics and Deepens Public Cynicism.'' Let me just take a few excerpts out of this article, because I think it really is excellent, and sums up the nature of this debate. Bob Samuelson says: The ``reformers'' claim they're trying to lower public cynicism by cleansing politics of the evils of money. Actually, they're doing the opposite: by putting so many unrealistic restrictions on legitimate political activity, the ``reformers'' ensure that more people--politicians, campaign workers, advocacy groups--will run afoul of the prohibitions. Public cynicism rises as politics is criminalized. Mr. Samuelson goes on: There is no easy way to curb the role of money in politics without curbing free expression. If I favor larger (smaller) government, I should be able to support like-minded candidates by helping them win. Campaign ``reformers''--who would like to replace private contributions with public subsidies and impose strict spending limits--reject this basic principles. Money, they say, is corrupting politics. It isn't. Campaign spending isn't out of control or outlandish. In the 1996 election, campaign spending at all levels-- At all levels, Federal, State and local-- totaled $4 billion, says political scientist Herbert Alexander of the Citizens' Research Foundation. That was one twentieth of one percent of the gross domestic product of $7.6 trillion. Americans spend about $20 billion a year on laundry and dry cleaning. Is the price of politics really too steep? Robert Samuelson asks. Further in the article he says: More menacing are the artificial limits that ``reformers'' have imposed on political expression---- Something the Senator from Arkansas was just referring to a few moments ago in his speech---- What's been created is a baffling maze of election laws and rules that, once codified, establish new types of criminal or quasi-criminal behavior. Anyone tiptoeing around the rules is said to be ``skirting the law.'' And there are violations. In the futile effort to regulate politics, the ``reformers'' have manufactured most of the immorality, illegality and cynicism that they deplore. Today's ``abuses'' stem mostly from the 1974 ``reforms'' enacted after Watergate. Congress then limited the amount individuals could give a candidate to $1,000 per election; total giving to all candidates (directly, through parties or committees) was limited to $25,000 a year. What happened? The limits inspired evasions. Suppressing contributions to candidates encouraged new political-action committees. People gave to PACs, which give to candidates. In 1974, there were 608 PACs; now there are 4,000. Another evasion is ``independent spending'': groups (the Supreme Court says) can promote a candidate by themselves if they don't ``coordinate'' with a candidate. The present evasion of concern is ``soft money'': contributions to parties for ``party-building'' activities like voter registration. ``Soft money'' contributions have no limits; so Tamraz could give $300,000. But ``soft money'' can also be used for general TV ads that mention candidates as long as they don't use such words as ``vote for.'' Does any of this make any sense? Not really. Ordinary people can't grasp all the obscure, illogical distinctions. And he is talking, Mr. President, about current law, even before we talk about making it more complicated. No matter. The failure of past ``reforms'' is no barrier to future ``reforms.'' The latest effort is the McCain-Feingold bill now before the Senate. Samuelson says: Most of the bill flouts the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From Newsweek, Oct. 6, 1997] Making Pols Into Crooks--Campaign-Finance ``Reform'' Criminalizes Politics and Deepens Public Cynicism (By Robert J. Samuelson) The prospect that an independent counsel will be named to investigate the alleged campaign-law violations of President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore exposes a central contradiction of ``campaign-finance reform.'' The ``reformers'' claim they're trying to lower public cynicism by cleansing politics of the evils of money. Actually, they're doing the opposite: by putting so many unrealistic restrictions on legitimate political activity, the ``reformers'' ensure that more people--politicians, campaign workers, advocacy groups--will run afoul of the prohibitions. Public cynicism rises as politics is criminalized. The distasteful reality is that politics requires money. To compete, candidates must communicate; and to communicate, they need cash. Someone has to pay for all the ads, direct mail and polls. There is no easy way to curb the role of money in politics without curbing free expression. If I favor larger (smaller) government, I should be able to support like-minded candidates by helping them win. Campaign ``reformers''--who would like to replace private contributions with public subsidies and impose strict spending limits--reject this basic principle. Money, they say, is corrupting politics. It isn't. Campaign spending isn't out of control or outlandish. In the 1996 election campaign spending at all levels totaled $4 billion, says political scientist Herbert Alexander of the Citizens' Research Foundation. That was one twentieth of one percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) of $7.6 trillion. Americans spend about $20 billion a year on laundry and dry cleaning. Is the price of politics really too steep? Nor have contributions hijacked legislation. Consider the tax code. It's perforated with tax breaks, many undesirable. Some tax breaks benefit wealthy constituents who sweetened their lobbying with generous campaign contributions. But the largest tax breaks stem mostly from politicians' desire to pander to masses of voters. In the 1997 tax bill, Clinton and Congress provided huge tax breaks for college tuition. Does anyone think these passed because Harvard's president is a big contributor? The media coverage and congressional hearings of today's alleged campaign-finance ``abuses'' have, of course, revealed the frenzied and demeaning efforts of politicians of both parties to raise money. But there hasn't been much evidence of serious influence buying. The worst we've heard is of President Clinton's, in effect, subletting the Lincoln Bedroom to big contributors and of businessman Roger Tamraz's giving $300,000 to Democrats in the hope of winning government support for an oil pipeline. All Tamraz got was a brief chat with Clinton and no blessing for the project. This sort of preferential ``access'' isn't dangerous. More menacing are all the artificial limits that ``reformers'' have imposed on political expression. What's been created is a baffling maze of election laws and rules that, once codified, establish new types of criminal or quasi-criminal behavior. Anyone tiptoeing around the rules is said to be ``skirting the law.'' And there are violations. In the futile effort to regulate politics, the ``reformers'' have manufactured most of the immorality, illegally and cynicism they deplore. Today's ``abuses'' stem mostly from the 1974 ``reforms'' enacted after Watergate. Congress then limited the amount individuals give a candidate to $1,000 per election; total giving to all candidates (directly, through parties or committees) was limited to $25,000 a year. What happened? The limits inspired evasions. Suppressing contributions to candidates encouraged new political-action committees. People give to PACs, which give to candidates. In 1974, there were 608 PACs; now there are nearly 4,000. Another evasion is ``independent spending'': groups (the Supreme Court says) can promote a candidate by themselves if they don't ``coordinate'' with a candidate. The present evasion of concern is ``soft money'': contributions to parties for ``party-building'' activities like voter registration. ``Soft money'' contributions have no limits; so Tamraz could give $300,000. But ``soft money'' can also be used for general TV ads that mention candidates as long as they don't use such words as ``vote for.'' Does any of this make sense? Not really. Ordinary people can't grasp all the obscure, illogical distinctions. No matter. The failure of past ``reforms'' is no barrier to future ``reforms.'' The latest effort is the McCain-Feingold bill now before [[Page S10504]] the Senate. Named after its sponsors (Republican John McCain of Arizona and Democrat Russell Feingold of Wisconsin), it would outlaw ``soft money'' and try to ban ``issue advocacy'' ads in the 60 days before an election (``Issue advocacy'' ads favor or oppose candidates; the distinction between them and ``independent spending'' cannot briefly be explained.) Most of the bill flouts the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment: ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'' The connection between campaign ``reform'' and the Clinton- Gore predicament has emerged, ironically, in the complaints of some ``reformers'' that the president and vice president are being unfairly targeted. In The Washington Post, Elizabeth Drew says that Gore behaved like a ``klutz,'' but ``klutziness isn't a federal crime.'' The 1883 law that he and the president may have violated (soliciting contributions from federal property), argues Drew, aimed to protect civil servants from being shaken down by politicians. In The New York Times, former deputy attorney general Philip Heymann says the campaign against Gore aims only to ``destroy the Democratic front runner for president.'' All this is true. But it misses the larger point: the campaign-finance laws are so arbitrary and complex that they invite ``criminality'' or its appearance. Bad laws should be discarded. Rep. John Doolittle of California sensibly suggests abandoning all contribution limits and enacting tougher disclosure laws. The best defense against the undue influence of money is to let candidates raise it from as many sources as possible--and to let the public see who's giving. That would be genuine reform. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, also in the Wall Street Journal of October 1, there was a piece by Jonathan Rauch, who is a contributing editor to the National Journal. I want to read a few parts of that. Mr. Rauch said: The McCain-Feingold bill being debated in the Senate this week has become the default option for campaign-finance reformers: If you are an editorialist who needs to suggest something better than today's tumbledown system, you press the McCain-Feingold button on our word processor. Well, the system today is rotten, and radical change is needed. But McCain-Feingold, for all its good press and good intentions, is a bad bill. It would do nothing to end the failures of the past 20 years. Indeed, it would unflinchingly compound them. At the core of today's troubles are two realities that will not yield to any amount of legislative or lawyerly cleverness. The first is that private money--a lot of it--is a fact of life in politics, and if you push it out of one part of the system it tends to re-enter somewhere else, usually deeper in shadow. The second is that money spent to communicate with voters cannot be regulated without impinging on the very core of the First Amendment, which was written to protect political discourse above all. That is what they were thinking about when they wrote the first amendment, political discourse. We got into today's mess by defying both of these principles, with predictable results. When reformers placed limits on money spent to support or defeat candidates, lobbies simply shifted to ad campaigns that omitted explicit requests to vote for or against candidates: ``issue advocacy,'' which the courts have ruled is constitutionally protected. And when reformers placed tight limits on contributions to candidates, donors began giving to political parties instead: ``soft money.'' The distinctions between ``hard'' and ``soft'' money, and between ``express advocacy'' and ``issue advocacy,'' are grounded in legalistic mumbo-jumbo, and so the attempts to enforce them have made campaign law bewilderingly complex without accomplishing any of the law's goals. Campaigns are neither cheaper nor fairer nor less dependent on private money than, say, 30 years ago--just the opposite, in fact. One conclusion you might draw is that the 1970s-style, money- regulating model is bankrupt. Another is that a horse- doctor's dose of the old medicine will finally heal the patient. Enter Sens. John McCain and Russell Feingold. Among many things their bill would do, two are paramount. First, it would ban ``soft money'' given to political parties. Second, to make the ``soft money'' ban work, it would also restrict independent ``issue advocacy.'' Voila--no more money, right? Wrong. Lots and lots of money, but in different places. Ban soft money, and lobbies would bypass the parties and conduct their own campaign blitzes. Candidates and parties are already losing control of their messages as lobbies--which, unlike candidates and parties, are not accountable to voters--run independent advocacy campaigns. Mr. President, I see that my friend from Wisconsin is here. I am going to reserve the remainder of my time and ask that the entire Jonathan Rauch article that I just was reading from be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:] [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 1, 1997] Vote Against McCain, Wait, Can I Say That? (By Jonathan Rauch) The McCain-Feingold bill being debated in the Senate this week has become the default option for campaign-finance reformers: If you are an editorialist who needs to suggest something better than today's tumbeldown system, you press the McCain-Feingold button on your word processor. Well, the system today is rotten, and radical change is needed. But McCain-Feingold, for all its good press and good intentions, is a bad bill. It would do nothing to end the failures of the past 20 years. Indeed, it would unflinchingly compound them. At the core of today's troubles are two realities that will not yield to any amount of legislative or lawyerly cleverness. The first is that private money--a lot of it-- is a fact of life in politics, and if you push it out of one part of the system it tends to re-enter somewhere else, usually deeper in shadow. The second is that money spent to communicate with voters cannot be regulated without impinging on the very core of the First Amendment, which was written to protect political discourse above all. We got into today's mess by defying both of these principles, with predictable results. When reformers placed limits on money spent to support or defeat candidates, lobbies simply shifted to ad campaigns that omitted explicit requests to vote for or against candidates: ``issue advocacy,'' which the courts have ruled is constitutionally protected. And when reformers placed tight limits on contributions to candidates, donors began giving to political parties instead: ``soft money.'' The distinctions between ``hard'' and ``soft'' money, and between ``express advocacy'' and ``issue advocacy,'' are grounded in legalistic mumbo-jumbo, and so that attempts to enforce them have made campaign law bewilderingly complex without accomplishing any of the law's goals. Campaigns are neither cheaper not fairer nor less dependent on private money than, say, 30 years ago--just the opposite, in fact. One conclusion you might draw is that the 1970s-style, money- regulating model is bankrupt. Another is that a horse- doctor's dose of the old medicine will finally heal the patient. Enter Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D., Wis.). Among many things their bill would do, two are paramount. First, it would ban ``soft money'' given to political parties. Second, to make the ``soft money'' ban work, it would also restrict independent ``issue advocacy.'' Voila--no more money, right? Wrong. Lots and lots of money, but in different places. Ban soft money, and lobbies would bypass the parties and conduct their own campaign blitzes. Candidates and parties are already losing control of their messages as lobbies--which, unlike candidates and parties, are not accountable to voters--run independent advocacy campaigns. The McCain- Feingold bill would accelerate the alienation of politicians from their own campaigns, and, for good measure, it could also starve the parties of funds. The sponsors are aware that independent advertising might replace soft money: thus the bill's remarkable new limits on all ads that mention candidates within 60 days of an election. In the words of Sen. McCain: ``Ads could run which advocate any number of causes. Pro-life ads, pro-choice ads, antilabor ads, pro-wilderness ads, pro-Republican Party ads, pro-Democrat Party ads--all could be aired in the last 60 days. However, ads mentioning the candidates could not.'' So, for example, I might commit a federal crime by taking out an ad in this newspaper criticizing Sen. McCain for supporting his bill. The Founders would have run screaming from such a notion, and rightly so: You cannot improve the integrity of any political system by letting politicians restrict political speech. In real life the courts are likely to strike down McCain- Feingold's speech controls, in which case, of course, the limits would not work. But even if the limits were allowed to stand, they still would not work: Everybody would race to game the system by dressing up political expression in absurd costumes, whose legitimacy would be contested ad nauseam in the courts. Maybe my ad couldn't say ``Vote against McCain and Feingold,'' but could it say ``Show the promoters of the dangerous McCain-Feingold bill how you feel''? Who would decide? The potential for speech micromanagement is endless. Imagine the fun lawyers could have with the bill's exception for ``voter guides''--a permissible voter guide being (hold on tight, now) any printed matter written in an ``educational manner'' about two or more candidates that (1) is not coordinated with a candidate, (2) gives all candidates an equal opportunity to respond to any questionnaires, (3) gives no candidate any greater prominence than any other, and (4) does not contain a phrase ``such as'' (my italics), ``vote for,'' ``re-elect,'' ``support,'' ``defeat,'' ``reject'' or other ``words which in context can have no reasonable meaning other than to urge the election or defeat of one or more candidates.'' Is that clear? So, after McCain-Feingold, campaign law would become even more complex and mystifying. Politicians would remain mendicants, forced by low contribution limits to beg every day and in every way for donations. Our already weak parties would lose their main source of funds, becoming weaker still. If the speech controls were upheld, political discussion would be both chilled and [[Page S10505]] contorted. And if the speech controls were struck down, political campaigns would be run by lobbies (``independent expenditures'') rather than by candidates and parties. Quite a reform. Even total deregulation would be better than McCain- Feingold, provided disclosure were retained. For that matter, doing nothing would be better. Best by a very long measure, however, would be a combination of deregulation, disclosure and generous public financing for candidates who forgo private fund-raising--a plan which, instead of trying to eliminate or micromanage private money, would give voters an alternative to it, and make the acceptance of private donations an issue in every campaign. Alas, all of those admittedly imperfect ideas are bitterly opposed by the anti-money crusaders who gave us the system we have now, and who still predominate in the ``reform community.'' To change their minds, campaign-finance law will probably have to be made worse before it can be made better. That task, at least, McCain-Feingold would perform admirably. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me, first of all, congratulate the occupant of the chair for his vote yesterday. I heard his comments this morning. The occupant of the chair did the right thing yesterday. He voted for cloture and joined 52 other Senators--a Senator we had not in the past known for sure whether or not he was going to vote for cloture on any occasion, and I very much appreciate that. I realize that his words are sincere. He does, in fact, support campaign finance reform. It is important that, again, the Senator from Arizona and I signal what we have signaled in the past, and that is that we are very eager to negotiate, whether on the floor or off the floor, to make a bill that would be more palatable to Members on both sides of the aisle. I think the Senator from Arkansas has indicated some excellent ideas in the past. That is the signal I want to give, despite whatever indications one might feel from the press accounts, which, of course, all of us have to take with a grain of salt on both sides of the issue. The fact is that many of us really would like to change this system, and I believe the Senator who occupies the chair is one of them. Let me reiterate our offer, which I think we have made good on time and time again, that if modifications need to be made to pass this terribly important bill, we are ready to do it. That is how the junior Senator from Maine became such a tremendous advocate for our cause. She had some ideas that were better than ours, and we incorporated them and moved on to make the bill even better. So I look forward to working with the occupant of the chair so that, once again, he can feel comfortable voting for cloture as we continue to press this issue on the floor, which we will do until we get the result that the American people demand. Let me also suggest, this is a point that seems to be missed in this debate frequently. The Senator from Kentucky speaks frequently and eloquently about the first amendment. But the way our system is established, surely if you pass a bill in the Congress, a piece of legislation, a statute, it doesn't amend the Constitution. There is more to the process. The President has to sign the bill, and it has to go up to the United States Supreme Court, unless nobody challenges it. And I have a sneaking suspicion that somebody might challenge this bill if it became law. So what is the worst-case scenario? The worst-case scenario is that if, in fact, there is a shred of our bill that is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will say so and strike it down. They know how to do their job. If we do our job, they will do their job. That is exactly what they did in the very famous case of Buckley versus Valeo. They determined that some elements of the bill were constitutional, despite the claim of the ACLU and others that they were not, and they said they were OK. For example, having a limitation on contributions. It is, obviously, the law now, and the Senator from Kentucky cannot dispute that it is the law, that right now somebody can't give more than $2,000 in the course of 6 years to a U.S. Senate candidate in hard money. That is a limitation. The Supreme Court said it is OK. On the other hand, in Buckley versus Valeo, the Court said you can't have overall mandatory spending limits because that, in their view, would be a violation of the first amendment. So what is the threat to the first amendment of passing a piece of legislation about which we have a good-faith disagreement as to its constitutionality? I happen to think it is clear that the major provisions of our bill are constitutional. I would be the first to concede that the closest case would be the one that the Senator from Kentucky has focused most of his firepower on in this debate, and that is the issue of what I like to call phony issue ads. But I can see that would be something the Supreme Court would have to take a long and hard look at, and I think they should. That is why, Mr. President, I don't support a constitutional amendment to get this done. The first amendment is too sacred. So, I want to address your concern about the first amendment to tell you that I was, I believe, the first or second Member of the U.S. Senate to come out here and oppose something called the Communications Decency Act. People fell all over each other voting for that bill that would have censored the Internet. I came out here and said, ``Look, on the face of this, even though I am not a leading constitutional expert but I have looked at the Constitution, on the face of it, this is unconstitutional.'' Yet, I believe 84 Members of this body, including the Senator from Kentucky, voted for it, sent it up to the Supreme Court and, guess what? Unanimously that Supreme Court--of which a majority of the Members were appointed by the majority party Presidents--unanimously ruled that that was unconstitutional. Mr. President, both with regard to your concern that we be flexible and open to other people's ideas, which I think you and I have established a good record on, and with regard to the issue of the first amendment to the Constitution, not only couldn't I agree with you more, but I believe we have a lot to talk about and work together on to achieve campaign finance reform. Since the Senator from Kentucky continues in his steadfast way to make a record, which I hope one day will get before the Supreme Court-- he hopes it won't get that far--let me address a couple of other issues and put a few things of concern to me in the Record. The Senator from Kentucky has been proudly suggesting that the McCain-Feingold bill is dead, and yet we are out here today debating it again, and we will be debating it again. That is because it is not going away. It is because it is not simply a question of various elements of the media saying that the McCain-Feingold bill is a good idea. There are others who are not in the media who, I think, are not easily duped by the media who think we ought to enact some of the things that are in the McCain-Feingold bill. Let me just put a few of those items in the Record. First, I ask unanimous consent that letters from former Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George Bush endorsing a soft money ban--a soft money ban, which is the centerpiece of the McCain-Feingold proposal--be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Houston, TX, June 19, 1997. Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Kassebaum: First, let me commend you and the former Vice President, Ambassador Mondale, for taking a leadership role in trying to bring about campaign reform. I hope the current Congress will enact Campaign Reform legislation. We must encourage the broadest possible participation by individuals in financing elections. Whatever reform is enacted should go the extra mile in demanding fullest possible disclosure of all campaign contributions. I would favor getting rid of so called ``soft money'' contributions but this principle should be applied to all groups including Labor. I congratulate you for working for better campaign finance law enforcement. With my respects to you and Vice President Mondale I am, sincerely, George Bush. ______ July 17, 1997. To Vice President Walter Mondale: I am pleased to join former Presidents Bush and Ford in expressing hope that this Congress will enact meaningful campaign finance reform legislation. For the future of [[Page S10506]] our democracy, and as our experience may be emulated by other nations, prompt and fundamental repair of our system for financing federal elections is required. The most basic and immediate step should include an end to ``soft money,'' whether in the form of corporate or union treasury contributions to federal campaigns, or large and unregulated contributions from individuals. The initial step should also include measures that provide for complete and immediate disclosures of political contributions and expenses. To accomplish these and other reforms and to lay the basis for future ones, we also need to develop a strong national consensus about the objectives of reform. It will take more than just the action of this Congress, but fundamental reform is essential to the task of repairing public trust in government in our leaders. We must take significant steps to assure voters that public policy is determined by the exercise of their franchise rather than a broken and suspect campaign finance system. Please extend to Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker my appreciation for the work that she has undertaken with you to advance the essential cause of bipartisan campaign finance reform. Sincerely, Jimmy Carter. ____ July 10, 1997. Dear Senator Kassebaum: Our system of financing federal election campaigns is in serious trouble. To remedy these failings requires prompt action by the President and the House and Senate. I strongly hope the Congress in cooperation with the White House will enact Campaign Reform legislation by the forthcoming elections in 1998. Public officials and concerned citizens. Republicans and Democrats alike, have aleady identified important areas of agreement. These include (1) the need to end huge uncontrolled ``soft money'' contributions to the national parties and their campaign committees, and to bar solicitation of ``soft money'' from all persons, parties and organized labor by federal officeholders and candidates for any political organizations; (2) the need to provide rapid and comprehensive discount of contributions and expenditures in support of, or opposition to, candidates for federal office; and (3) the need to repair the system of campaign finance law enforcement by assuring that it is effective and independent of politics. A significant bi-partisan effort across party lines can achieve a legislative consensus in campaign reforms that will help to restore the confidence of our citizens in their federal government. I commend you and former Vice President Mondale for your leadership on behalf of campaign reform. Sincerely, Gerald R. Ford. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to mention just a sentence from President Bush's letter, who I don't think is usually considered a pawn of the liberal media. He says: I would favor getting rid of so called ``soft money'' contributions but this principle should be applied to all groups including Labor. Of course, our soft money ban in our bill is comprehensive and includes labor. A letter from President Carter also indicates as follows: The most basic and immediate step should include an end to ``soft money,'' whether in the form of corporate or union treasury contributions to federal campaigns, or large and unregulated contributions from individuals. From President Carter. President Ford indicated in a letter: . . . the need to end huge uncontrolled ``soft money'' contributions to the national parties and their campaign committees, and to bar solicitation from ``soft money'' from all persons, parties and organized labor by federal officeholders and candidates for any political organizations . . . Mr. President, how can these three Presidents, two from the Republican Party and one from the Democratic Party, be considered pawns of a solely Democratic effort to pass campaign finance reform? On its face it is absurd to suggest a bill led by the Senator from Arizona, a strong Republican, is such a bill. But here are two Republican Presidents saying we should ban soft money. Yet, the effort to kill this bill would prevent the core element of our bill to ban soft money. Let me add, it is not just former Presidents, Mr. President, it is also former Members of this body and of the other body. Former Members of Congress have endorsed our bipartisan campaign finance reform bill and the end of soft money. I ask unanimous consent that a statement of former Members of Congress, dated September 29, 1997, be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Statement of Former Members of Congress We are pleased to join former Presidents Bush, Carter and Ford in expressing the hope that the current Congress enact meaningful bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation. The distinguished former Presidents have identified the indispensable core of reform: (1) a ban on ``soft money'' contributions to the national parties and their campaign organizations, applied equally to contributions of corporate and union treasury funds, as well as to large individual contributions in excess of those permitted by law; (2) complete and rapid disclosure of political contributions and expenses; and (3) effective and politically independent enforcement of campaign finance laws. Some of us favor additional proposals, including provisions to assure that a ban on ``soft money'' is not circumvented through campaign advertisements that are thinly disguised as ``issue advocacy.'' Together we believe it is time to test the merits of different or competing ideas through debate and votes, but that any disagreement over further reforms should not delay enactment of essential measures, beginning with a ban on soft money, where agreement is within reach. Our democracy will be strengthened when the Congress acts to assure the American public that the nation's campaign finance system honors our nation's ideals. Nancy Kassebaum Baker (R-KS), Howard H. Baker, Jr. (R- TN), David L. Boren (D-OK), John C. Danforth (R-MO), Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR), Abner J. Mikva (D-IL), Patricia S. Schroeder (D-CO), Walter F. Mondale (D-MN), Henry Bellmon (R-OK), Bill Bradley (D-NJ), Thomas F. Eagleton (D-MO), Robert H. Michel (R-IL), Sam Nunn (D- GA), Alan K. Simpson (R-WY). The original signers of the statement are joined by: Bella Abzug (D-NY), Wendell Anderson (D-MN), Mark Andrews (R-ND), Bob Bergland (D-MN), Rudy Boschwitz (R-MN), John Brademas (D-IN), William Brock (R-TN), , Clarence Brown (R- OH), Jim Broyhill (R-NC), Beverly Byron (D-MD), Rod Chandler (R-WA), Dick Clark (D-IA), Tony Coelho (D-CA), Barber Conable (R-NY), Alan Cranston (D-CA), John Culver (D-IA), Hal Daub (R-NE), John Dellenback (R-OR), Butler Derrick (D-SC), Tom Downey (D-NY), Don Edwards (D-CA), Mickey Edwards (R-OK), Robert Ellsworth (R-KS), Karan English (D-AZ), James Exon (D- NE), Dante Fascell (D-FL), Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY), Sheila Frahm (R-KS), Bill Frenzel (R-MN), Clifford Hansen (R-WY), Fred Harris (D-OK), Thomas Hartnett (R-SC), Howell Heflin (D- AL), Peter Hoagland (D-NE), Carroll Hubbard (D-KY), Walter Huddleston (D-KY). Martha Keys (D-KS), Melvin Laird (R-WI), Russell Long (D- LA), Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (D- PA), Charles Mathias (R-MD), Ron Mazzoli (D-KY), Paul McCloskey (R-CA), John Melcher (D-MT), Howard Metzenbaum (D- OH), John Miller (R-WA), George Mitchell (D-ME), Frank (Ted) Moss (D-UT), Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), Dick Nichols (R-KS), Leon Panetta (D-CA), Claiborne Pell (D-RI), David Pryor (D-AR), Albert Quie (R-MN), John Rhodes III (R-AZ), Matthew Rinaldo (R-NJ), Peter Rodino (D-NJ), Warrent Rudman (R-NH), Lynn Schenk (D-CA), Richard Schweiker (R-PA), Philip Sharp (D-IN), Paul Simon (D-IL), Jim Slattery (D-KS), W.B. Spong (D-VA), Robert Stafford (R-VT), Al Swift (D-WA). Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in that letter, a number of our former colleagues from both Houses of the Congress state: We are pleased to join former Presidents Bush, Carter and Ford in expressing the hope that the current Congress enact meaningful bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation. This includes the names of people like the distinguished former Member Nancy Kassebaum Baker, former Senator from Kansas; Howard Baker, Jr., former leader and Senator from Tennessee; former Republican Senator John Danforth of Missouri, who I had the honor to serve with briefly; former Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon; former Senator Walter Mondale and former Vice President; former Senator Bill Bradley from New Jersey; former minority leader of the other body, Robert Michel; former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn; former Senator Al Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming with whom I disagreed frequently on the floor of the Senate who was among the toughest and most clever opponents you could have on the floor, but he cosponsored the McCain-Feingold bill last session after he made his retirement announcement, and he still supports it. And the list goes on. Mr. President, I do not think these folks are merely pawns of the media. These folks have been here; they have seen it; they have done it. And they know that spending a tremendous amount of your time in raising money is the corrupting of this process. And many of them, as they announced their retirements, said they were sick and tired of spending their time as Members of Congress raising money. The [[Page S10507]] killing of the bill, the vain attempt to kill this bill, as it turns out, would prevent the first efforts to get our attention away from raising money and back to the business we were elected to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an op-ed piece that appeared in the July 18, 1997, Washington Post authored by former Republican Senator Nancy Kassebaum, Baker, and former Vice President Walter Mondale calling for bipartisan campaign finance reform and a ban on soft money. There being no objection, the material was ordered to printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Washington Post, July 18, 1997] Campaign Finance: Fix It (By Nancy Kassebaum Baker and Walter F. Mondale) President Clinton has challenged Congress to ``make this summer a time not of talk but of action'' in fixing our broken system of campaign financing. We agree wholeheartedly. Earlier this year the president asked the two of us, a Republican and a Democrat, to assist in the cause of bipartisan campaign finance reform. Although pessimism about the will of Congress to reform campaign finance laws is widespread, we are optimistic that the task can be achieved through a clear focus on necessary and achievable reforms, leadership and determination. Last month, we submitted an Open Letter to the President and Congress recommending four areas in which to begin, without delay, the task of ensuring that our nation's campaign finance system serves, rather than undermines, the interests of American democracy. First, Congress should promptly ban ``soft money,'' the huge uncontrolled contributions to national parties and their campaign organizations that have so dismayed the public. This prohibition would do much to slow the flood of campaign money and enable the nation to adhere to the justified premise of earlier reforms, that massive amounts of money from powerful sources distort elections and government. Second, we must ensure that ``soft money'' not continue its corrosive work under the this disguise of ``issue advocacy.'' The election law should be tightened to distinguish clearly between media advertisements that are campaign endorsements or attacks and those that genuinely debate issues. to make a ``soft money'' ban fully meangingful the election law should establish consistent rules for the financing of all electioneering advertisements. Third, disclosure rules should be broadened to ensure that voters know who is responsible for the accuracy and fairness of campaign advertisements. Increasingly, candidates are bystanders in their own campaigns, not knowing the identity of sponsors of messages that dominate the airwaves close to elections. Also, with today's technology, even last-minute contributions and expenditures can be revealed before Election Day. Fourth, no reform will be worth much without effective enforcement. The Federal Election Commission must be strengthened. This should include the appointment of knowledgeable and independent-minded commissioners. Additionally, changes are needed to allow for the full and timely resolution of issues through the courts when the commission is deadlocked or cannot act because of lack of funds. Significant majorities might be found for other reforms. As the debate goes forward, Congress should be encouraged to consider further steps to provide relief from the incessant treadmill of fund-raising. However, we should not delay action on those measures that can pass now. Time is of the essence. Congressional elections are coming up next year. The presidential campaign for the year 2000 will begin soon after. Each day these elections draw closer, the passage of reform becomes even more difficult. Now is the best time to advance legislation that will provide the American people with a more effective and more equitable election process. It is no secret that the Senate will be the first battleground for reform. There are honest differences that warrant debate there but also votes on their merits. We are confident that the Senate's leadership will recognize its responsibility to schedule campaign finance reform for early and full debate. And speaking plainly, we further believe that the American public will deem unacceptable any tactic that prevents a majority of the Senate from coming to a final vote. We appreciate the value of Senate rules on debate. But campaign finance issues are well known to every member. Whatever any senator's individual views on campaign finance issues may be, all senators should unite in one conviction. The future of our democracy requires them to address their differences in public debate on the Senate floor and for their votes on final passage to be recorded. Most important is to set aside attempts to gain or maintain partisan advantage. The time is now to come together to address the integrity of our national government. Restoring that integrity demands honest, bipartisan campaign finance reform. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an opinion piece from last Sunday's Washington Post coauthored by former Presidents Carter and Ford, who actually ran against each other in 1976, calling for campaign finance reform and the end of the soft money system. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Washington Post, Oct. 5, 1997] And the Power of the Ballot (By Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford) When we ran against each other in 1976, the modern campaign finance system was in its infancy; it was the first presidential election governed by strict limits and public financing. Looking back, it is easy to recognize why the reforms of the 1970s were so essential. Today it is disheartening to witness changes that have distorted those reforms and shaken Americans' faith in their democracy. We have watched as elections have grown more controversial, more expensive, riddled with soft money and less understandable to the average voter. We have watched as participation in presidential elections has declined-- plummeting during the last election to the lowest levels since 1924. Less than half of the voting-age population cast their ballots for president in 1996, and while there are many factors that might contribute to this disturbing figure, we believe that a lack of public trust in government and in our system of democratic elections is a major part of the problem.

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1997--CLOTURE MOTION
(Senate - October 08, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S10501-S10522] BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1997--CLOTURE MOTION The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). Under the previous order, there will now be 1 hour equally divided in the usual form, prior to the cloture vote on S. 25. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, am I correct that the 1 hour between now and the vote at 12 is equally divided? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to yield to the Senator from Arkansas such time as he may desire, and take this opportunity to come preside while he speaks. (Mr. McCONNELL assumed the chair.) Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for yielding time. Yesterday I voted to invoke cloture on the McCain-Feingold bill. Today I will oppose that effort. I voted for cloture because I want campaign finance reform. I want an opportunity to amend McCain-Feingold, which I believe is a seriously flawed bill. I want a chance to vote on a reform bill and I want to ban or limit soft money. But it is now clear that there is no consensus in support of McCain-Feingold, and if we are to have serious and meaningful reform, we will and must take a different direction. I absolutely do not support the current version of McCain-Feingold. In my opinion, and I have expressed it both publicly and privately, McCain-Feingold contains provisions that threaten free speech and pose serious constitutional problems, especially in the area of issue advocacy. These groups, which play such an important part in the political process, regardless of their affiliation, deserve to play that important role. And we must not in any way place a chill on their right of free expression and their ability to criticize their public officials. There have been abuses, no doubt about that. But it is far better for us to err on the side of freedom and to err on the side of liberty and to err on the side of the Constitution than to take a chance of passing a misguided, though popular right now, reform bill that would in fact begin that erosion of those liberties and freedoms and the right of free expression that we cherish as Americans and that we always should. It is clear there is no consensus on McCain-Feingold and will not be. It is equally clear that repeated cloture votes on McCain-Feingold is a part of a political strategy to portray opponents of McCain-Feingold as opponents of reform. As unfortunate as it is for the American people, the McCain-Feingold bill has become so politicized that even supporters of campaign finance reform, like myself, are disgusted with the political tactics that have been used in this debate. You have to question the sincerity of a strategy that disrupts Senate business and distracts the Senate from other important business such as ISTEA, the transportation funding bill, fast track, appropriation conference reports and judicial nominations, all of these vitally important [[Page S10502]] things, pressing business of the American people, and to set that aside so we can hold press conferences to portray opponents of McCain- Feingold as opponents of reform, which is not true and is not fair. If supporters of McCain-Feingold truly wanted to put forth a serious effort to enact reform, they would take a different approach by working to find consensus, by working to find agreement, rather than attempting to score political points. I will not be a part of these partisan guerrilla warfare tactics. I fully and completely support campaign finance reform. I think we have need to address it. I think we need to reform the system and particularly deal with that area in which there has been abuse, in the area of soft money. But I will not again vote to invoke cloture on S. 25 and be a part of a political game that is more concerned about portraying political opponents in a certain bad light than enacting meaningful and real and significant reform. I thank again the Senator from Kentucky for his leadership and for his genuine deep convictions in defense of the first amendment and the right of free expression. I yield the floor. (Mr. HUTCHINSON assumed the chair.) The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I listened with keen interest to the comments of the Senator from Arkansas and want to congratulate him for his decision. With his decision there is an excellent chance that today we will reach a historic high in opposition to measures similar to McCain-Feingold. So I commend the Senator from Arkansas for his conviction and thank him for his support in defense of the first amendment. I think he has done the courageous and correct thing. I want to make a few brief observations this morning. There is not a whole lot left to say in this debate. But I wanted to refer to a few articles over the last few days that I think ought to be noted and printed in the Record. A USA Today column on Monday, by Richard Benedetto, is worth noting, in terms of the attitude of the press on this issue. Americans have every right to expect that the press will not take sides on an issue off of the editorial page. Here is Mr. Benedetto's column of Monday, that I think is noteworthy, in USA Today. He says: If you think the news media are providing the straight story on efforts to revise campaign finance laws, look closer. Much of the reporting is tilted toward voices in favor of wholesale reform. Those who take an opposing view are mostly portrayed as either corrupt or partisan. Little space or time is devoted to sober, broad looks at arguments on all sides of the issue. Instead, coverage is often emotional and selective. Reporting usually begins from the premise that the McCain-Feingold reform bill now before the Senate is good, and that any attempt to slow it, stop it or change it is bad. Proponents say the fate of our democracy hangs on reform. And given a predisposition of many in the media to agree, that message is hammered home and almost daily. * * * * * CNN gives its position away in the title of a show on campaign finance it will air Tuesday: The Money Trail; Democracy for Sale. This was ostensibly an objective piece by CNN on campaign finance, an issue which the occupant of the chair has just said is largely about the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Benedetto goes on: Thanks to coverage such as that, it's no surprise polls show that a majority of Americans want Congress to pass legislation to tighten the rules under which politicians and political parties collect money. Never one to misread a popular trend, President Clinton has enlisted on the side of reform. Never mind that it was alleged abuses of current law by Clinton and Vice President Gore in 1996 that intensified calls for change in the first place. He's now a believer. Just a couple of other comments from his column, Mr. Benedetto's column in USA Today of Monday: Media conduct on this one is not pure liberal bias. It's another example of what Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson calls ``pack journalism run amok.'' ``We media types fancy ourselves independent and skeptical thinkers,'' he recently wrote. ``Just the opposite is often true. We're patsies for the latest social crusade or intellectual fad.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Mr. Benedetto's column in USA Today be printed in the Record at this point. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From USA Today, Oct. 6, 1997] Media Too Quick To Buy Into Campaign Reform (By Richard Benedetto) If you think the news media are providing the straight story on efforts to revise campaign finance laws, look closer. Much of the reporting is tilted toward voices in favor of wholesale reform. Those who take an opposing view are mostly portrayed as either corrupt or partisan. Little space or time is devoted to sober, broad looks at arguments on all sides of the issue. Instead, coverage is often emotional and selective. Reporting usually begins from the premise that the McCain-Feingold reform bill now before the Senate is good, and that any attempt to slow it, stop it or change it is bad. Proponents say the fate of our democracy hangs on reform. And given a predisposition of many of the media to agree, that message is hammered home almost daily. Consider this opening sentence from an Associated Press wire story last week: ``Virginia's candidates for governor are taking full advantage of one of the nation's most liberal campaign finance laws, raking in more than $10 million through August.'' In one sentence, readers are given two negative cues on campaign finance. The first: that Virginia law is ``one of the nation's most liberal.'' The second: the loaded phrase ``raking in.'' CNN gives its position away in the title of a show on campaign finance it will air Tuesday: The Money Trail: Democracy for Sale. Thanks to coverage such as that, it's no surprise polls show that a majority of Americans want Congress to pass legislation to tighten the rules under which politicians and political parties collect money. Never one to misread a popular trend, President Clinton has enlisted on the side of reform. Never mind that it was alleged abuses of current law by Clinton and Vice President Gore in 1996 that intensified calls for change in the first place. He's now a believer. While reform may be needed, there are several arguments for moving carefully. For example, enacting limits on contributions could run afoul of the Constitution. In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that campaign contributions are the equivalent of speech and that attempts to limit them could violate First Amendment rights. How thoroughly has that issue been aired? Not very. The focus of most reporting is on procedural maneuvering of opponents. When Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., introduced an amendment last week to require labor unions to get permission of members before spending dues money for political purposes, news reports said he was ``muddying the water.'' Opponents called it ``a poison pill.'' Newspaper editorials denounced the move as shamefully partisan. The charge: Republicans want to hamper unions' ability to raise money because the millions of dollars they raise for campaigns go mostly to Democrats. But if that's legitimate cause for denouncing the amendment, why is it not similarly legitimate to question the motive of Democrats seeking to ban ``soft money?'' Those are unlimited contributions that go to political parties and are supposed to help pay for party-building activities such as get-out-the-vote efforts. Republicans collect more soft money than Democrats. So it would seem in the Democrats' interest to get rid of that GOP advantage. Yet, few raise that point. According to the prevailing wisdom, soft money must go--period. Media conduct on this one is not pure liberal bias. It's another example of what Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson calls ``pack journalism run amok.'' ``We media types fancy ourselves independent and skeptical thinkers,'' he recently wrote. ``Just the opposite is often true. We're patsies for the latest social crusade or intellectual fad.'' The anti-smoking campaign is a recent example of the media buying in with few reservations. Global warming, too. Now it's campaign finance reform. Mr. McCONNELL. Also there was a recent and interesting survey conducted by Rasmussen Research, out of North Carolina. Most Americans think that friendly reporters are more important to a successful political campaign than money, according to a Rasmussen Research survey of 1000 adults. By a 3-to-1 margin (61 percent to 19 percent) Americans believe that if reporters like one candidate more than another, that candidate is likely to win--even if the other candidate raised more money in a campaign. I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record as well. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Reporters More Influential Than Campaign Cash?--Most Americans Say Yes! Waxhaw, NC.--Most Americans think that friendly reporters are more important to a successful political campaign that money, according to a Rasmussen Research survey of 1,000 adults. By a 3-to-1 margin (61% to [[Page S10503]] 19%) Americans believe that if reporters like one candidate more than another, that candidate is likely to win--even if the other candidate raised more money in the campaign. ``This finding raises basic questions about the types of reform that it will take to restore voter confidence in representative democracy,'' noted Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Research. ``Campaign contributions that buy special favors are viewed by the American people as a problem that needs to be addressed. However, most also think that much more serious reform will be needed to solve our nation's electoral problems.'' Earlier surveys by Rasmussen Research have found the most Americans think the passage of new campaign finance laws will not end corruption in government. The consensus view is that new laws would simply encourage politicians to find new ways of obtaining money in exchange for votes or other favors. Nine-out-of-ten Americans believe that members of Congress do exchange votes for campaign cash. Americans are also generally suspicious of reporters. More than seven-out-of-ten registered voters believe that the personal biases of reporters affect their coverage of stories, issues, and campaigns. Additional survey information on campaign finance reform and other issues can be found at www.PortraitoAmerica.com, a web site maintained by Rasmussen Research. Rasmussen Research is a public opinion polling firm that conducts independent surveys on events in the news and other topics. The survey of 1,000 adults was conducted September 27-28, 1997. The survey has a margin of sampling error of +/ -3 percentage points, with a 95% level of confidence. Mr. McCONNELL. Also, there was a fascinating column by Robert Samuelson in Newsweek of October 6, Monday of this week. The headline says, ``Making Pols Into Crooks--Campaign-Finance `Reform' Criminalizes Politics and Deepens Public Cynicism.'' Let me just take a few excerpts out of this article, because I think it really is excellent, and sums up the nature of this debate. Bob Samuelson says: The ``reformers'' claim they're trying to lower public cynicism by cleansing politics of the evils of money. Actually, they're doing the opposite: by putting so many unrealistic restrictions on legitimate political activity, the ``reformers'' ensure that more people--politicians, campaign workers, advocacy groups--will run afoul of the prohibitions. Public cynicism rises as politics is criminalized. Mr. Samuelson goes on: There is no easy way to curb the role of money in politics without curbing free expression. If I favor larger (smaller) government, I should be able to support like-minded candidates by helping them win. Campaign ``reformers''--who would like to replace private contributions with public subsidies and impose strict spending limits--reject this basic principles. Money, they say, is corrupting politics. It isn't. Campaign spending isn't out of control or outlandish. In the 1996 election, campaign spending at all levels-- At all levels, Federal, State and local-- totaled $4 billion, says political scientist Herbert Alexander of the Citizens' Research Foundation. That was one twentieth of one percent of the gross domestic product of $7.6 trillion. Americans spend about $20 billion a year on laundry and dry cleaning. Is the price of politics really too steep? Robert Samuelson asks. Further in the article he says: More menacing are the artificial limits that ``reformers'' have imposed on political expression---- Something the Senator from Arkansas was just referring to a few moments ago in his speech---- What's been created is a baffling maze of election laws and rules that, once codified, establish new types of criminal or quasi-criminal behavior. Anyone tiptoeing around the rules is said to be ``skirting the law.'' And there are violations. In the futile effort to regulate politics, the ``reformers'' have manufactured most of the immorality, illegality and cynicism that they deplore. Today's ``abuses'' stem mostly from the 1974 ``reforms'' enacted after Watergate. Congress then limited the amount individuals could give a candidate to $1,000 per election; total giving to all candidates (directly, through parties or committees) was limited to $25,000 a year. What happened? The limits inspired evasions. Suppressing contributions to candidates encouraged new political-action committees. People gave to PACs, which give to candidates. In 1974, there were 608 PACs; now there are 4,000. Another evasion is ``independent spending'': groups (the Supreme Court says) can promote a candidate by themselves if they don't ``coordinate'' with a candidate. The present evasion of concern is ``soft money'': contributions to parties for ``party-building'' activities like voter registration. ``Soft money'' contributions have no limits; so Tamraz could give $300,000. But ``soft money'' can also be used for general TV ads that mention candidates as long as they don't use such words as ``vote for.'' Does any of this make any sense? Not really. Ordinary people can't grasp all the obscure, illogical distinctions. And he is talking, Mr. President, about current law, even before we talk about making it more complicated. No matter. The failure of past ``reforms'' is no barrier to future ``reforms.'' The latest effort is the McCain-Feingold bill now before the Senate. Samuelson says: Most of the bill flouts the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From Newsweek, Oct. 6, 1997] Making Pols Into Crooks--Campaign-Finance ``Reform'' Criminalizes Politics and Deepens Public Cynicism (By Robert J. Samuelson) The prospect that an independent counsel will be named to investigate the alleged campaign-law violations of President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore exposes a central contradiction of ``campaign-finance reform.'' The ``reformers'' claim they're trying to lower public cynicism by cleansing politics of the evils of money. Actually, they're doing the opposite: by putting so many unrealistic restrictions on legitimate political activity, the ``reformers'' ensure that more people--politicians, campaign workers, advocacy groups--will run afoul of the prohibitions. Public cynicism rises as politics is criminalized. The distasteful reality is that politics requires money. To compete, candidates must communicate; and to communicate, they need cash. Someone has to pay for all the ads, direct mail and polls. There is no easy way to curb the role of money in politics without curbing free expression. If I favor larger (smaller) government, I should be able to support like-minded candidates by helping them win. Campaign ``reformers''--who would like to replace private contributions with public subsidies and impose strict spending limits--reject this basic principle. Money, they say, is corrupting politics. It isn't. Campaign spending isn't out of control or outlandish. In the 1996 election campaign spending at all levels totaled $4 billion, says political scientist Herbert Alexander of the Citizens' Research Foundation. That was one twentieth of one percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) of $7.6 trillion. Americans spend about $20 billion a year on laundry and dry cleaning. Is the price of politics really too steep? Nor have contributions hijacked legislation. Consider the tax code. It's perforated with tax breaks, many undesirable. Some tax breaks benefit wealthy constituents who sweetened their lobbying with generous campaign contributions. But the largest tax breaks stem mostly from politicians' desire to pander to masses of voters. In the 1997 tax bill, Clinton and Congress provided huge tax breaks for college tuition. Does anyone think these passed because Harvard's president is a big contributor? The media coverage and congressional hearings of today's alleged campaign-finance ``abuses'' have, of course, revealed the frenzied and demeaning efforts of politicians of both parties to raise money. But there hasn't been much evidence of serious influence buying. The worst we've heard is of President Clinton's, in effect, subletting the Lincoln Bedroom to big contributors and of businessman Roger Tamraz's giving $300,000 to Democrats in the hope of winning government support for an oil pipeline. All Tamraz got was a brief chat with Clinton and no blessing for the project. This sort of preferential ``access'' isn't dangerous. More menacing are all the artificial limits that ``reformers'' have imposed on political expression. What's been created is a baffling maze of election laws and rules that, once codified, establish new types of criminal or quasi-criminal behavior. Anyone tiptoeing around the rules is said to be ``skirting the law.'' And there are violations. In the futile effort to regulate politics, the ``reformers'' have manufactured most of the immorality, illegally and cynicism they deplore. Today's ``abuses'' stem mostly from the 1974 ``reforms'' enacted after Watergate. Congress then limited the amount individuals give a candidate to $1,000 per election; total giving to all candidates (directly, through parties or committees) was limited to $25,000 a year. What happened? The limits inspired evasions. Suppressing contributions to candidates encouraged new political-action committees. People give to PACs, which give to candidates. In 1974, there were 608 PACs; now there are nearly 4,000. Another evasion is ``independent spending'': groups (the Supreme Court says) can promote a candidate by themselves if they don't ``coordinate'' with a candidate. The present evasion of concern is ``soft money'': contributions to parties for ``party-building'' activities like voter registration. ``Soft money'' contributions have no limits; so Tamraz could give $300,000. But ``soft money'' can also be used for general TV ads that mention candidates as long as they don't use such words as ``vote for.'' Does any of this make sense? Not really. Ordinary people can't grasp all the obscure, illogical distinctions. No matter. The failure of past ``reforms'' is no barrier to future ``reforms.'' The latest effort is the McCain-Feingold bill now before [[Page S10504]] the Senate. Named after its sponsors (Republican John McCain of Arizona and Democrat Russell Feingold of Wisconsin), it would outlaw ``soft money'' and try to ban ``issue advocacy'' ads in the 60 days before an election (``Issue advocacy'' ads favor or oppose candidates; the distinction between them and ``independent spending'' cannot briefly be explained.) Most of the bill flouts the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment: ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'' The connection between campaign ``reform'' and the Clinton- Gore predicament has emerged, ironically, in the complaints of some ``reformers'' that the president and vice president are being unfairly targeted. In The Washington Post, Elizabeth Drew says that Gore behaved like a ``klutz,'' but ``klutziness isn't a federal crime.'' The 1883 law that he and the president may have violated (soliciting contributions from federal property), argues Drew, aimed to protect civil servants from being shaken down by politicians. In The New York Times, former deputy attorney general Philip Heymann says the campaign against Gore aims only to ``destroy the Democratic front runner for president.'' All this is true. But it misses the larger point: the campaign-finance laws are so arbitrary and complex that they invite ``criminality'' or its appearance. Bad laws should be discarded. Rep. John Doolittle of California sensibly suggests abandoning all contribution limits and enacting tougher disclosure laws. The best defense against the undue influence of money is to let candidates raise it from as many sources as possible--and to let the public see who's giving. That would be genuine reform. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, also in the Wall Street Journal of October 1, there was a piece by Jonathan Rauch, who is a contributing editor to the National Journal. I want to read a few parts of that. Mr. Rauch said: The McCain-Feingold bill being debated in the Senate this week has become the default option for campaign-finance reformers: If you are an editorialist who needs to suggest something better than today's tumbledown system, you press the McCain-Feingold button on our word processor. Well, the system today is rotten, and radical change is needed. But McCain-Feingold, for all its good press and good intentions, is a bad bill. It would do nothing to end the failures of the past 20 years. Indeed, it would unflinchingly compound them. At the core of today's troubles are two realities that will not yield to any amount of legislative or lawyerly cleverness. The first is that private money--a lot of it--is a fact of life in politics, and if you push it out of one part of the system it tends to re-enter somewhere else, usually deeper in shadow. The second is that money spent to communicate with voters cannot be regulated without impinging on the very core of the First Amendment, which was written to protect political discourse above all. That is what they were thinking about when they wrote the first amendment, political discourse. We got into today's mess by defying both of these principles, with predictable results. When reformers placed limits on money spent to support or defeat candidates, lobbies simply shifted to ad campaigns that omitted explicit requests to vote for or against candidates: ``issue advocacy,'' which the courts have ruled is constitutionally protected. And when reformers placed tight limits on contributions to candidates, donors began giving to political parties instead: ``soft money.'' The distinctions between ``hard'' and ``soft'' money, and between ``express advocacy'' and ``issue advocacy,'' are grounded in legalistic mumbo-jumbo, and so the attempts to enforce them have made campaign law bewilderingly complex without accomplishing any of the law's goals. Campaigns are neither cheaper nor fairer nor less dependent on private money than, say, 30 years ago--just the opposite, in fact. One conclusion you might draw is that the 1970s-style, money- regulating model is bankrupt. Another is that a horse- doctor's dose of the old medicine will finally heal the patient. Enter Sens. John McCain and Russell Feingold. Among many things their bill would do, two are paramount. First, it would ban ``soft money'' given to political parties. Second, to make the ``soft money'' ban work, it would also restrict independent ``issue advocacy.'' Voila--no more money, right? Wrong. Lots and lots of money, but in different places. Ban soft money, and lobbies would bypass the parties and conduct their own campaign blitzes. Candidates and parties are already losing control of their messages as lobbies--which, unlike candidates and parties, are not accountable to voters--run independent advocacy campaigns. Mr. President, I see that my friend from Wisconsin is here. I am going to reserve the remainder of my time and ask that the entire Jonathan Rauch article that I just was reading from be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:] [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 1, 1997] Vote Against McCain, Wait, Can I Say That? (By Jonathan Rauch) The McCain-Feingold bill being debated in the Senate this week has become the default option for campaign-finance reformers: If you are an editorialist who needs to suggest something better than today's tumbeldown system, you press the McCain-Feingold button on your word processor. Well, the system today is rotten, and radical change is needed. But McCain-Feingold, for all its good press and good intentions, is a bad bill. It would do nothing to end the failures of the past 20 years. Indeed, it would unflinchingly compound them. At the core of today's troubles are two realities that will not yield to any amount of legislative or lawyerly cleverness. The first is that private money--a lot of it-- is a fact of life in politics, and if you push it out of one part of the system it tends to re-enter somewhere else, usually deeper in shadow. The second is that money spent to communicate with voters cannot be regulated without impinging on the very core of the First Amendment, which was written to protect political discourse above all. We got into today's mess by defying both of these principles, with predictable results. When reformers placed limits on money spent to support or defeat candidates, lobbies simply shifted to ad campaigns that omitted explicit requests to vote for or against candidates: ``issue advocacy,'' which the courts have ruled is constitutionally protected. And when reformers placed tight limits on contributions to candidates, donors began giving to political parties instead: ``soft money.'' The distinctions between ``hard'' and ``soft'' money, and between ``express advocacy'' and ``issue advocacy,'' are grounded in legalistic mumbo-jumbo, and so that attempts to enforce them have made campaign law bewilderingly complex without accomplishing any of the law's goals. Campaigns are neither cheaper not fairer nor less dependent on private money than, say, 30 years ago--just the opposite, in fact. One conclusion you might draw is that the 1970s-style, money- regulating model is bankrupt. Another is that a horse- doctor's dose of the old medicine will finally heal the patient. Enter Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D., Wis.). Among many things their bill would do, two are paramount. First, it would ban ``soft money'' given to political parties. Second, to make the ``soft money'' ban work, it would also restrict independent ``issue advocacy.'' Voila--no more money, right? Wrong. Lots and lots of money, but in different places. Ban soft money, and lobbies would bypass the parties and conduct their own campaign blitzes. Candidates and parties are already losing control of their messages as lobbies--which, unlike candidates and parties, are not accountable to voters--run independent advocacy campaigns. The McCain- Feingold bill would accelerate the alienation of politicians from their own campaigns, and, for good measure, it could also starve the parties of funds. The sponsors are aware that independent advertising might replace soft money: thus the bill's remarkable new limits on all ads that mention candidates within 60 days of an election. In the words of Sen. McCain: ``Ads could run which advocate any number of causes. Pro-life ads, pro-choice ads, antilabor ads, pro-wilderness ads, pro-Republican Party ads, pro-Democrat Party ads--all could be aired in the last 60 days. However, ads mentioning the candidates could not.'' So, for example, I might commit a federal crime by taking out an ad in this newspaper criticizing Sen. McCain for supporting his bill. The Founders would have run screaming from such a notion, and rightly so: You cannot improve the integrity of any political system by letting politicians restrict political speech. In real life the courts are likely to strike down McCain- Feingold's speech controls, in which case, of course, the limits would not work. But even if the limits were allowed to stand, they still would not work: Everybody would race to game the system by dressing up political expression in absurd costumes, whose legitimacy would be contested ad nauseam in the courts. Maybe my ad couldn't say ``Vote against McCain and Feingold,'' but could it say ``Show the promoters of the dangerous McCain-Feingold bill how you feel''? Who would decide? The potential for speech micromanagement is endless. Imagine the fun lawyers could have with the bill's exception for ``voter guides''--a permissible voter guide being (hold on tight, now) any printed matter written in an ``educational manner'' about two or more candidates that (1) is not coordinated with a candidate, (2) gives all candidates an equal opportunity to respond to any questionnaires, (3) gives no candidate any greater prominence than any other, and (4) does not contain a phrase ``such as'' (my italics), ``vote for,'' ``re-elect,'' ``support,'' ``defeat,'' ``reject'' or other ``words which in context can have no reasonable meaning other than to urge the election or defeat of one or more candidates.'' Is that clear? So, after McCain-Feingold, campaign law would become even more complex and mystifying. Politicians would remain mendicants, forced by low contribution limits to beg every day and in every way for donations. Our already weak parties would lose their main source of funds, becoming weaker still. If the speech controls were upheld, political discussion would be both chilled and [[Page S10505]] contorted. And if the speech controls were struck down, political campaigns would be run by lobbies (``independent expenditures'') rather than by candidates and parties. Quite a reform. Even total deregulation would be better than McCain- Feingold, provided disclosure were retained. For that matter, doing nothing would be better. Best by a very long measure, however, would be a combination of deregulation, disclosure and generous public financing for candidates who forgo private fund-raising--a plan which, instead of trying to eliminate or micromanage private money, would give voters an alternative to it, and make the acceptance of private donations an issue in every campaign. Alas, all of those admittedly imperfect ideas are bitterly opposed by the anti-money crusaders who gave us the system we have now, and who still predominate in the ``reform community.'' To change their minds, campaign-finance law will probably have to be made worse before it can be made better. That task, at least, McCain-Feingold would perform admirably. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me, first of all, congratulate the occupant of the chair for his vote yesterday. I heard his comments this morning. The occupant of the chair did the right thing yesterday. He voted for cloture and joined 52 other Senators--a Senator we had not in the past known for sure whether or not he was going to vote for cloture on any occasion, and I very much appreciate that. I realize that his words are sincere. He does, in fact, support campaign finance reform. It is important that, again, the Senator from Arizona and I signal what we have signaled in the past, and that is that we are very eager to negotiate, whether on the floor or off the floor, to make a bill that would be more palatable to Members on both sides of the aisle. I think the Senator from Arkansas has indicated some excellent ideas in the past. That is the signal I want to give, despite whatever indications one might feel from the press accounts, which, of course, all of us have to take with a grain of salt on both sides of the issue. The fact is that many of us really would like to change this system, and I believe the Senator who occupies the chair is one of them. Let me reiterate our offer, which I think we have made good on time and time again, that if modifications need to be made to pass this terribly important bill, we are ready to do it. That is how the junior Senator from Maine became such a tremendous advocate for our cause. She had some ideas that were better than ours, and we incorporated them and moved on to make the bill even better. So I look forward to working with the occupant of the chair so that, once again, he can feel comfortable voting for cloture as we continue to press this issue on the floor, which we will do until we get the result that the American people demand. Let me also suggest, this is a point that seems to be missed in this debate frequently. The Senator from Kentucky speaks frequently and eloquently about the first amendment. But the way our system is established, surely if you pass a bill in the Congress, a piece of legislation, a statute, it doesn't amend the Constitution. There is more to the process. The President has to sign the bill, and it has to go up to the United States Supreme Court, unless nobody challenges it. And I have a sneaking suspicion that somebody might challenge this bill if it became law. So what is the worst-case scenario? The worst-case scenario is that if, in fact, there is a shred of our bill that is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will say so and strike it down. They know how to do their job. If we do our job, they will do their job. That is exactly what they did in the very famous case of Buckley versus Valeo. They determined that some elements of the bill were constitutional, despite the claim of the ACLU and others that they were not, and they said they were OK. For example, having a limitation on contributions. It is, obviously, the law now, and the Senator from Kentucky cannot dispute that it is the law, that right now somebody can't give more than $2,000 in the course of 6 years to a U.S. Senate candidate in hard money. That is a limitation. The Supreme Court said it is OK. On the other hand, in Buckley versus Valeo, the Court said you can't have overall mandatory spending limits because that, in their view, would be a violation of the first amendment. So what is the threat to the first amendment of passing a piece of legislation about which we have a good-faith disagreement as to its constitutionality? I happen to think it is clear that the major provisions of our bill are constitutional. I would be the first to concede that the closest case would be the one that the Senator from Kentucky has focused most of his firepower on in this debate, and that is the issue of what I like to call phony issue ads. But I can see that would be something the Supreme Court would have to take a long and hard look at, and I think they should. That is why, Mr. President, I don't support a constitutional amendment to get this done. The first amendment is too sacred. So, I want to address your concern about the first amendment to tell you that I was, I believe, the first or second Member of the U.S. Senate to come out here and oppose something called the Communications Decency Act. People fell all over each other voting for that bill that would have censored the Internet. I came out here and said, ``Look, on the face of this, even though I am not a leading constitutional expert but I have looked at the Constitution, on the face of it, this is unconstitutional.'' Yet, I believe 84 Members of this body, including the Senator from Kentucky, voted for it, sent it up to the Supreme Court and, guess what? Unanimously that Supreme Court--of which a majority of the Members were appointed by the majority party Presidents--unanimously ruled that that was unconstitutional. Mr. President, both with regard to your concern that we be flexible and open to other people's ideas, which I think you and I have established a good record on, and with regard to the issue of the first amendment to the Constitution, not only couldn't I agree with you more, but I believe we have a lot to talk about and work together on to achieve campaign finance reform. Since the Senator from Kentucky continues in his steadfast way to make a record, which I hope one day will get before the Supreme Court-- he hopes it won't get that far--let me address a couple of other issues and put a few things of concern to me in the Record. The Senator from Kentucky has been proudly suggesting that the McCain-Feingold bill is dead, and yet we are out here today debating it again, and we will be debating it again. That is because it is not going away. It is because it is not simply a question of various elements of the media saying that the McCain-Feingold bill is a good idea. There are others who are not in the media who, I think, are not easily duped by the media who think we ought to enact some of the things that are in the McCain-Feingold bill. Let me just put a few of those items in the Record. First, I ask unanimous consent that letters from former Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George Bush endorsing a soft money ban--a soft money ban, which is the centerpiece of the McCain-Feingold proposal--be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Houston, TX, June 19, 1997. Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Kassebaum: First, let me commend you and the former Vice President, Ambassador Mondale, for taking a leadership role in trying to bring about campaign reform. I hope the current Congress will enact Campaign Reform legislation. We must encourage the broadest possible participation by individuals in financing elections. Whatever reform is enacted should go the extra mile in demanding fullest possible disclosure of all campaign contributions. I would favor getting rid of so called ``soft money'' contributions but this principle should be applied to all groups including Labor. I congratulate you for working for better campaign finance law enforcement. With my respects to you and Vice President Mondale I am, sincerely, George Bush. ______ July 17, 1997. To Vice President Walter Mondale: I am pleased to join former Presidents Bush and Ford in expressing hope that this Congress will enact meaningful campaign finance reform legislation. For the future of [[Page S10506]] our democracy, and as our experience may be emulated by other nations, prompt and fundamental repair of our system for financing federal elections is required. The most basic and immediate step should include an end to ``soft money,'' whether in the form of corporate or union treasury contributions to federal campaigns, or large and unregulated contributions from individuals. The initial step should also include measures that provide for complete and immediate disclosures of political contributions and expenses. To accomplish these and other reforms and to lay the basis for future ones, we also need to develop a strong national consensus about the objectives of reform. It will take more than just the action of this Congress, but fundamental reform is essential to the task of repairing public trust in government in our leaders. We must take significant steps to assure voters that public policy is determined by the exercise of their franchise rather than a broken and suspect campaign finance system. Please extend to Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker my appreciation for the work that she has undertaken with you to advance the essential cause of bipartisan campaign finance reform. Sincerely, Jimmy Carter. ____ July 10, 1997. Dear Senator Kassebaum: Our system of financing federal election campaigns is in serious trouble. To remedy these failings requires prompt action by the President and the House and Senate. I strongly hope the Congress in cooperation with the White House will enact Campaign Reform legislation by the forthcoming elections in 1998. Public officials and concerned citizens. Republicans and Democrats alike, have aleady identified important areas of agreement. These include (1) the need to end huge uncontrolled ``soft money'' contributions to the national parties and their campaign committees, and to bar solicitation of ``soft money'' from all persons, parties and organized labor by federal officeholders and candidates for any political organizations; (2) the need to provide rapid and comprehensive discount of contributions and expenditures in support of, or opposition to, candidates for federal office; and (3) the need to repair the system of campaign finance law enforcement by assuring that it is effective and independent of politics. A significant bi-partisan effort across party lines can achieve a legislative consensus in campaign reforms that will help to restore the confidence of our citizens in their federal government. I commend you and former Vice President Mondale for your leadership on behalf of campaign reform. Sincerely, Gerald R. Ford. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to mention just a sentence from President Bush's letter, who I don't think is usually considered a pawn of the liberal media. He says: I would favor getting rid of so called ``soft money'' contributions but this principle should be applied to all groups including Labor. Of course, our soft money ban in our bill is comprehensive and includes labor. A letter from President Carter also indicates as follows: The most basic and immediate step should include an end to ``soft money,'' whether in the form of corporate or union treasury contributions to federal campaigns, or large and unregulated contributions from individuals. From President Carter. President Ford indicated in a letter: . . . the need to end huge uncontrolled ``soft money'' contributions to the national parties and their campaign committees, and to bar solicitation from ``soft money'' from all persons, parties and organized labor by federal officeholders and candidates for any political organizations . . . Mr. President, how can these three Presidents, two from the Republican Party and one from the Democratic Party, be considered pawns of a solely Democratic effort to pass campaign finance reform? On its face it is absurd to suggest a bill led by the Senator from Arizona, a strong Republican, is such a bill. But here are two Republican Presidents saying we should ban soft money. Yet, the effort to kill this bill would prevent the core element of our bill to ban soft money. Let me add, it is not just former Presidents, Mr. President, it is also former Members of this body and of the other body. Former Members of Congress have endorsed our bipartisan campaign finance reform bill and the end of soft money. I ask unanimous consent that a statement of former Members of Congress, dated September 29, 1997, be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Statement of Former Members of Congress We are pleased to join former Presidents Bush, Carter and Ford in expressing the hope that the current Congress enact meaningful bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation. The distinguished former Presidents have identified the indispensable core of reform: (1) a ban on ``soft money'' contributions to the national parties and their campaign organizations, applied equally to contributions of corporate and union treasury funds, as well as to large individual contributions in excess of those permitted by law; (2) complete and rapid disclosure of political contributions and expenses; and (3) effective and politically independent enforcement of campaign finance laws. Some of us favor additional proposals, including provisions to assure that a ban on ``soft money'' is not circumvented through campaign advertisements that are thinly disguised as ``issue advocacy.'' Together we believe it is time to test the merits of different or competing ideas through debate and votes, but that any disagreement over further reforms should not delay enactment of essential measures, beginning with a ban on soft money, where agreement is within reach. Our democracy will be strengthened when the Congress acts to assure the American public that the nation's campaign finance system honors our nation's ideals. Nancy Kassebaum Baker (R-KS), Howard H. Baker, Jr. (R- TN), David L. Boren (D-OK), John C. Danforth (R-MO), Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR), Abner J. Mikva (D-IL), Patricia S. Schroeder (D-CO), Walter F. Mondale (D-MN), Henry Bellmon (R-OK), Bill Bradley (D-NJ), Thomas F. Eagleton (D-MO), Robert H. Michel (R-IL), Sam Nunn (D- GA), Alan K. Simpson (R-WY). The original signers of the statement are joined by: Bella Abzug (D-NY), Wendell Anderson (D-MN), Mark Andrews (R-ND), Bob Bergland (D-MN), Rudy Boschwitz (R-MN), John Brademas (D-IN), William Brock (R-TN), , Clarence Brown (R- OH), Jim Broyhill (R-NC), Beverly Byron (D-MD), Rod Chandler (R-WA), Dick Clark (D-IA), Tony Coelho (D-CA), Barber Conable (R-NY), Alan Cranston (D-CA), John Culver (D-IA), Hal Daub (R-NE), John Dellenback (R-OR), Butler Derrick (D-SC), Tom Downey (D-NY), Don Edwards (D-CA), Mickey Edwards (R-OK), Robert Ellsworth (R-KS), Karan English (D-AZ), James Exon (D- NE), Dante Fascell (D-FL), Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY), Sheila Frahm (R-KS), Bill Frenzel (R-MN), Clifford Hansen (R-WY), Fred Harris (D-OK), Thomas Hartnett (R-SC), Howell Heflin (D- AL), Peter Hoagland (D-NE), Carroll Hubbard (D-KY), Walter Huddleston (D-KY). Martha Keys (D-KS), Melvin Laird (R-WI), Russell Long (D- LA), Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (D- PA), Charles Mathias (R-MD), Ron Mazzoli (D-KY), Paul McCloskey (R-CA), John Melcher (D-MT), Howard Metzenbaum (D- OH), John Miller (R-WA), George Mitchell (D-ME), Frank (Ted) Moss (D-UT), Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), Dick Nichols (R-KS), Leon Panetta (D-CA), Claiborne Pell (D-RI), David Pryor (D-AR), Albert Quie (R-MN), John Rhodes III (R-AZ), Matthew Rinaldo (R-NJ), Peter Rodino (D-NJ), Warrent Rudman (R-NH), Lynn Schenk (D-CA), Richard Schweiker (R-PA), Philip Sharp (D-IN), Paul Simon (D-IL), Jim Slattery (D-KS), W.B. Spong (D-VA), Robert Stafford (R-VT), Al Swift (D-WA). Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in that letter, a number of our former colleagues from both Houses of the Congress state: We are pleased to join former Presidents Bush, Carter and Ford in expressing the hope that the current Congress enact meaningful bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation. This includes the names of people like the distinguished former Member Nancy Kassebaum Baker, former Senator from Kansas; Howard Baker, Jr., former leader and Senator from Tennessee; former Republican Senator John Danforth of Missouri, who I had the honor to serve with briefly; former Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon; former Senator Walter Mondale and former Vice President; former Senator Bill Bradley from New Jersey; former minority leader of the other body, Robert Michel; former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn; former Senator Al Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming with whom I disagreed frequently on the floor of the Senate who was among the toughest and most clever opponents you could have on the floor, but he cosponsored the McCain-Feingold bill last session after he made his retirement announcement, and he still supports it. And the list goes on. Mr. President, I do not think these folks are merely pawns of the media. These folks have been here; they have seen it; they have done it. And they know that spending a tremendous amount of your time in raising money is the corrupting of this process. And many of them, as they announced their retirements, said they were sick and tired of spending their time as Members of Congress raising money. The [[Page S10507]] killing of the bill, the vain attempt to kill this bill, as it turns out, would prevent the first efforts to get our attention away from raising money and back to the business we were elected to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an op-ed piece that appeared in the July 18, 1997, Washington Post authored by former Republican Senator Nancy Kassebaum, Baker, and former Vice President Walter Mondale calling for bipartisan campaign finance reform and a ban on soft money. There being no objection, the material was ordered to printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Washington Post, July 18, 1997] Campaign Finance: Fix It (By Nancy Kassebaum Baker and Walter F. Mondale) President Clinton has challenged Congress to ``make this summer a time not of talk but of action'' in fixing our broken system of campaign financing. We agree wholeheartedly. Earlier this year the president asked the two of us, a Republican and a Democrat, to assist in the cause of bipartisan campaign finance reform. Although pessimism about the will of Congress to reform campaign finance laws is widespread, we are optimistic that the task can be achieved through a clear focus on necessary and achievable reforms, leadership and determination. Last month, we submitted an Open Letter to the President and Congress recommending four areas in which to begin, without delay, the task of ensuring that our nation's campaign finance system serves, rather than undermines, the interests of American democracy. First, Congress should promptly ban ``soft money,'' the huge uncontrolled contributions to national parties and their campaign organizations that have so dismayed the public. This prohibition would do much to slow the flood of campaign money and enable the nation to adhere to the justified premise of earlier reforms, that massive amounts of money from powerful sources distort elections and government. Second, we must ensure that ``soft money'' not continue its corrosive work under the this disguise of ``issue advocacy.'' The election law should be tightened to distinguish clearly between media advertisements that are campaign endorsements or attacks and those that genuinely debate issues. to make a ``soft money'' ban fully meangingful the election law should establish consistent rules for the financing of all electioneering advertisements. Third, disclosure rules should be broadened to ensure that voters know who is responsible for the accuracy and fairness of campaign advertisements. Increasingly, candidates are bystanders in their own campaigns, not knowing the identity of sponsors of messages that dominate the airwaves close to elections. Also, with today's technology, even last-minute contributions and expenditures can be revealed before Election Day. Fourth, no reform will be worth much without effective enforcement. The Federal Election Commission must be strengthened. This should include the appointment of knowledgeable and independent-minded commissioners. Additionally, changes are needed to allow for the full and timely resolution of issues through the courts when the commission is deadlocked or cannot act because of lack of funds. Significant majorities might be found for other reforms. As the debate goes forward, Congress should be encouraged to consider further steps to provide relief from the incessant treadmill of fund-raising. However, we should not delay action on those measures that can pass now. Time is of the essence. Congressional elections are coming up next year. The presidential campaign for the year 2000 will begin soon after. Each day these elections draw closer, the passage of reform becomes even more difficult. Now is the best time to advance legislation that will provide the American people with a more effective and more equitable election process. It is no secret that the Senate will be the first battleground for reform. There are honest differences that warrant debate there but also votes on their merits. We are confident that the Senate's leadership will recognize its responsibility to schedule campaign finance reform for early and full debate. And speaking plainly, we further believe that the American public will deem unacceptable any tactic that prevents a majority of the Senate from coming to a final vote. We appreciate the value of Senate rules on debate. But campaign finance issues are well known to every member. Whatever any senator's individual views on campaign finance issues may be, all senators should unite in one conviction. The future of our democracy requires them to address their differences in public debate on the Senate floor and for their votes on final passage to be recorded. Most important is to set aside attempts to gain or maintain partisan advantage. The time is now to come together to address the integrity of our national government. Restoring that integrity demands honest, bipartisan campaign finance reform. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an opinion piece from last Sunday's Washington Post coauthored by former Presidents Carter and Ford, who actually ran against each other in 1976, calling for campaign finance reform and the end of the soft money system. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Washington Post, Oct. 5, 1997] And the Power of the Ballot (By Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford) When we ran against each other in 1976, the modern campaign finance system was in its infancy; it was the first presidential election governed by strict limits and public financing. Looking back, it is easy to recognize why the reforms of the 1970s were so essential. Today it is disheartening to witness changes that have distorted those reforms and shaken Americans' faith in their democracy. We have watched as elections have grown more controversial, more expensive, riddled with soft money and less understandable to the average voter. We have watched as participation in presidential elections has declined-- plummeting during the last election to the lowest levels since 1924. Less than half of the voting-age population cast their ballots for president in 1996, and while there are many factors that might contribute to this disturbing figure, we believe that a lack of public trust in government and in our system of democratic elections is a major part of the