Summary:

All articles in Senate section

BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1999--Resumed
(Senate - October 15, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S12660-S12681] BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1999--Resumed Amendment No. 2298 (Purpose: To provide a complete substitute) Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for himself, Mr. Torricelli, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. Kerry, proposes an amendment numbered 2298. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'') Amendment No. 2299 To Amendment No. 2298 Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment numbered 2299 to amendment No. 2298. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'') The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Thomas Paine, the famed orator of the American Revolution, once offered an explanation for why corrupt systems last so long. He said: A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises, at first, a formidable cry in defense of custom. That is certainly true of the way we pay for campaigns in this country. Our reliance on special interest money to run political campaigns is such an old habit that for a long time it had the superficial appearance of being right but not anymore. While there is still a vocal minority who deny it, a clear majority in this Congress, and an overwhelming majority of the American people, know that our current campaign finance system is broken. The American people understand that special-interest money too often determines who runs, who wins, and how they govern. Opponents of change tell us that no one cares much about campaign finance reform. I believe they're mistaken. I believe the tide has turned. Instead of hearing a ``formidable cry in defense of custom,'' to use Tom Paine's expression, what we are hearing now is a growing demand for change. One of the newest voices demanding change belongs to a group of more than 200 CEOs of major corporations. They call themselves the Committee for Economic Development, and many of them are Republican. They're pushing for a ban on soft money because, they say, they're ``tired of being shaken down'' by politicians looking for campaign contributions. They, like the rest of America, will be watching this debate, Mr. President. Another reason I believe the tide has turned is because this election cycle has gotten off to such an ominous start. At both the Presidential and congressional level, we are on pace to shatter all previous records. During the first six months of this year, soft money donations--the unlimited, unregulated contributions to political parties--were already 80 percent above where they were at this point in the last Presidential election cycle, in 1995. There really are no limits any more, Mr. President. We all know that. The current system is more loophole than law. Opponents argue that our Constitution forbids us from correcting the worst abuses in the system. I disagree with their pinched interpretation of our Constitution. In any case, I believe our conscience demands that we at least try to fix the system. And so during this debate, Senator Torricelli and I, and others, will offer the Shays-Meehan plan. As I said, I have great admiration and respect for what Senator Feingold and Senator McCain have attempted to achieve. But I believe we can--and must--go further than their bill now allows. Shays-Meehan is fair. It does not place one party or another at an advantage. It treats incumbents and challengers in both parties fairly. Shays-Meehan is bipartisan. Shays-Meehan is passable. It has already passed the House. It is signable. The President will sign it into law. Most importantly, Shays-Meehan is comprehensive. Not only does it ban unregulated ``soft money'' to political parties--the biggest loophole in the current system--it also prevents soft money from being re- channeled to outside groups for phony ``issue ads.'' This is critically important, Mr. President. Spending on sham ``issue ads'' by advocacy groups and special interests more than doubled between the '96 and '98 election cycles--to somewhere between $275 million and $340 million. A 1997 study by the respected Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found that phony ``issue ads'' are nearly identical to campaign ads--with two exceptions. The ``issue ads'' are more attack-oriented and personal. And, it is harder to identify the sponsor. These ads epitomize the negative campaigning--without any accountability--the public so dislikes. Shays-Meehan closes the ``issue ad'' loophole. It does so by applying existing rules to ads targeting specific candidates that are run by advocacy groups within 60 days of an election. It does not silence anyone. It merely says, if you want to participate in the election process, you have to follow the rules. In addition to closing the ``soft money'' and ``issue ad'' loopholes, Shays-Meehan makes two other important changes. First, it provides for expanded and speedier disclosure of both campaign contributions and expenditures--plus, stiffer penalties for anyone who violates the requirements. Second, it bans direct and indirect foreign contributions to political campaigns. Shays-Meehan won a bipartisan majority in the other body, Mr. President. It deserves the same in this Senate. When a person gives money to a judge who is deciding his case, we call that bribery. But when special interests give money to politicians who vote on bills that help or hurt them, we call that ``business as usual.'' Some mistakenly call it ``free speech.'' Let's be very clear: Shays-Meehan is not an attack on free speech. It advances free speech by ensuring that those with the biggest checkbooks are not the only voices that are heard. Shays-Meehan represents extraordinarily modest reforms. It doesn't fix every problem with our current system. But it bans the worst excesses. It is not a panacea. But it is a credible and necessary first step in rebuilding people's trust in government. I have no doubt we will hear a great deal over the next few days about abuses of the current system. [[Page S12661]] There are abuses--on both sides of the aisle. That's why we're having this debate. But it's not enough just to decry the abuses. If you're really outraged by the abuses, fix the system that invites them. Defenders of the status quo have tried to dissuade some of us from supporting real reform by warning how much it might cost us in lost campaign contributions. What about how much the current system costs us in lost credibility? Listen to this quote: Senators and Representatives, faced incessantly with the need to raise ever more funds to fuel their campaigns, can scarcely avoid weighing every decision against the question ``How will this affect my fundraising prospects.'' rather than ``How will this affect the national interest?'' Do you know who said that? It wasn't some Pollyanna progressive. That was Barry Goldwater, in 1995. And even if we don't make those kinds of calculations, it doesn't matter. No one has to prove that money influences our votes. It's damaging enough that people believe money influences our votes. There are other ways the current system costs us as well. Like the cost of endless fundraising. The demeaning, demanding money chase. In 1998, it cost an average of $4.9 million to run a successful Senate campaign. To raise that kind of money, you have to bring nearly $16,000 a week, every week, for 6 years. That is the minimum it takes. Some people have to raise twice that much. And we all know what that means. It means we spend hours and hours in campaign offices, dialing for dollars, instead of doing what people sent us here to do. It means running to fundraisers every night--sometimes two and three a night--instead of working on problems that affect families--or maybe just having dinner every once in a while with our own families. But the biggest cost of the current system is the cynicism it produces in people. The American people are disgusted, and they feel disenfranchised, by the current system. Every election cycle, the amount of money goes up, and voting goes down. Defenders of the status quo say we need soft money for ``party building'' activities--like ``get out the vote'' drives. If you really want to get out the vote, get the money out of politics! Pass Shays-Meehan. We expect opponents will use every procedural trick and advantage they can think of to try to block any real reform. They will offer amendments not to strengthen our proposal, but to sink it. They should know: The American people understand that game. They can tell the differences between protecting principles, and protecting partisan advantage. We make this pledge at the beginning of this debate: If Shays-Meehan does not pass, we will do everything we can to build a coalition for real reform. We will work with Senator Feingold and Senator McCain to strengthen their proposal and make it, once again, a comprehensive plan. When you read the history of campaign finance, one of the names that stands out is Mark Hanna. U.S. Senator. Wealthy businessman. Ohio political boss. And head, at the turn of the last century, of his national political party. Mark Hanna is widely credited with being the father of systemic campaign fundraising techniques. He introduced the concept, for instance, of regularly assessing businesses for contributions to his party, based on their ``share in the general prosperity.'' He also introduced the first modern political advertising operation. In 1895, Mark Hanna remarked that ``there are two things that are important in politics. The first is money--and I can't remember what the second one is.'' Mr. President, I believe Senator Hanna got it wrong. Money isn't the most important thing in politics. Integrity is. Integrity is essential to democracy. Without integrity we lose public confidence. And without public confidence, a democratic government loses its ability to function. We all know--whether we will admit it or not--that the current system is broken. I hope we can work together. I hope we can come up with a comprehensive, workable plan to fix it. The currency of politics should be ideas--not cash. Cloture Motions Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send two cloture motions to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. The legislative clerk read as follows: Cloture Motion We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Daschle amendment, No. 2298, to S. 1593: Tom Daschle, Chuck Robb, Mary L. Landrieu, Joseph Lieberman, Jack Reed, Max Baucus, Barbara Boxer, Richard H. Bryan, Jeff Bingaman, Tim Johnson, Harry Reid, Robert G. Torricelli, Blanche L. Lincoln, Dianne Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, Richard J. Durbin, Daniel K. Akaka, Ron Wyden, Byron L. Dorgan, and Tom Harkin. Cloture Motion The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second cloture motion. The legislative clerk read as follows: Cloture Motion We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reid of Nevada amendment No. 2299: Tom Daschle, Chuck Robb, Barbara Boxer, Joseph Lieberman, Jack Reed, Richard H. Bryan, Jeff Bingaman, Tim Johnson, Harry Reid, Blanche L. Lincoln, Dianne Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, Richard J. Durbin, Daniel K. Akaka, Ron Wyden, Byron L. Dorgan, Tom Harkin, and Barbara Mikulski. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the amendment offered by the minority leader and the Senator from New Jersey. As you know, this amendment is almost identical to the Shays-Meehan bill that passed the House of Representatives by a decisive, bipartisan vote of 252-177. It is time for the Senate to show the same courage and pass this important legislation. as I enter my eleventh political campaign and my fourth California statewide election, I am one who knows a little about the dynamics of campaigning in expensive races. In the 1990 race for Governor, I had to raise about $23 million. In the first race the Senate, $8 million; in the second race, $14 million. In 1994, my opponent spent nearly $30 million in his attempt to defeat me. My experiences have led me to believe that the current campaign finance system is badly flawed and in need of overhaul. Since 1976, the first election after the last major revision of campaign finance laws, the average cost of a winning Senate race went from $609,000 to $3.8 million in 1998. The average cost for a winning House candidate rose from $87,000 in 1976 to $679,000 in 1998. Campaigns in 2000 are very different than they were in 1976. Clearly, our campaign finance system must be reformed to reflect these differences. I have been a strong supporter of federal campaign finance reform since my first election to the Senate. Campaigns simply cost too much and it is long past time that Congress does something about it. I believe very strongly that this will be the final real opportunity this millennium to make significant structural reforms to our campaign finance system. Two of the fundamental changes that I believe must be made are a complete ban on soft money contributions to political parties and making independent campaign ads subject to contribution limits and disclosure requirements as are a candidate's campaign ads. While I have a great deal of respect for the persistence the Senators from Arizona and Wisconsin have demonstrated in pushing the Senate to act on campaign finance reform, I am concerned that the underlying bill, S. 1953, is too narrow to constitute a real reform of the campaign finance system. Banning soft money without addressing issue advocacy will simply redirect the flow of undisclosed money in campaigns. Instead of giving soft money to [[Page S12662]] political parties, the same dollars will be turned into ``independent'' ads. The issues of soft money ban and independent advertisements go hand in hand and one can not be addressed without the other. soft money ban The ability of corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to give unlimited amounts of soft money to political parties is the largest single loophole in the current campaign finance structure. The lack of restrictions on soft money enables anonymous individuals and anonymous organizations to play a major role in campaigns. They can hit hard and no one knows from where the hit is coming. The form that soft money is increasingly taking is negative, attack ads that distort, mislead, and misrepresent a candidates position on issues. These ads have become the scourge of the electoral process. This is the third time in as many years that the Senate has had the opportunity to pass meaningful campaign finance legislation. Last year, a minority of Senators blocked its passage and they appear poised to do so again. The consequence of this action is clear: voters will continue to become disenchanted with the political process and the flow of money into campaigns and the access it buys will continue to grow. The numbers speak for themselves. According to the Federal Election Commission, the Republican party raised $131 million in soft money during the 1998 election cycle. That is a 149 percent increase over the last mid-term election in 1994. The Democratic party is not much better. We raised $91.5 million, a 89 percent increase. Soft money contributions are continuing to rise. In the first 6 months of this year, Republicans raised $30.9 million. 42 percent more than in the first six months of the 1997-98 election cycle. Democrats raised $26.4 million, a 93 percent increase. One organization, Public Citizen, estimates that soft money spending this election cycle will exceed $500 million. That is double the amount spent in the last presidential election cycle and six times as much as in 1992. At some point this escalation of campaign spending has got to stop. We simply cannot continue down this path. A complete ban on soft money contributions to political parties is the first and most basic way to reduce the amount of money in our campaigns. issue advocacy That brings me to the other disturbing trend in the American political system: the rise of issue advocacy. This campaign loophole allows unions, corporations, and wealthy individuals to influence elections without being subject to disclosure or expenditure restrictions. During last year's debate, I mentioned a study released by the Annenberg Public Policy Center that estimated that during the 1995-96 election cycle independent groups spent between $135 and $150 million on issue advocacy. The Center has done a similar study for the 1997-98 cycle and the result is quite disturbing. They estimate that the amount spent on issue advocacy more than doubled to between $275 million and $340 million. These ads do not use the so-called ``magic words'' that the Supreme Court identified as express advocacy and, therefore, are not subject to FEC regulation. The Annenberg study found, however, that 53.4 percent of the issue ads mentioned a candidate up for election. The Center found another unfortunate twist to issue advocacy. Prior to September 1, 1998, that is in the first 22 months of the election cycle, only 35.3 percent of issue ads mentioned a candidate and 81.3 percent of the ads referred to a piece of legislation or a regulatory issue. After September 1, 1998, during the last 2 months of the campaign, a dramatic shift occurred. The proportion of ads naming specific candidates rose to 80.1 percent and those mentioning legislation fell to 21.6 percent. A similar shift can be seen in terms of attack ads. Prior to September 1, 33.7 percent of all ads were attack oriented. After September 1, over half were. These findings clearly demonstrate that as election day gets closer, issue ads become more candidate oriented and more negative. This kind of unregulated attack advertisements are poisoning the process and driving voters away from the polls. The amendment offered by the minority leader defines ``express advocacy'' communications as advocating election or defeat of candidate by: First, using explicit phrases, words, or slogans that have no other reasonable meaning than influence elections; second, referring to a candidate in a paid radio or TV broadcast ad that runs within 60 days of election; or third, expressing unmistakable, unambiguous election advocacy. This provision draws a clear line between true issue advertising and electioneering activities. It is an important part of any real reform effort and I applaud the minority leader for seeing that we have an opportunity to vote on it. other issues This amendment also contains a number of important issues that are not contained in the underlying bill. I understand the sponsors of the bill removed them in an attempt to force a straight up or down vote on the soft money ban. I do feel, however, that some of these provisions will significantly improve the campaign finance system and are worth mentioning. The bill mandates electronic filing; allows the FEC to conduct random audits of campaigns within 12 months of an election; makes it easier for the FEC to initiate enforcement action; and increases penalties for knowing and willful violations of election law. This amendment would lower the threshold for disclosure of contributions from $200 to $50. It would prevent candidates from depositing contributions of $200 if the disclosure requirements are not complete. It would also require the FEC to post contribution information on the Internet within 24 hours of receipt. These are commonsense steps to making our elections more open to the public. Voters are increasingly feeling cut out of the political process. By allowing an open window into our campaigns, we can begin the process of reconnecting with voters. In closing, Mr. President, I want to again thank the Senators from Arizona and Wisconsin. Without their leadership on this issue we would not have come as far as we have. This body is now faced with a choice. We have been at this same point several times in the last couple of years and each time we have failed to act and each time the American public has grown more cynical and lost more confidence in their government. With the passing of every election, it becomes more and more clear that our campaign system desperately needs reform. I remain hopeful that this is the year that Congress can finally come together in support of legislation that brings about a real improvement in our campaign system. Let's make the first election of the twenty-first century one of which we can be proud. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that I cannot support this amendment at this time. I want to make it clear why. The amendment would essentially restore all of the provisions of S. 26, which is the original McCain-Feingold legislation to this bill. I still support those provisions and strongly believe that most, if not all, should be enacted into law. Now is not the time to do so. My good friend, Russ Feingold, and I spent much time debating as to how we could move forward on the subject of campaign finance reform. We, along with many others who have supported this effort for many years, came to the conclusion that some reform is better than no reform. Unfortunately, if this amendment is adopted, a political point will be made, but reform will be doomed, and the sponsors of this present amendment are very well aware of that. We all know there are 52 votes for S. 26. We all know that. We went through a long period of debate and amending. We know there are 52 votes. Tell me where the additional 8 votes are for S. 26, and I will be the first to sign on and support this. I ask my dear friends who just propounded what is basically McCain- Feingold, where are the votes? I think the answer is obvious. What we have tried to do in proposing a ban on soft money and a codification of that is to start a process [[Page S12663]] which has succeeded in this great deliberative body over many years with amendments and disposal of amendments, up or down, and improving the bill but letting the Senate work its will. We have already picked up one additional vote. I am told there are other Members on this side of the aisle who are considering supporting this legislation. But it is also clear that those same people who are leaning towards supporting would not vote for S. 26 in its entirety because of their strongly held--although I don't agree, I respect their views--view that the independent campaign aspect of the original McCain-Feingold has constitutional difficulties associated with it. We know the facts. We need 60 votes to prevail, and 52, while a majority, is not enough and will not be until the rules of the Senate are changed where 51 votes are necessary for passage. For some time, I hoped that my colleagues who oppose reform would allow a majority in both bodies to prevail and do what the vast majority of the American public desires. But the opponents of reform, defenders of the status quo, won't cede their rights. I have learned from previous debates on other matters not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The bill before the Senate represents a modest step but a very important step forward. I want to emphasize that point again. If we can pass the underlying bill, we will have made an extremely important and vitally needed step forward. There is no observer of this issue of campaign finance reform who does not disagree that banning of soft money would have an important and salutary effect on the evils and ills of the present campaign finance system. There is no objective observer, whether they are for or against campaign finance reform, who would deny that the single act about allowing soft money would have a significant effect on the present system. Do I personally desire that a more comprehensive bill be passed into law? Yes. In my 16 years in the Congress, I have learned to be a realist. Simply put, if this amendment is accepted, campaign finance reform will be dead. There will be no reform this year and most likely next year. During that period, I am sure that more loopholes in the current system will be found and exploited. Public cynicism will have grown and, unfortunately, nothing will have changed except the same political points will have been made once again and, undoubtedly, more and more money will be awash in our political process. The New York Times had it right on 14 October. Let me quote: An important but little-noticed boost was given to campaign finance reform in the Senate this week. Sam Brownback of Kansas became the eighth Republican to break with his party's leadership and support the McCain-Feingold soft-money ban, scheduled for debate today. There are now 53 votes to choke off a Republican-led filibuster and pass the bill, only seven votes short of what is needed. The pressure is mounting on other Republicans to support reform. But amid these favorable developments, a move by Robert Torricelli and some other Democratic supporters of reform could undercut the cause. The risk is posed by a Democratic attempt to block Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold from advancing a stripped- down version of their reform legislation. The new McCain- Feingold bill would omit a section preventing independent groups from raising unlimited money for sham campaign ads two months before an election. Some Republicans say that because that section threatens free speech, they cannot go along with the central objective of reform, which is to ban unlimited donations to campaigns waged by political parties. Shrinking the bill to a simple soft-money ban for parties has paid off. Senator Brownback is on board and other Senate Republicans may follow. Mr. Torricelli and the Democratic Senate leader, Tom Daschle, are nonetheless determined today to scrap the new McCain-Feingold bill and substitute the original bill, with the limits on independent groups. This is a serious tactical mistake that raises questions about the Democrats' commitment to campaign finance reform. They ought to know that the bill they are pushing does not have the votes to break a filibuster, whereas the revised McCain-Feingold bill has a chance of getting them. It would be especially grievous if their move played into the destructive tactics of Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other Republican foes of reform. Mr. McConnell might even try to deliver enough votes for the Democratic move, allowing it to pass because in the end the bill in that form will surely die. Some Democrats, noting that the House passed its broader Shays-Meehan reform last month, warn that a narrower bill in the Senate will not survive either. But Mr. Brownback's courageous move makes it worth a try. Mr. President, I think the New York Times has it right. I think we should determine that this would be viewed by many as a cynical ploy which would assure the failure of campaign finance reform. I believe we need to vote down this amendment, return to what has given those who have been laboring on this issue for many years, some optimism, and to go back to a process where there are amendments on the specific issues. If we correctly debate and amend this issue, each one of those provisions of the original provisions of McCain-Feingold will be brought up for consideration, voted, and the body will work its will. It is abundantly clear that if this amendment is adopted, it is the end of campaign finance reform. Have no doubt about the effect of this amendment. No one should have any doubt about the effect of this amendment. I hope that is well understood by Americans all over this country who have committed themselves, people such as ``Granny D,'' who yesterday visited with me and Senator Feingold. She has walked across this country. People have committed themselves to reforming this system. People such as her all over America deserve better than what is being done with this amendment. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey. Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, every Senator who has taken the floor has given the appropriate compliments to Senator Feingold and Senator McCain. I will be no exception. Congress has been considering campaign finance reform for more than a decade. There have been, by my estimation, 3,000 speeches made on the floor of the Senate for campaign finance reform, some 6,500 pages of Congressional Record, 300 pieces of legislation. Indeed, we would not be at this moment without Senator Feingold or Senator McCain. They deserve that credit. I found their arguments in recent years so persuasive that I am today joining Senator Daschle in presenting their own legislation. The original McCain-Feingold bill, which found its way to the House of Representatives, is before the Senate now as the Shays-Meehan legislation. Similar in content and purpose, it is comprehensive campaign finance reform. Regarding advocacy of that reform, I take a second place to no Member in my years in the Congress. I have never voted against campaign finance reform, and I never will. I believe the integrity of this system of government and the confidence of the American people is at issue. It is not by chance that only a third of the American people are participating in some elections. Even in the choice of the Presidency of the United States, with those not registered and those not choosing to vote in many of our localities and States, half of the American people are not participating. It is not that they do not recognize the choice is important. I do not believe they have a lack of confidence in our country. They do not respect the process because they believe they do not have an equal position, and it is money that is the heart of that problem. When we entered into this new phase of campaign finance reform 2 years ago, along with most Members of this institution, I had great ambitions for how far we could go with reform. Indeed, in private conversation, almost every Member of this Senate knows the fundamentals of comprehensive reform. We started with such ambition. We were going to subject all independent advocacy groups in issue advertising to the rules of the FEC. We were going to require full and immediate disclosure by all contributors. We were going to ban soft money to the political parties. We were going to prohibit foreign interests. We were going to reduce the cost of television time. We even discussed the subsidies of mail to inform voters. One by one almost every one of these reforms has been eliminated from the legislation. Political cultures in all of our States are different. In my State, in Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas, and California, I don't believe [[Page S12664]] real campaign finance reform is possible without reducing the cost of television advertising. There is a reason for the spiraling rise of campaign spending; it is the cost of television advertising. In each of the large metropolitan areas, 90 percent of the money goes to feed the television networks. That was the first reform to be eliminated. Then there was the advocacy of subsidized mail. It went the way of public finance--one by one by one. Yet, because the need for reform is so overwhelming and the public confidence is so much in question, I joined in the last Congress with Senator McCain and Senator Feingold and reluctantly supported their legislation. Although I believe these critical provisions for the reduced cost of television advertising were essential for reform in my area of the country, I joined in support of the McCain-Feingold. That was to be followed by the House of Representatives which reached the same judgment in a historic vote for Shays-Meehan. That brings the Senate to this moment. In a frustration I share with other advocates of campaign finance reform, the mantra of the day has become: Do something, do anything. Pass some legislation. Call it reform. Let's put the problem behind us. If only it were so easy. The new legislation presented by Senators McCain and Feingold has a single objective: to eliminate soft money fundraising from Democratic and Republican Parties. It is a worthwhile objective, but it does raise the prospect that if passed it will eliminate the chance to have any further campaign finance reform. If history is any guide, every decade we get one chance to redesign this system. We are largely still governed by the Watergate reforms of 1974. Through a series of court rulings and FEC decisions, they clearly are no longer producing a system that was once envisioned. If we institute but this single change, we will not create a new system of our design but, in my judgment, be governed by the law of unintended consequences. Let's look for a moment at this new national campaign system. If Senator Daschle and I fail and the House of Representatives legislation in Shays-Meehan is rejected and instead we adopt this very narrow reform as envisioned by Senators McCain and Feingold, we eliminate soft money fundraising by the political parties, but it is maintained for issue advocacy and independent expenditures. The principal rise in campaign advertising in recent years is not the political parties; it is this independent advocacy expenditure. This chart tells the story. In 1998, the Democratic and Republican Parties spent $64 million in issue advocacy spending; nonparty advocacy groups spent $276 million, rising at a rate of 300 percent cycle to cycle. In my hand I have the list of 70 advocacy groups. It begins alphabetically with the AFL-CIO and ends with the Vietnam Veterans. In between are many organizations I support and believe have a worthwhile contribution to the national political debate; some I note I do not believe have great contributions to the political debate. But they are all heard--in the last election cycle, $276 million worth of advocacy. The legislation before the Senate by Senators Feingold and McCain does nothing about the expenditures, nothing. Nothing. Many exist as nonprofit tax-free organizations under the IRS Code. From whom they raise money is unknown. As to the sources of their contributions, no one in this Senate could attest. They often exist before the public eye as names that misrepresent their purpose and are designed to shield their objectives. They are not just a part of the national political advertising debate; they are coming to dominate it. What is this new campaign finance world that will be produced if Senator Daschle and I fail and the House of Representatives Shays- Meehan legislation is rejected? A national political debate that is fought by surrogates. The Democratic and Republican Parties will be within FEC rules, raising money only at $1,000 per person, $50 a person, $100 a person--a good system, where every name will be known, limits will be imposed to reasonable amounts. But over our heads will be a far larger contest fought by the AFL-CIO, with millions more dollars of expenditures, the Christian Coalition, anti-abortion groups, chemical companies, automobile companies, steel companies, that will spend millions, indeed, if history now is any guide, hundreds of millions of dollars of advocacy. Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. TORRICELLI. I will be happy to yield. Mr. REID. Yesterday, in a colloquy I had with the senior Senator from Arizona, we established that in the very sparsely populated State of Nevada, in the last general election--I was a candidate, Harry Reid, running for election, and John Ensign, Congressman Ensign, was running for my seat--we spent over $20 million in our direct campaigns and in the soft money. That is established. You can determine how much that is. The Senator would acknowledge that; is that right? Mr. TORRICELLI. I would. Mr. REID. Yet to this day, a year after the election, we do not know how much money was spent by these outside groups you are talking about, the NRA, the League of Conservation Voters, the truckers---- Mr. TORRICELLI. You don't know how much was spent or who spent it? Mr. REID. No; nor where their money came from. Is that the point the Senator is making? Mr. TORRICELLI. It is the central point. The proper system is the full disclosures we have for the Democratic and Republican Parties; limit those political parties just to these hard money contributions within the law, but extend that to all Americans who participate in the national political debate. The fact that my colleague, as a Senator, has accounted for every dollar he has raised, and he did so within limits, but these major groups enter his State either on his behalf or against his candidacy, yet my colleague doesn't know who they are or where their money is coming from and to whom they are accountable, is the heart of the problem. Mr. REID. I say to my friend from New Jersey, in the election that was held in the State of Nevada last year, Congressman Ensign and Senator Reid never really campaigned because of all the outside influences. Our campaigns were buried in all these independent expenditures and State party expenditures. At least with my campaign, and that of the State party, anyone in the world can find out how much money was spent. But for the independent expenditures, no one in the world can find out what money was spent. Mr. TORRICELLI. I point out to the Senator from Nevada, this is not simply a problem with our adversaries; sometimes it is a problem with our allies. When I go to the people of New Jersey, I want to present to them who I am and what I want to do, what my record is as a Senator. Groups whose support I am very proud of--AFL-CIO, National Abortion Rights League, Sierra Club, environmental groups--I am proud to have their support, but I don't want them presenting my campaign. Under the system that would be in place if Shays-Meehan were rejected, the political parties would be further restricted from advertising. I think they should be restricted with soft money. But if these advocacy groups were to take over, they would hijack your campaign; they would tell the people of your State what you were for and what you were against. It is not only your adversaries who will be out there presenting a campaign against you with these enormous amounts of money, it is even your allies who are not so restricted. Mr. REID. I say to my friend, in the election of 1986, when Senator Bryan was elected to the Senate, he was a sitting Governor at the time. At that time, there were these ads that came from nowhere, hundreds of thousands of dollars of ads in the State of Nevada. These ads were talking about Social Security. One would think these ads were run by some organization that had some concern about Social Security. We learned later that those ads were being paid for by foreign auto dealers--talking about the United States of America's Social Security plan. That is what happens when these groups have unfettered, unrestricted ability to spend money on any subject they want for any cause they want. [[Page S12665]] Mr. TORRICELLI. Let me say to the Senator from Nevada, that is not atypical. Health care in this country has been undermined by advocacy of insurance companies whose principal interest is not the delivery of quality health care to people who are currently uninsured, but they stand behind these blind advertising campaigns where no one knows where the money comes from. Just as in the campaign of my colleague from Nevada, we have polluters who are running ads on environmental protection; we have people on consumer safety who are representing groups that are damaging to individual consumers. That is because none of these groups is disclosable and none is accountable. In the current system, bad as it is, while these groups can run these advertising campaigns, the political parties are also raising soft money and there is a chance to answer them. Now the political parties will no longer be able to raise these funds, but these advocacy groups will continue in an upward spiral of spending. Senator Daschle's point is, let's eliminate this gross fundraising and these soft money expenditures across the board within 60 days of an election by putting everybody under the FEC rules. Senator McCain has said, ``But that will not pass.'' It may not. But it passed in the House of Representatives, and 60 Republicans came to join with the Democratic majority in passing it. We are not 20 or 30 or 40 votes from passing it in the Senate, we are 7 or 8. I would come back here every week of every month of every year until we restored the integrity of this Government and got comprehensive campaign finance reform. But the answer is not to lower our ambitions for campaign finance reform, to have a new, distorted system to make American politics fought by surrogates over the heads of candidates. The answer is to remain committed to this reform, reveal to the American people who is voting against it, who is stopping it, and let the American people decide. Mr. REID. I say to my friend in conclusion--and I appreciate his allowing me to ask him a question or two--first of all, I hope beyond all hope the Shays-Meehan bill passes. That is the amendment that has been filed by our leader, the Democratic leader. I hope that passes. I am going to do everything I can to make sure that passes. I hope we have Republicans of goodwill who will support that legislation. I have offered another amendment that would eliminate soft money. I respect and appreciate what the Senator from New Jersey has said. Certainly there is merit to what he said. But I believe, as I think does most everyone in the Democratic conference, that even if Shays- Meehan for some reason fails, there will be a significant number of us, out of desperation regarding the system that is so bad in this country, who will support the so-called soft money ban. I hope we do not get to that. I hope Shays-Meehan passes. The Senator makes a compelling case for what might happen. I hope something short of that will happen and the soft money ban will bring some reality to the system. Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Nevada. I note the problems of which I speak are not theoretical. Groups are already adjusting to the possibility that there will be a soft money ban in the political parties but no Shays-Meehan reform. They therefore are adjusting to this new reality. Let me give an example. Congressman DeLay has now formed a group, Citizens For A Republican Congress. He has gone to the wealthiest donors in the Nation, promising them a safe haven for anonymous and limitless contributions to the 2000 elections. He is reportedly planning on spending $25 to $30 million in 30 competitive House races in soft money. So Congressman DeLay will now, if this happens in the Democratic and Republican Parties, personally be directing a larger advertising campaign than the Democratic or Republican Parties in either House of Congress. The former advisers to Congressman DeLay are also forming a Republican issues majority committee, which is planning on spending $25 million. Already in a previous cycle, in the 1996 cycle, Americans for Tax Reform received $4.6 million from the Republican National Committee that they were able to spend on issue advocacy. United Seniors Association spent $3 million in direct mail in seven States in the 1996 election. They are an IRS tax-exempt 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. U.S. Term Limits, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charitable organization, spent $1.8 million in 1996; Americans for Limited Terms, $1.8 million in seven States; American Renewal, $400,000, a 501(c)(3). These are charitable organizations. The Tax Code has these provisions for people who want to help churches, synagogues, and Americans who are hurt and damaged, and to help build communities. They are being used as a cover for political advertising and no longer simply a force on the fringes of American politics. Look at the chart I have on my left: 1998 elections. Nonparty advocacy groups are two-thirds of all the issue ads in U.S. politics. The political parties, Democratic and Republican Parties, are one- third. If the sum total of the legislation offered by Mr. McCain and Mr. Feingold is that we will largely eliminate this third, when a Senator stands here a year from now going over this same problem, this entire pie chart will be advocacy groups, many of them tax-free organizations that are hiding who is contributing to them, who is running them, where their money is coming from, often using disguised names and running surrogate campaigns over the heads of political candidates. Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. TORRICELLI. I will be happy to yield to the Senator. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from New Jersey has the floor and has agreed to yield for a question from the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me ask a question, if I can, about the chart I believe he has up at this time. Is the Senator from New Jersey aware the $276 million estimate of issue advertising in the 1998 cycle, which the Senator has there I believe, includes all issue advertising, not just ads that are so-called phony issue ads? Is the Senator aware this chart actually covers all issue ads? Mr. TORRICELLI. I think I said it covers all. Mr. FEINGOLD. It covers the Harry and Louise type of ads, tobacco ads and ads just related to bills that do not have anything to do with campaigns directly. Mr. TORRICELLI. It covers all of those. I do not see that because they are dealing with an issue, they are not otherwise intending to influence an election. Mr. FEINGOLD. Fair enough. I wanted to establish that. The chart the Senator from New Jersey is using relates to an entire election cycle, a 2-year period, and it covers all sorts of ads. That means all kinds of true issue ads and so-called phony issue ads, as well as political party ads, are included in his chart. All three categories are in there. That is the basis on which he makes his argument. Is he aware the Shays-Meehan bill--which, of course, Senator McCain and I essentially wrote in the first place--that he has offered as an amendment would have no effect on any ad aired before the last 2 months of an election campaign? Mr. TORRICELLI. I am aware of it, and if it was my design, I would have it apply to issue advocacy ads throughout the calendar so everyone is equal. To quote Senator McCain, making the perfect the enemy of the good, if it is your argument that because I cannot bring all issue advocacy under FEC hard money limits, therefore we should do none, that, I think, is to surrender the point and we will not make any progress. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if the Senator will further yield, that is very interesting because it is essentially the same argument the Senator from New Jersey is using against the McCain-Feingold approach at this time which is, unless you do it all, it is not worth doing some because the soft money would flow to outside groups. Mr. TORRICELLI. My argument is, I believe, the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona are making a premature retreat. I concede [[Page S12666]] there may not be 60 votes in the Senate today for comprehensive campaign finance reform, but I do believe there is mounting public pressure. I believe Senators who vote against comprehensive campaign finance reform, who will vote against us on cloture on the amendment offered by Senator Daschle, are accountable to the people in their States. In the House of Representatives 2 years ago, the passage of comprehensive campaign finance reform was equally unlikely. Sixty Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with Democrats for real reform. These numbers are untenable. You cannot explain to the American people that you allow this charade to continue of people hiding behind these groups and spending $1 million, $100,000 contributions that are not accountable. I respect the Senator's work, but I believe we would do better to remain on this. I believe, in the alternative, you are going to establish a system where these groups dominate American politics as you silence the political parties. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield for a question? Mr. TORRICELLI. I would, but Senator Bennett is standing. If we could go to him next. Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding for a question, and I precede the question with a comment that I think the Senator from New Jersey is doing us a very worthwhile service in pointing out the reality of the world in which we would live if soft money were banned for political parties but not for everybody else. I agree with the Senator from New Jersey, absolutely in his words, when he says the debate would be fought by surrogates which would take place over our heads, a far larger context. I ask the Senator to give us his opinion of what would happen if Shays-Meehan, which he is endorsing, were to pass and then the Supreme Court were to strike down as unconstitutional the ban on issue ads by outside groups? Would that not, in fact, then leave us with the situation which the Senator from New Jersey is decrying, I think appropriately, as a bad system? Mr. TORRICELLI. Senator Bennett raises a very worthwhile point. Indeed, as Senator McConnell has noted in a number of cases, this is all an interesting debate. There are various sides trying to do good things, but the last word is in the Supreme Court, and, indeed, whether or not the Supreme Court will allow us to ban issue advocacy through soft money contributions to advocacy groups or even the political parties remains a question. If the Senator's point is correct, we could end up in the same place with, I will concede to you, the current McCain-Feingold if the Court were to do so. Senator McConnell has also pointed out it is a question of whether the Court will allow us to maintain the current limits on campaign fundraising in any case. Senators who vote on this should be aware that the Court, before we are concluded, will change probably much of what we are writing. Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, if I can ask a further question of the Senator from New Jersey, if he is aware--I know he is aware because he is a very astute student of politics but maybe not aware enough to comment without further research--if he is aware of what has happened in the State of California where they have virtually unlimited initiative opportunities and virtually every truly contentious political issue is now decided by initiative rather than by the legislature and the amount of money that is spent in an initiative fight dwarfs any of the sums we are talking about here. In the State of California, when an initiative fight comes up over an issue, which traditionally would be handled by the State legislature, the special interests on both sides of that fight routinely go over the hundreds of millions of dollars on both sides of the fight which dwarf the amount of money spent for a senatorial or gubernatorial race in that State. I ask if the Senator is aware of some of those particulars and if he will comment on the implications of that on a national basis if we get to the point where issues are fought out by special interest groups with unlimited budgets being spent on both sides, the implications on the role of the legislature in its constitutional responsibility to control the legislative agenda. Mr. TORRICELLI. We may not be on the same side of the debate for comprehensive reform, but I think our dialog can help Senators understand the world in which we are entering, because if we, indeed, reject Shays-Meehan and only go to this narrow reform, that single adjustment is going to change the American political debate as we know it. The Senator has raised some of the means by which it will change. I will predict for the Senator the new environment in which we are going to live: The Democratic and Republican Parties that now receive great amounts of this soft money with a wink and a nod are simply going to direct it to favorite organizations. Instead of soft money contributions coming to the Republican National Committee, for example, people who are interested in a particular issue are going to give it to an advocacy group. You will never know who they are. The contribution will never be known, but the money will be redirected, and rather than leaders of the party deciding how to present the issue, those groups will do so. Second, I predict to you the Democratic and Republican Parties will establish their own independent wings, much like legally what Senator D'Amato did with the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. Down the hall, they put a new sign on the door, new incorporators, a new name, took money, and did issue advocacy. As long as you do that fully at arm's length, it is fine to do. But the same soft money you think you are banning in the parties will now go to these independent groups or affiliated groups. Unless this is done comprehensively, you are only going to have money flow in through different windows. What bothers me the most is that the people who are most honest about the process and most committed to stopping this abuse will suffer while those who are prepared to do the winks and nods, establishing the other organizations, working on some affiliated arm's-length basis will succeed. In any case, we are not going to stop this money; we are going to redirect it. The only way to stop it, in my judgment, is comprehensive reform. Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. TORRICELLI. I am happy to. Mr. FEINGOLD. I think this is an extremely useful exchange that really goes to the core question about this legislation. I want to thank the Senator from New Jersey, even though we may come to different conclusions about specific tactics in what we do here. I thank the Senator for allowing us to talk about this because this is really what it is all about. Let me first reiterate my concern and ask a question about the totality of the ads the Senator suggested on his charts. Would the Senator concede that when you are dealing with ads that simply have to do with legislation, prior to 60 days, let's say, for example--the kind of tobacco ads we have seen; the ads we have seen about the Patients' Bill of Rights, the so-called Harry and Louise ads during the health care debate--there is no way under either Shays- Meehan or under McCain-Feingold, or even under any other legislation, we could prohibit those ads? Is that something with which the Senator would agree? Mr. TORRICELLI. I think it is difficult to know how the Supreme Court is going to deal with all of this. But certainly, if you get outside the 60 days and you are attempting to bring people under FEC regulations for issue advocacy outside of the 60 days, your case will clearly be weakened. Mr. FEINGOLD. I am specifically talking here about ads that do not talk about elections at all, they are simply talking about legislation. The Senator will concede, without a constitutional amendment, we could not prohibit such ads? Mr. TORRICELLI. I don't dispute that, although, indeed, if we were really doing comprehensive reform, which seems to be lost in the Senate, frankly, I would be going to that question on disclosability and tax deductibility and people remaining in tax-free status to do so. That would be comprehensive reform. But for the purpose of the argument, I will concede the point. [[Page S12667]] Mr. FEINGOLD. Fair enough. I think that is important because we have to distinguish here between the kinds of ads we are talking about. If it is the case, as the Senator from New Jersey suggests, that banning soft money will cause money to flow to phony issue ads, I think it is also rather difficult to dispute--in fact, you seem to concede-- if we prohibit that, that the money will just flow to generic issue ads as well. Isn't that your likely scenario? Mr. TORRICELLI. That is the scenario I predict. Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me follow then to the really important question you are raising about the possibility of the attempts to evade our attempts to simply ban party soft money. I don't doubt for a minute that the Senator is right, that the attempt will be made to evade the intent of the law, and in some cases it could succeed. But is the Senator aware that the McCain-Feingold soft money ban, the bill we have introduced, will prohibit Federal candidates from raising money for these phony outside groups such as the organization that is connected with Representative DeLay? Are you aware that that provision is actually in this soft money ban? Mr. TORRICELLI. I am aware of it. And I believe it will be proven to be entirely ineffective. Mr. FEINGOLD. Are you further aware that the bill will prohibit the parties from transferring money to 501(c)(4) organizations such as Americans for Tax Reform, which you mentioned a short time ago? Mr. TORRICELLI. There would be no reason to do so. They are no longer raising soft money, so why would they need to transfer? Mr. FEINGOLD. So that route will be blocked. Mr. TORRICELLI. That route will be blocked. Instead, the environment we create would be this. Is the Senator from Wisconsin, with his familiarity with American politics and American fundraising, generally of the belief that people who are now contributing $100,000 or $250,000 contributions, because they are advocating some perspective in American politics, when you pass this law, you are going to sit at home and say: You know, I guess I'm just not going to be heard; I'm going to remove myself from the process because that's the right thing to do? I think the Senator from Wisconsin must at least be suspicious that that money, that same check, is going to work itself into Americans for Tax Justice or one of these other 70 organizations that are engaged in this political advertising. It may not happen, as the Senator has appropriately written the bill, that a Member of Congress or a political party leader calls one of these contributors and says: Send your check to so-and-so. But certainly the Senator is aware it will not be very hard for political leaders to divert this money by a wink or a nod or some smile in the right direction, and we are going to end up, instead, having these surrogate organizations running these campaigns. Mr. FEINGOLD. I further ask the question--I do appreciate these answers--I think when you look at the tough provisions we put in this bill, although nothing is ever perfectly complete if somebody is willing to violate the law and take their chances, but what we are talking about here is corporate executives, CEOs, who now give money directly to political parties, taking the chance of running afoul of these new criminal laws. I have this chart. It is a list of all the soft money double givers. These are corporations that have given over $150,000 to both sides. Under the Senator's logic, these very same corporations--Philip Morris, Joseph Seagram, RJR Nabisco, BankAmerica Corporation--each of these would continue making the same amount of contributions; they would take the chance of violating the law by doing this in coordination with or at the suggestion of the parties, and they would calmly turn over the same kind of cash to others, be it left-wing or right-wing independent groups? I have to say--and I will finish my question--I am skeptical that if they cannot hand the check directly to the political party leaders, they will take those chances. I share your suspicions about some group trying to funnel this money. There is no question that some of that will happen. But wouldn't you concede there has to be some serious risk, in our soft money ban, for these corporations to pull this kind of a stunt? Mr. TORRICELLI. Reclaiming my time, I do not doubt there are some people who will not participate in doing so. But in what is a rising tide of soft money contributions in the country, they will be overwhelmed by people who will because it is not illegal. It will not be illegal. It will be fundamentally clear which of these affiliated organizations each political party supports and favors. It certainly is not going to be lost upon many donors that the Democratic Party looks favorably upon the Sierra Club or NARAL. I doubt that any major Republican contributor is not going to understand that Grover Norquis

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1999--Resumed
(Senate - October 15, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S12660-S12681] BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1999--Resumed Amendment No. 2298 (Purpose: To provide a complete substitute) Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for himself, Mr. Torricelli, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. Kerry, proposes an amendment numbered 2298. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'') Amendment No. 2299 To Amendment No. 2298 Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment numbered 2299 to amendment No. 2298. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'') The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Thomas Paine, the famed orator of the American Revolution, once offered an explanation for why corrupt systems last so long. He said: A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises, at first, a formidable cry in defense of custom. That is certainly true of the way we pay for campaigns in this country. Our reliance on special interest money to run political campaigns is such an old habit that for a long time it had the superficial appearance of being right but not anymore. While there is still a vocal minority who deny it, a clear majority in this Congress, and an overwhelming majority of the American people, know that our current campaign finance system is broken. The American people understand that special-interest money too often determines who runs, who wins, and how they govern. Opponents of change tell us that no one cares much about campaign finance reform. I believe they're mistaken. I believe the tide has turned. Instead of hearing a ``formidable cry in defense of custom,'' to use Tom Paine's expression, what we are hearing now is a growing demand for change. One of the newest voices demanding change belongs to a group of more than 200 CEOs of major corporations. They call themselves the Committee for Economic Development, and many of them are Republican. They're pushing for a ban on soft money because, they say, they're ``tired of being shaken down'' by politicians looking for campaign contributions. They, like the rest of America, will be watching this debate, Mr. President. Another reason I believe the tide has turned is because this election cycle has gotten off to such an ominous start. At both the Presidential and congressional level, we are on pace to shatter all previous records. During the first six months of this year, soft money donations--the unlimited, unregulated contributions to political parties--were already 80 percent above where they were at this point in the last Presidential election cycle, in 1995. There really are no limits any more, Mr. President. We all know that. The current system is more loophole than law. Opponents argue that our Constitution forbids us from correcting the worst abuses in the system. I disagree with their pinched interpretation of our Constitution. In any case, I believe our conscience demands that we at least try to fix the system. And so during this debate, Senator Torricelli and I, and others, will offer the Shays-Meehan plan. As I said, I have great admiration and respect for what Senator Feingold and Senator McCain have attempted to achieve. But I believe we can--and must--go further than their bill now allows. Shays-Meehan is fair. It does not place one party or another at an advantage. It treats incumbents and challengers in both parties fairly. Shays-Meehan is bipartisan. Shays-Meehan is passable. It has already passed the House. It is signable. The President will sign it into law. Most importantly, Shays-Meehan is comprehensive. Not only does it ban unregulated ``soft money'' to political parties--the biggest loophole in the current system--it also prevents soft money from being re- channeled to outside groups for phony ``issue ads.'' This is critically important, Mr. President. Spending on sham ``issue ads'' by advocacy groups and special interests more than doubled between the '96 and '98 election cycles--to somewhere between $275 million and $340 million. A 1997 study by the respected Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found that phony ``issue ads'' are nearly identical to campaign ads--with two exceptions. The ``issue ads'' are more attack-oriented and personal. And, it is harder to identify the sponsor. These ads epitomize the negative campaigning--without any accountability--the public so dislikes. Shays-Meehan closes the ``issue ad'' loophole. It does so by applying existing rules to ads targeting specific candidates that are run by advocacy groups within 60 days of an election. It does not silence anyone. It merely says, if you want to participate in the election process, you have to follow the rules. In addition to closing the ``soft money'' and ``issue ad'' loopholes, Shays-Meehan makes two other important changes. First, it provides for expanded and speedier disclosure of both campaign contributions and expenditures--plus, stiffer penalties for anyone who violates the requirements. Second, it bans direct and indirect foreign contributions to political campaigns. Shays-Meehan won a bipartisan majority in the other body, Mr. President. It deserves the same in this Senate. When a person gives money to a judge who is deciding his case, we call that bribery. But when special interests give money to politicians who vote on bills that help or hurt them, we call that ``business as usual.'' Some mistakenly call it ``free speech.'' Let's be very clear: Shays-Meehan is not an attack on free speech. It advances free speech by ensuring that those with the biggest checkbooks are not the only voices that are heard. Shays-Meehan represents extraordinarily modest reforms. It doesn't fix every problem with our current system. But it bans the worst excesses. It is not a panacea. But it is a credible and necessary first step in rebuilding people's trust in government. I have no doubt we will hear a great deal over the next few days about abuses of the current system. [[Page S12661]] There are abuses--on both sides of the aisle. That's why we're having this debate. But it's not enough just to decry the abuses. If you're really outraged by the abuses, fix the system that invites them. Defenders of the status quo have tried to dissuade some of us from supporting real reform by warning how much it might cost us in lost campaign contributions. What about how much the current system costs us in lost credibility? Listen to this quote: Senators and Representatives, faced incessantly with the need to raise ever more funds to fuel their campaigns, can scarcely avoid weighing every decision against the question ``How will this affect my fundraising prospects.'' rather than ``How will this affect the national interest?'' Do you know who said that? It wasn't some Pollyanna progressive. That was Barry Goldwater, in 1995. And even if we don't make those kinds of calculations, it doesn't matter. No one has to prove that money influences our votes. It's damaging enough that people believe money influences our votes. There are other ways the current system costs us as well. Like the cost of endless fundraising. The demeaning, demanding money chase. In 1998, it cost an average of $4.9 million to run a successful Senate campaign. To raise that kind of money, you have to bring nearly $16,000 a week, every week, for 6 years. That is the minimum it takes. Some people have to raise twice that much. And we all know what that means. It means we spend hours and hours in campaign offices, dialing for dollars, instead of doing what people sent us here to do. It means running to fundraisers every night--sometimes two and three a night--instead of working on problems that affect families--or maybe just having dinner every once in a while with our own families. But the biggest cost of the current system is the cynicism it produces in people. The American people are disgusted, and they feel disenfranchised, by the current system. Every election cycle, the amount of money goes up, and voting goes down. Defenders of the status quo say we need soft money for ``party building'' activities--like ``get out the vote'' drives. If you really want to get out the vote, get the money out of politics! Pass Shays-Meehan. We expect opponents will use every procedural trick and advantage they can think of to try to block any real reform. They will offer amendments not to strengthen our proposal, but to sink it. They should know: The American people understand that game. They can tell the differences between protecting principles, and protecting partisan advantage. We make this pledge at the beginning of this debate: If Shays-Meehan does not pass, we will do everything we can to build a coalition for real reform. We will work with Senator Feingold and Senator McCain to strengthen their proposal and make it, once again, a comprehensive plan. When you read the history of campaign finance, one of the names that stands out is Mark Hanna. U.S. Senator. Wealthy businessman. Ohio political boss. And head, at the turn of the last century, of his national political party. Mark Hanna is widely credited with being the father of systemic campaign fundraising techniques. He introduced the concept, for instance, of regularly assessing businesses for contributions to his party, based on their ``share in the general prosperity.'' He also introduced the first modern political advertising operation. In 1895, Mark Hanna remarked that ``there are two things that are important in politics. The first is money--and I can't remember what the second one is.'' Mr. President, I believe Senator Hanna got it wrong. Money isn't the most important thing in politics. Integrity is. Integrity is essential to democracy. Without integrity we lose public confidence. And without public confidence, a democratic government loses its ability to function. We all know--whether we will admit it or not--that the current system is broken. I hope we can work together. I hope we can come up with a comprehensive, workable plan to fix it. The currency of politics should be ideas--not cash. Cloture Motions Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send two cloture motions to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. The legislative clerk read as follows: Cloture Motion We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Daschle amendment, No. 2298, to S. 1593: Tom Daschle, Chuck Robb, Mary L. Landrieu, Joseph Lieberman, Jack Reed, Max Baucus, Barbara Boxer, Richard H. Bryan, Jeff Bingaman, Tim Johnson, Harry Reid, Robert G. Torricelli, Blanche L. Lincoln, Dianne Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, Richard J. Durbin, Daniel K. Akaka, Ron Wyden, Byron L. Dorgan, and Tom Harkin. Cloture Motion The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second cloture motion. The legislative clerk read as follows: Cloture Motion We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reid of Nevada amendment No. 2299: Tom Daschle, Chuck Robb, Barbara Boxer, Joseph Lieberman, Jack Reed, Richard H. Bryan, Jeff Bingaman, Tim Johnson, Harry Reid, Blanche L. Lincoln, Dianne Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, Richard J. Durbin, Daniel K. Akaka, Ron Wyden, Byron L. Dorgan, Tom Harkin, and Barbara Mikulski. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the amendment offered by the minority leader and the Senator from New Jersey. As you know, this amendment is almost identical to the Shays-Meehan bill that passed the House of Representatives by a decisive, bipartisan vote of 252-177. It is time for the Senate to show the same courage and pass this important legislation. as I enter my eleventh political campaign and my fourth California statewide election, I am one who knows a little about the dynamics of campaigning in expensive races. In the 1990 race for Governor, I had to raise about $23 million. In the first race the Senate, $8 million; in the second race, $14 million. In 1994, my opponent spent nearly $30 million in his attempt to defeat me. My experiences have led me to believe that the current campaign finance system is badly flawed and in need of overhaul. Since 1976, the first election after the last major revision of campaign finance laws, the average cost of a winning Senate race went from $609,000 to $3.8 million in 1998. The average cost for a winning House candidate rose from $87,000 in 1976 to $679,000 in 1998. Campaigns in 2000 are very different than they were in 1976. Clearly, our campaign finance system must be reformed to reflect these differences. I have been a strong supporter of federal campaign finance reform since my first election to the Senate. Campaigns simply cost too much and it is long past time that Congress does something about it. I believe very strongly that this will be the final real opportunity this millennium to make significant structural reforms to our campaign finance system. Two of the fundamental changes that I believe must be made are a complete ban on soft money contributions to political parties and making independent campaign ads subject to contribution limits and disclosure requirements as are a candidate's campaign ads. While I have a great deal of respect for the persistence the Senators from Arizona and Wisconsin have demonstrated in pushing the Senate to act on campaign finance reform, I am concerned that the underlying bill, S. 1953, is too narrow to constitute a real reform of the campaign finance system. Banning soft money without addressing issue advocacy will simply redirect the flow of undisclosed money in campaigns. Instead of giving soft money to [[Page S12662]] political parties, the same dollars will be turned into ``independent'' ads. The issues of soft money ban and independent advertisements go hand in hand and one can not be addressed without the other. soft money ban The ability of corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to give unlimited amounts of soft money to political parties is the largest single loophole in the current campaign finance structure. The lack of restrictions on soft money enables anonymous individuals and anonymous organizations to play a major role in campaigns. They can hit hard and no one knows from where the hit is coming. The form that soft money is increasingly taking is negative, attack ads that distort, mislead, and misrepresent a candidates position on issues. These ads have become the scourge of the electoral process. This is the third time in as many years that the Senate has had the opportunity to pass meaningful campaign finance legislation. Last year, a minority of Senators blocked its passage and they appear poised to do so again. The consequence of this action is clear: voters will continue to become disenchanted with the political process and the flow of money into campaigns and the access it buys will continue to grow. The numbers speak for themselves. According to the Federal Election Commission, the Republican party raised $131 million in soft money during the 1998 election cycle. That is a 149 percent increase over the last mid-term election in 1994. The Democratic party is not much better. We raised $91.5 million, a 89 percent increase. Soft money contributions are continuing to rise. In the first 6 months of this year, Republicans raised $30.9 million. 42 percent more than in the first six months of the 1997-98 election cycle. Democrats raised $26.4 million, a 93 percent increase. One organization, Public Citizen, estimates that soft money spending this election cycle will exceed $500 million. That is double the amount spent in the last presidential election cycle and six times as much as in 1992. At some point this escalation of campaign spending has got to stop. We simply cannot continue down this path. A complete ban on soft money contributions to political parties is the first and most basic way to reduce the amount of money in our campaigns. issue advocacy That brings me to the other disturbing trend in the American political system: the rise of issue advocacy. This campaign loophole allows unions, corporations, and wealthy individuals to influence elections without being subject to disclosure or expenditure restrictions. During last year's debate, I mentioned a study released by the Annenberg Public Policy Center that estimated that during the 1995-96 election cycle independent groups spent between $135 and $150 million on issue advocacy. The Center has done a similar study for the 1997-98 cycle and the result is quite disturbing. They estimate that the amount spent on issue advocacy more than doubled to between $275 million and $340 million. These ads do not use the so-called ``magic words'' that the Supreme Court identified as express advocacy and, therefore, are not subject to FEC regulation. The Annenberg study found, however, that 53.4 percent of the issue ads mentioned a candidate up for election. The Center found another unfortunate twist to issue advocacy. Prior to September 1, 1998, that is in the first 22 months of the election cycle, only 35.3 percent of issue ads mentioned a candidate and 81.3 percent of the ads referred to a piece of legislation or a regulatory issue. After September 1, 1998, during the last 2 months of the campaign, a dramatic shift occurred. The proportion of ads naming specific candidates rose to 80.1 percent and those mentioning legislation fell to 21.6 percent. A similar shift can be seen in terms of attack ads. Prior to September 1, 33.7 percent of all ads were attack oriented. After September 1, over half were. These findings clearly demonstrate that as election day gets closer, issue ads become more candidate oriented and more negative. This kind of unregulated attack advertisements are poisoning the process and driving voters away from the polls. The amendment offered by the minority leader defines ``express advocacy'' communications as advocating election or defeat of candidate by: First, using explicit phrases, words, or slogans that have no other reasonable meaning than influence elections; second, referring to a candidate in a paid radio or TV broadcast ad that runs within 60 days of election; or third, expressing unmistakable, unambiguous election advocacy. This provision draws a clear line between true issue advertising and electioneering activities. It is an important part of any real reform effort and I applaud the minority leader for seeing that we have an opportunity to vote on it. other issues This amendment also contains a number of important issues that are not contained in the underlying bill. I understand the sponsors of the bill removed them in an attempt to force a straight up or down vote on the soft money ban. I do feel, however, that some of these provisions will significantly improve the campaign finance system and are worth mentioning. The bill mandates electronic filing; allows the FEC to conduct random audits of campaigns within 12 months of an election; makes it easier for the FEC to initiate enforcement action; and increases penalties for knowing and willful violations of election law. This amendment would lower the threshold for disclosure of contributions from $200 to $50. It would prevent candidates from depositing contributions of $200 if the disclosure requirements are not complete. It would also require the FEC to post contribution information on the Internet within 24 hours of receipt. These are commonsense steps to making our elections more open to the public. Voters are increasingly feeling cut out of the political process. By allowing an open window into our campaigns, we can begin the process of reconnecting with voters. In closing, Mr. President, I want to again thank the Senators from Arizona and Wisconsin. Without their leadership on this issue we would not have come as far as we have. This body is now faced with a choice. We have been at this same point several times in the last couple of years and each time we have failed to act and each time the American public has grown more cynical and lost more confidence in their government. With the passing of every election, it becomes more and more clear that our campaign system desperately needs reform. I remain hopeful that this is the year that Congress can finally come together in support of legislation that brings about a real improvement in our campaign system. Let's make the first election of the twenty-first century one of which we can be proud. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that I cannot support this amendment at this time. I want to make it clear why. The amendment would essentially restore all of the provisions of S. 26, which is the original McCain-Feingold legislation to this bill. I still support those provisions and strongly believe that most, if not all, should be enacted into law. Now is not the time to do so. My good friend, Russ Feingold, and I spent much time debating as to how we could move forward on the subject of campaign finance reform. We, along with many others who have supported this effort for many years, came to the conclusion that some reform is better than no reform. Unfortunately, if this amendment is adopted, a political point will be made, but reform will be doomed, and the sponsors of this present amendment are very well aware of that. We all know there are 52 votes for S. 26. We all know that. We went through a long period of debate and amending. We know there are 52 votes. Tell me where the additional 8 votes are for S. 26, and I will be the first to sign on and support this. I ask my dear friends who just propounded what is basically McCain- Feingold, where are the votes? I think the answer is obvious. What we have tried to do in proposing a ban on soft money and a codification of that is to start a process [[Page S12663]] which has succeeded in this great deliberative body over many years with amendments and disposal of amendments, up or down, and improving the bill but letting the Senate work its will. We have already picked up one additional vote. I am told there are other Members on this side of the aisle who are considering supporting this legislation. But it is also clear that those same people who are leaning towards supporting would not vote for S. 26 in its entirety because of their strongly held--although I don't agree, I respect their views--view that the independent campaign aspect of the original McCain-Feingold has constitutional difficulties associated with it. We know the facts. We need 60 votes to prevail, and 52, while a majority, is not enough and will not be until the rules of the Senate are changed where 51 votes are necessary for passage. For some time, I hoped that my colleagues who oppose reform would allow a majority in both bodies to prevail and do what the vast majority of the American public desires. But the opponents of reform, defenders of the status quo, won't cede their rights. I have learned from previous debates on other matters not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The bill before the Senate represents a modest step but a very important step forward. I want to emphasize that point again. If we can pass the underlying bill, we will have made an extremely important and vitally needed step forward. There is no observer of this issue of campaign finance reform who does not disagree that banning of soft money would have an important and salutary effect on the evils and ills of the present campaign finance system. There is no objective observer, whether they are for or against campaign finance reform, who would deny that the single act about allowing soft money would have a significant effect on the present system. Do I personally desire that a more comprehensive bill be passed into law? Yes. In my 16 years in the Congress, I have learned to be a realist. Simply put, if this amendment is accepted, campaign finance reform will be dead. There will be no reform this year and most likely next year. During that period, I am sure that more loopholes in the current system will be found and exploited. Public cynicism will have grown and, unfortunately, nothing will have changed except the same political points will have been made once again and, undoubtedly, more and more money will be awash in our political process. The New York Times had it right on 14 October. Let me quote: An important but little-noticed boost was given to campaign finance reform in the Senate this week. Sam Brownback of Kansas became the eighth Republican to break with his party's leadership and support the McCain-Feingold soft-money ban, scheduled for debate today. There are now 53 votes to choke off a Republican-led filibuster and pass the bill, only seven votes short of what is needed. The pressure is mounting on other Republicans to support reform. But amid these favorable developments, a move by Robert Torricelli and some other Democratic supporters of reform could undercut the cause. The risk is posed by a Democratic attempt to block Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold from advancing a stripped- down version of their reform legislation. The new McCain- Feingold bill would omit a section preventing independent groups from raising unlimited money for sham campaign ads two months before an election. Some Republicans say that because that section threatens free speech, they cannot go along with the central objective of reform, which is to ban unlimited donations to campaigns waged by political parties. Shrinking the bill to a simple soft-money ban for parties has paid off. Senator Brownback is on board and other Senate Republicans may follow. Mr. Torricelli and the Democratic Senate leader, Tom Daschle, are nonetheless determined today to scrap the new McCain-Feingold bill and substitute the original bill, with the limits on independent groups. This is a serious tactical mistake that raises questions about the Democrats' commitment to campaign finance reform. They ought to know that the bill they are pushing does not have the votes to break a filibuster, whereas the revised McCain-Feingold bill has a chance of getting them. It would be especially grievous if their move played into the destructive tactics of Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other Republican foes of reform. Mr. McConnell might even try to deliver enough votes for the Democratic move, allowing it to pass because in the end the bill in that form will surely die. Some Democrats, noting that the House passed its broader Shays-Meehan reform last month, warn that a narrower bill in the Senate will not survive either. But Mr. Brownback's courageous move makes it worth a try. Mr. President, I think the New York Times has it right. I think we should determine that this would be viewed by many as a cynical ploy which would assure the failure of campaign finance reform. I believe we need to vote down this amendment, return to what has given those who have been laboring on this issue for many years, some optimism, and to go back to a process where there are amendments on the specific issues. If we correctly debate and amend this issue, each one of those provisions of the original provisions of McCain-Feingold will be brought up for consideration, voted, and the body will work its will. It is abundantly clear that if this amendment is adopted, it is the end of campaign finance reform. Have no doubt about the effect of this amendment. No one should have any doubt about the effect of this amendment. I hope that is well understood by Americans all over this country who have committed themselves, people such as ``Granny D,'' who yesterday visited with me and Senator Feingold. She has walked across this country. People have committed themselves to reforming this system. People such as her all over America deserve better than what is being done with this amendment. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey. Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, every Senator who has taken the floor has given the appropriate compliments to Senator Feingold and Senator McCain. I will be no exception. Congress has been considering campaign finance reform for more than a decade. There have been, by my estimation, 3,000 speeches made on the floor of the Senate for campaign finance reform, some 6,500 pages of Congressional Record, 300 pieces of legislation. Indeed, we would not be at this moment without Senator Feingold or Senator McCain. They deserve that credit. I found their arguments in recent years so persuasive that I am today joining Senator Daschle in presenting their own legislation. The original McCain-Feingold bill, which found its way to the House of Representatives, is before the Senate now as the Shays-Meehan legislation. Similar in content and purpose, it is comprehensive campaign finance reform. Regarding advocacy of that reform, I take a second place to no Member in my years in the Congress. I have never voted against campaign finance reform, and I never will. I believe the integrity of this system of government and the confidence of the American people is at issue. It is not by chance that only a third of the American people are participating in some elections. Even in the choice of the Presidency of the United States, with those not registered and those not choosing to vote in many of our localities and States, half of the American people are not participating. It is not that they do not recognize the choice is important. I do not believe they have a lack of confidence in our country. They do not respect the process because they believe they do not have an equal position, and it is money that is the heart of that problem. When we entered into this new phase of campaign finance reform 2 years ago, along with most Members of this institution, I had great ambitions for how far we could go with reform. Indeed, in private conversation, almost every Member of this Senate knows the fundamentals of comprehensive reform. We started with such ambition. We were going to subject all independent advocacy groups in issue advertising to the rules of the FEC. We were going to require full and immediate disclosure by all contributors. We were going to ban soft money to the political parties. We were going to prohibit foreign interests. We were going to reduce the cost of television time. We even discussed the subsidies of mail to inform voters. One by one almost every one of these reforms has been eliminated from the legislation. Political cultures in all of our States are different. In my State, in Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas, and California, I don't believe [[Page S12664]] real campaign finance reform is possible without reducing the cost of television advertising. There is a reason for the spiraling rise of campaign spending; it is the cost of television advertising. In each of the large metropolitan areas, 90 percent of the money goes to feed the television networks. That was the first reform to be eliminated. Then there was the advocacy of subsidized mail. It went the way of public finance--one by one by one. Yet, because the need for reform is so overwhelming and the public confidence is so much in question, I joined in the last Congress with Senator McCain and Senator Feingold and reluctantly supported their legislation. Although I believe these critical provisions for the reduced cost of television advertising were essential for reform in my area of the country, I joined in support of the McCain-Feingold. That was to be followed by the House of Representatives which reached the same judgment in a historic vote for Shays-Meehan. That brings the Senate to this moment. In a frustration I share with other advocates of campaign finance reform, the mantra of the day has become: Do something, do anything. Pass some legislation. Call it reform. Let's put the problem behind us. If only it were so easy. The new legislation presented by Senators McCain and Feingold has a single objective: to eliminate soft money fundraising from Democratic and Republican Parties. It is a worthwhile objective, but it does raise the prospect that if passed it will eliminate the chance to have any further campaign finance reform. If history is any guide, every decade we get one chance to redesign this system. We are largely still governed by the Watergate reforms of 1974. Through a series of court rulings and FEC decisions, they clearly are no longer producing a system that was once envisioned. If we institute but this single change, we will not create a new system of our design but, in my judgment, be governed by the law of unintended consequences. Let's look for a moment at this new national campaign system. If Senator Daschle and I fail and the House of Representatives legislation in Shays-Meehan is rejected and instead we adopt this very narrow reform as envisioned by Senators McCain and Feingold, we eliminate soft money fundraising by the political parties, but it is maintained for issue advocacy and independent expenditures. The principal rise in campaign advertising in recent years is not the political parties; it is this independent advocacy expenditure. This chart tells the story. In 1998, the Democratic and Republican Parties spent $64 million in issue advocacy spending; nonparty advocacy groups spent $276 million, rising at a rate of 300 percent cycle to cycle. In my hand I have the list of 70 advocacy groups. It begins alphabetically with the AFL-CIO and ends with the Vietnam Veterans. In between are many organizations I support and believe have a worthwhile contribution to the national political debate; some I note I do not believe have great contributions to the political debate. But they are all heard--in the last election cycle, $276 million worth of advocacy. The legislation before the Senate by Senators Feingold and McCain does nothing about the expenditures, nothing. Nothing. Many exist as nonprofit tax-free organizations under the IRS Code. From whom they raise money is unknown. As to the sources of their contributions, no one in this Senate could attest. They often exist before the public eye as names that misrepresent their purpose and are designed to shield their objectives. They are not just a part of the national political advertising debate; they are coming to dominate it. What is this new campaign finance world that will be produced if Senator Daschle and I fail and the House of Representatives Shays- Meehan legislation is rejected? A national political debate that is fought by surrogates. The Democratic and Republican Parties will be within FEC rules, raising money only at $1,000 per person, $50 a person, $100 a person--a good system, where every name will be known, limits will be imposed to reasonable amounts. But over our heads will be a far larger contest fought by the AFL-CIO, with millions more dollars of expenditures, the Christian Coalition, anti-abortion groups, chemical companies, automobile companies, steel companies, that will spend millions, indeed, if history now is any guide, hundreds of millions of dollars of advocacy. Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. TORRICELLI. I will be happy to yield. Mr. REID. Yesterday, in a colloquy I had with the senior Senator from Arizona, we established that in the very sparsely populated State of Nevada, in the last general election--I was a candidate, Harry Reid, running for election, and John Ensign, Congressman Ensign, was running for my seat--we spent over $20 million in our direct campaigns and in the soft money. That is established. You can determine how much that is. The Senator would acknowledge that; is that right? Mr. TORRICELLI. I would. Mr. REID. Yet to this day, a year after the election, we do not know how much money was spent by these outside groups you are talking about, the NRA, the League of Conservation Voters, the truckers---- Mr. TORRICELLI. You don't know how much was spent or who spent it? Mr. REID. No; nor where their money came from. Is that the point the Senator is making? Mr. TORRICELLI. It is the central point. The proper system is the full disclosures we have for the Democratic and Republican Parties; limit those political parties just to these hard money contributions within the law, but extend that to all Americans who participate in the national political debate. The fact that my colleague, as a Senator, has accounted for every dollar he has raised, and he did so within limits, but these major groups enter his State either on his behalf or against his candidacy, yet my colleague doesn't know who they are or where their money is coming from and to whom they are accountable, is the heart of the problem. Mr. REID. I say to my friend from New Jersey, in the election that was held in the State of Nevada last year, Congressman Ensign and Senator Reid never really campaigned because of all the outside influences. Our campaigns were buried in all these independent expenditures and State party expenditures. At least with my campaign, and that of the State party, anyone in the world can find out how much money was spent. But for the independent expenditures, no one in the world can find out what money was spent. Mr. TORRICELLI. I point out to the Senator from Nevada, this is not simply a problem with our adversaries; sometimes it is a problem with our allies. When I go to the people of New Jersey, I want to present to them who I am and what I want to do, what my record is as a Senator. Groups whose support I am very proud of--AFL-CIO, National Abortion Rights League, Sierra Club, environmental groups--I am proud to have their support, but I don't want them presenting my campaign. Under the system that would be in place if Shays-Meehan were rejected, the political parties would be further restricted from advertising. I think they should be restricted with soft money. But if these advocacy groups were to take over, they would hijack your campaign; they would tell the people of your State what you were for and what you were against. It is not only your adversaries who will be out there presenting a campaign against you with these enormous amounts of money, it is even your allies who are not so restricted. Mr. REID. I say to my friend, in the election of 1986, when Senator Bryan was elected to the Senate, he was a sitting Governor at the time. At that time, there were these ads that came from nowhere, hundreds of thousands of dollars of ads in the State of Nevada. These ads were talking about Social Security. One would think these ads were run by some organization that had some concern about Social Security. We learned later that those ads were being paid for by foreign auto dealers--talking about the United States of America's Social Security plan. That is what happens when these groups have unfettered, unrestricted ability to spend money on any subject they want for any cause they want. [[Page S12665]] Mr. TORRICELLI. Let me say to the Senator from Nevada, that is not atypical. Health care in this country has been undermined by advocacy of insurance companies whose principal interest is not the delivery of quality health care to people who are currently uninsured, but they stand behind these blind advertising campaigns where no one knows where the money comes from. Just as in the campaign of my colleague from Nevada, we have polluters who are running ads on environmental protection; we have people on consumer safety who are representing groups that are damaging to individual consumers. That is because none of these groups is disclosable and none is accountable. In the current system, bad as it is, while these groups can run these advertising campaigns, the political parties are also raising soft money and there is a chance to answer them. Now the political parties will no longer be able to raise these funds, but these advocacy groups will continue in an upward spiral of spending. Senator Daschle's point is, let's eliminate this gross fundraising and these soft money expenditures across the board within 60 days of an election by putting everybody under the FEC rules. Senator McCain has said, ``But that will not pass.'' It may not. But it passed in the House of Representatives, and 60 Republicans came to join with the Democratic majority in passing it. We are not 20 or 30 or 40 votes from passing it in the Senate, we are 7 or 8. I would come back here every week of every month of every year until we restored the integrity of this Government and got comprehensive campaign finance reform. But the answer is not to lower our ambitions for campaign finance reform, to have a new, distorted system to make American politics fought by surrogates over the heads of candidates. The answer is to remain committed to this reform, reveal to the American people who is voting against it, who is stopping it, and let the American people decide. Mr. REID. I say to my friend in conclusion--and I appreciate his allowing me to ask him a question or two--first of all, I hope beyond all hope the Shays-Meehan bill passes. That is the amendment that has been filed by our leader, the Democratic leader. I hope that passes. I am going to do everything I can to make sure that passes. I hope we have Republicans of goodwill who will support that legislation. I have offered another amendment that would eliminate soft money. I respect and appreciate what the Senator from New Jersey has said. Certainly there is merit to what he said. But I believe, as I think does most everyone in the Democratic conference, that even if Shays- Meehan for some reason fails, there will be a significant number of us, out of desperation regarding the system that is so bad in this country, who will support the so-called soft money ban. I hope we do not get to that. I hope Shays-Meehan passes. The Senator makes a compelling case for what might happen. I hope something short of that will happen and the soft money ban will bring some reality to the system. Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Nevada. I note the problems of which I speak are not theoretical. Groups are already adjusting to the possibility that there will be a soft money ban in the political parties but no Shays-Meehan reform. They therefore are adjusting to this new reality. Let me give an example. Congressman DeLay has now formed a group, Citizens For A Republican Congress. He has gone to the wealthiest donors in the Nation, promising them a safe haven for anonymous and limitless contributions to the 2000 elections. He is reportedly planning on spending $25 to $30 million in 30 competitive House races in soft money. So Congressman DeLay will now, if this happens in the Democratic and Republican Parties, personally be directing a larger advertising campaign than the Democratic or Republican Parties in either House of Congress. The former advisers to Congressman DeLay are also forming a Republican issues majority committee, which is planning on spending $25 million. Already in a previous cycle, in the 1996 cycle, Americans for Tax Reform received $4.6 million from the Republican National Committee that they were able to spend on issue advocacy. United Seniors Association spent $3 million in direct mail in seven States in the 1996 election. They are an IRS tax-exempt 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. U.S. Term Limits, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charitable organization, spent $1.8 million in 1996; Americans for Limited Terms, $1.8 million in seven States; American Renewal, $400,000, a 501(c)(3). These are charitable organizations. The Tax Code has these provisions for people who want to help churches, synagogues, and Americans who are hurt and damaged, and to help build communities. They are being used as a cover for political advertising and no longer simply a force on the fringes of American politics. Look at the chart I have on my left: 1998 elections. Nonparty advocacy groups are two-thirds of all the issue ads in U.S. politics. The political parties, Democratic and Republican Parties, are one- third. If the sum total of the legislation offered by Mr. McCain and Mr. Feingold is that we will largely eliminate this third, when a Senator stands here a year from now going over this same problem, this entire pie chart will be advocacy groups, many of them tax-free organizations that are hiding who is contributing to them, who is running them, where their money is coming from, often using disguised names and running surrogate campaigns over the heads of political candidates. Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. TORRICELLI. I will be happy to yield to the Senator. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from New Jersey has the floor and has agreed to yield for a question from the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me ask a question, if I can, about the chart I believe he has up at this time. Is the Senator from New Jersey aware the $276 million estimate of issue advertising in the 1998 cycle, which the Senator has there I believe, includes all issue advertising, not just ads that are so-called phony issue ads? Is the Senator aware this chart actually covers all issue ads? Mr. TORRICELLI. I think I said it covers all. Mr. FEINGOLD. It covers the Harry and Louise type of ads, tobacco ads and ads just related to bills that do not have anything to do with campaigns directly. Mr. TORRICELLI. It covers all of those. I do not see that because they are dealing with an issue, they are not otherwise intending to influence an election. Mr. FEINGOLD. Fair enough. I wanted to establish that. The chart the Senator from New Jersey is using relates to an entire election cycle, a 2-year period, and it covers all sorts of ads. That means all kinds of true issue ads and so-called phony issue ads, as well as political party ads, are included in his chart. All three categories are in there. That is the basis on which he makes his argument. Is he aware the Shays-Meehan bill--which, of course, Senator McCain and I essentially wrote in the first place--that he has offered as an amendment would have no effect on any ad aired before the last 2 months of an election campaign? Mr. TORRICELLI. I am aware of it, and if it was my design, I would have it apply to issue advocacy ads throughout the calendar so everyone is equal. To quote Senator McCain, making the perfect the enemy of the good, if it is your argument that because I cannot bring all issue advocacy under FEC hard money limits, therefore we should do none, that, I think, is to surrender the point and we will not make any progress. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if the Senator will further yield, that is very interesting because it is essentially the same argument the Senator from New Jersey is using against the McCain-Feingold approach at this time which is, unless you do it all, it is not worth doing some because the soft money would flow to outside groups. Mr. TORRICELLI. My argument is, I believe, the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona are making a premature retreat. I concede [[Page S12666]] there may not be 60 votes in the Senate today for comprehensive campaign finance reform, but I do believe there is mounting public pressure. I believe Senators who vote against comprehensive campaign finance reform, who will vote against us on cloture on the amendment offered by Senator Daschle, are accountable to the people in their States. In the House of Representatives 2 years ago, the passage of comprehensive campaign finance reform was equally unlikely. Sixty Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with Democrats for real reform. These numbers are untenable. You cannot explain to the American people that you allow this charade to continue of people hiding behind these groups and spending $1 million, $100,000 contributions that are not accountable. I respect the Senator's work, but I believe we would do better to remain on this. I believe, in the alternative, you are going to establish a system where these groups dominate American politics as you silence the political parties. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield for a question? Mr. TORRICELLI. I would, but Senator Bennett is standing. If we could go to him next. Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding for a question, and I precede the question with a comment that I think the Senator from New Jersey is doing us a very worthwhile service in pointing out the reality of the world in which we would live if soft money were banned for political parties but not for everybody else. I agree with the Senator from New Jersey, absolutely in his words, when he says the debate would be fought by surrogates which would take place over our heads, a far larger context. I ask the Senator to give us his opinion of what would happen if Shays-Meehan, which he is endorsing, were to pass and then the Supreme Court were to strike down as unconstitutional the ban on issue ads by outside groups? Would that not, in fact, then leave us with the situation which the Senator from New Jersey is decrying, I think appropriately, as a bad system? Mr. TORRICELLI. Senator Bennett raises a very worthwhile point. Indeed, as Senator McConnell has noted in a number of cases, this is all an interesting debate. There are various sides trying to do good things, but the last word is in the Supreme Court, and, indeed, whether or not the Supreme Court will allow us to ban issue advocacy through soft money contributions to advocacy groups or even the political parties remains a question. If the Senator's point is correct, we could end up in the same place with, I will concede to you, the current McCain-Feingold if the Court were to do so. Senator McConnell has also pointed out it is a question of whether the Court will allow us to maintain the current limits on campaign fundraising in any case. Senators who vote on this should be aware that the Court, before we are concluded, will change probably much of what we are writing. Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, if I can ask a further question of the Senator from New Jersey, if he is aware--I know he is aware because he is a very astute student of politics but maybe not aware enough to comment without further research--if he is aware of what has happened in the State of California where they have virtually unlimited initiative opportunities and virtually every truly contentious political issue is now decided by initiative rather than by the legislature and the amount of money that is spent in an initiative fight dwarfs any of the sums we are talking about here. In the State of California, when an initiative fight comes up over an issue, which traditionally would be handled by the State legislature, the special interests on both sides of that fight routinely go over the hundreds of millions of dollars on both sides of the fight which dwarf the amount of money spent for a senatorial or gubernatorial race in that State. I ask if the Senator is aware of some of those particulars and if he will comment on the implications of that on a national basis if we get to the point where issues are fought out by special interest groups with unlimited budgets being spent on both sides, the implications on the role of the legislature in its constitutional responsibility to control the legislative agenda. Mr. TORRICELLI. We may not be on the same side of the debate for comprehensive reform, but I think our dialog can help Senators understand the world in which we are entering, because if we, indeed, reject Shays-Meehan and only go to this narrow reform, that single adjustment is going to change the American political debate as we know it. The Senator has raised some of the means by which it will change. I will predict for the Senator the new environment in which we are going to live: The Democratic and Republican Parties that now receive great amounts of this soft money with a wink and a nod are simply going to direct it to favorite organizations. Instead of soft money contributions coming to the Republican National Committee, for example, people who are interested in a particular issue are going to give it to an advocacy group. You will never know who they are. The contribution will never be known, but the money will be redirected, and rather than leaders of the party deciding how to present the issue, those groups will do so. Second, I predict to you the Democratic and Republican Parties will establish their own independent wings, much like legally what Senator D'Amato did with the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. Down the hall, they put a new sign on the door, new incorporators, a new name, took money, and did issue advocacy. As long as you do that fully at arm's length, it is fine to do. But the same soft money you think you are banning in the parties will now go to these independent groups or affiliated groups. Unless this is done comprehensively, you are only going to have money flow in through different windows. What bothers me the most is that the people who are most honest about the process and most committed to stopping this abuse will suffer while those who are prepared to do the winks and nods, establishing the other organizations, working on some affiliated arm's-length basis will succeed. In any case, we are not going to stop this money; we are going to redirect it. The only way to stop it, in my judgment, is comprehensive reform. Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. TORRICELLI. I am happy to. Mr. FEINGOLD. I think this is an extremely useful exchange that really goes to the core question about this legislation. I want to thank the Senator from New Jersey, even though we may come to different conclusions about specific tactics in what we do here. I thank the Senator for allowing us to talk about this because this is really what it is all about. Let me first reiterate my concern and ask a question about the totality of the ads the Senator suggested on his charts. Would the Senator concede that when you are dealing with ads that simply have to do with legislation, prior to 60 days, let's say, for example--the kind of tobacco ads we have seen; the ads we have seen about the Patients' Bill of Rights, the so-called Harry and Louise ads during the health care debate--there is no way under either Shays- Meehan or under McCain-Feingold, or even under any other legislation, we could prohibit those ads? Is that something with which the Senator would agree? Mr. TORRICELLI. I think it is difficult to know how the Supreme Court is going to deal with all of this. But certainly, if you get outside the 60 days and you are attempting to bring people under FEC regulations for issue advocacy outside of the 60 days, your case will clearly be weakened. Mr. FEINGOLD. I am specifically talking here about ads that do not talk about elections at all, they are simply talking about legislation. The Senator will concede, without a constitutional amendment, we could not prohibit such ads? Mr. TORRICELLI. I don't dispute that, although, indeed, if we were really doing comprehensive reform, which seems to be lost in the Senate, frankly, I would be going to that question on disclosability and tax deductibility and people remaining in tax-free status to do so. That would be comprehensive reform. But for the purpose of the argument, I will concede the point. [[Page S12667]] Mr. FEINGOLD. Fair enough. I think that is important because we have to distinguish here between the kinds of ads we are talking about. If it is the case, as the Senator from New Jersey suggests, that banning soft money will cause money to flow to phony issue ads, I think it is also rather difficult to dispute--in fact, you seem to concede-- if we prohibit that, that the money will just flow to generic issue ads as well. Isn't that your likely scenario? Mr. TORRICELLI. That is the scenario I predict. Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me follow then to the really important question you are raising about the possibility of the attempts to evade our attempts to simply ban party soft money. I don't doubt for a minute that the Senator is right, that the attempt will be made to evade the intent of the law, and in some cases it could succeed. But is the Senator aware that the McCain-Feingold soft money ban, the bill we have introduced, will prohibit Federal candidates from raising money for these phony outside groups such as the organization that is connected with Representative DeLay? Are you aware that that provision is actually in this soft money ban? Mr. TORRICELLI. I am aware of it. And I believe it will be proven to be entirely ineffective. Mr. FEINGOLD. Are you further aware that the bill will prohibit the parties from transferring money to 501(c)(4) organizations such as Americans for Tax Reform, which you mentioned a short time ago? Mr. TORRICELLI. There would be no reason to do so. They are no longer raising soft money, so why would they need to transfer? Mr. FEINGOLD. So that route will be blocked. Mr. TORRICELLI. That route will be blocked. Instead, the environment we create would be this. Is the Senator from Wisconsin, with his familiarity with American politics and American fundraising, generally of the belief that people who are now contributing $100,000 or $250,000 contributions, because they are advocating some perspective in American politics, when you pass this law, you are going to sit at home and say: You know, I guess I'm just not going to be heard; I'm going to remove myself from the process because that's the right thing to do? I think the Senator from Wisconsin must at least be suspicious that that money, that same check, is going to work itself into Americans for Tax Justice or one of these other 70 organizations that are engaged in this political advertising. It may not happen, as the Senator has appropriately written the bill, that a Member of Congress or a political party leader calls one of these contributors and says: Send your check to so-and-so. But certainly the Senator is aware it will not be very hard for political leaders to divert this money by a wink or a nod or some smile in the right direction, and we are going to end up, instead, having these surrogate organizations running these campaigns. Mr. FEINGOLD. I further ask the question--I do appreciate these answers--I think when you look at the tough provisions we put in this bill, although nothing is ever perfectly complete if somebody is willing to violate the law and take their chances, but what we are talking about here is corporate executives, CEOs, who now give money directly to political parties, taking the chance of running afoul of these new criminal laws. I have this chart. It is a list of all the soft money double givers. These are corporations that have given over $150,000 to both sides. Under the Senator's logic, these very same corporations--Philip Morris, Joseph Seagram, RJR Nabisco, BankAmerica Corporation--each of these would continue making the same amount of contributions; they would take the chance of violating the law by doing this in coordination with or at the suggestion of the parties, and they would calmly turn over the same kind of cash to others, be it left-wing or right-wing independent groups? I have to say--and I will finish my question--I am skeptical that if they cannot hand the check directly to the political party leaders, they will take those chances. I share your suspicions about some group trying to funnel this money. There is no question that some of that will happen. But wouldn't you concede there has to be some serious risk, in our soft money ban, for these corporations to pull this kind of a stunt? Mr. TORRICELLI. Reclaiming my time, I do not doubt there are some people who will not participate in doing so. But in what is a rising tide of soft money contributions in the country, they will be overwhelmed by people who will because it is not illegal. It will not be illegal. It will be fundamentally clear which of these affiliated organizations each political party supports and favors. It certainly is not going to be lost upon many donors that the Democratic Party looks favorably upon the Sierra Club or NARAL. I doubt that any major Republican contributor is not going to understand that Grov

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1999--Resumed
(Senate - October 15, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S12660-S12681] BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1999--Resumed Amendment No. 2298 (Purpose: To provide a complete substitute) Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for himself, Mr. Torricelli, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. Kerry, proposes an amendment numbered 2298. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'') Amendment No. 2299 To Amendment No. 2298 Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment numbered 2299 to amendment No. 2298. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'') The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Thomas Paine, the famed orator of the American Revolution, once offered an explanation for why corrupt systems last so long. He said: A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises, at first, a formidable cry in defense of custom. That is certainly true of the way we pay for campaigns in this country. Our reliance on special interest money to run political campaigns is such an old habit that for a long time it had the superficial appearance of being right but not anymore. While there is still a vocal minority who deny it, a clear majority in this Congress, and an overwhelming majority of the American people, know that our current campaign finance system is broken. The American people understand that special-interest money too often determines who runs, who wins, and how they govern. Opponents of change tell us that no one cares much about campaign finance reform. I believe they're mistaken. I believe the tide has turned. Instead of hearing a ``formidable cry in defense of custom,'' to use Tom Paine's expression, what we are hearing now is a growing demand for change. One of the newest voices demanding change belongs to a group of more than 200 CEOs of major corporations. They call themselves the Committee for Economic Development, and many of them are Republican. They're pushing for a ban on soft money because, they say, they're ``tired of being shaken down'' by politicians looking for campaign contributions. They, like the rest of America, will be watching this debate, Mr. President. Another reason I believe the tide has turned is because this election cycle has gotten off to such an ominous start. At both the Presidential and congressional level, we are on pace to shatter all previous records. During the first six months of this year, soft money donations--the unlimited, unregulated contributions to political parties--were already 80 percent above where they were at this point in the last Presidential election cycle, in 1995. There really are no limits any more, Mr. President. We all know that. The current system is more loophole than law. Opponents argue that our Constitution forbids us from correcting the worst abuses in the system. I disagree with their pinched interpretation of our Constitution. In any case, I believe our conscience demands that we at least try to fix the system. And so during this debate, Senator Torricelli and I, and others, will offer the Shays-Meehan plan. As I said, I have great admiration and respect for what Senator Feingold and Senator McCain have attempted to achieve. But I believe we can--and must--go further than their bill now allows. Shays-Meehan is fair. It does not place one party or another at an advantage. It treats incumbents and challengers in both parties fairly. Shays-Meehan is bipartisan. Shays-Meehan is passable. It has already passed the House. It is signable. The President will sign it into law. Most importantly, Shays-Meehan is comprehensive. Not only does it ban unregulated ``soft money'' to political parties--the biggest loophole in the current system--it also prevents soft money from being re- channeled to outside groups for phony ``issue ads.'' This is critically important, Mr. President. Spending on sham ``issue ads'' by advocacy groups and special interests more than doubled between the '96 and '98 election cycles--to somewhere between $275 million and $340 million. A 1997 study by the respected Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found that phony ``issue ads'' are nearly identical to campaign ads--with two exceptions. The ``issue ads'' are more attack-oriented and personal. And, it is harder to identify the sponsor. These ads epitomize the negative campaigning--without any accountability--the public so dislikes. Shays-Meehan closes the ``issue ad'' loophole. It does so by applying existing rules to ads targeting specific candidates that are run by advocacy groups within 60 days of an election. It does not silence anyone. It merely says, if you want to participate in the election process, you have to follow the rules. In addition to closing the ``soft money'' and ``issue ad'' loopholes, Shays-Meehan makes two other important changes. First, it provides for expanded and speedier disclosure of both campaign contributions and expenditures--plus, stiffer penalties for anyone who violates the requirements. Second, it bans direct and indirect foreign contributions to political campaigns. Shays-Meehan won a bipartisan majority in the other body, Mr. President. It deserves the same in this Senate. When a person gives money to a judge who is deciding his case, we call that bribery. But when special interests give money to politicians who vote on bills that help or hurt them, we call that ``business as usual.'' Some mistakenly call it ``free speech.'' Let's be very clear: Shays-Meehan is not an attack on free speech. It advances free speech by ensuring that those with the biggest checkbooks are not the only voices that are heard. Shays-Meehan represents extraordinarily modest reforms. It doesn't fix every problem with our current system. But it bans the worst excesses. It is not a panacea. But it is a credible and necessary first step in rebuilding people's trust in government. I have no doubt we will hear a great deal over the next few days about abuses of the current system. [[Page S12661]] There are abuses--on both sides of the aisle. That's why we're having this debate. But it's not enough just to decry the abuses. If you're really outraged by the abuses, fix the system that invites them. Defenders of the status quo have tried to dissuade some of us from supporting real reform by warning how much it might cost us in lost campaign contributions. What about how much the current system costs us in lost credibility? Listen to this quote: Senators and Representatives, faced incessantly with the need to raise ever more funds to fuel their campaigns, can scarcely avoid weighing every decision against the question ``How will this affect my fundraising prospects.'' rather than ``How will this affect the national interest?'' Do you know who said that? It wasn't some Pollyanna progressive. That was Barry Goldwater, in 1995. And even if we don't make those kinds of calculations, it doesn't matter. No one has to prove that money influences our votes. It's damaging enough that people believe money influences our votes. There are other ways the current system costs us as well. Like the cost of endless fundraising. The demeaning, demanding money chase. In 1998, it cost an average of $4.9 million to run a successful Senate campaign. To raise that kind of money, you have to bring nearly $16,000 a week, every week, for 6 years. That is the minimum it takes. Some people have to raise twice that much. And we all know what that means. It means we spend hours and hours in campaign offices, dialing for dollars, instead of doing what people sent us here to do. It means running to fundraisers every night--sometimes two and three a night--instead of working on problems that affect families--or maybe just having dinner every once in a while with our own families. But the biggest cost of the current system is the cynicism it produces in people. The American people are disgusted, and they feel disenfranchised, by the current system. Every election cycle, the amount of money goes up, and voting goes down. Defenders of the status quo say we need soft money for ``party building'' activities--like ``get out the vote'' drives. If you really want to get out the vote, get the money out of politics! Pass Shays-Meehan. We expect opponents will use every procedural trick and advantage they can think of to try to block any real reform. They will offer amendments not to strengthen our proposal, but to sink it. They should know: The American people understand that game. They can tell the differences between protecting principles, and protecting partisan advantage. We make this pledge at the beginning of this debate: If Shays-Meehan does not pass, we will do everything we can to build a coalition for real reform. We will work with Senator Feingold and Senator McCain to strengthen their proposal and make it, once again, a comprehensive plan. When you read the history of campaign finance, one of the names that stands out is Mark Hanna. U.S. Senator. Wealthy businessman. Ohio political boss. And head, at the turn of the last century, of his national political party. Mark Hanna is widely credited with being the father of systemic campaign fundraising techniques. He introduced the concept, for instance, of regularly assessing businesses for contributions to his party, based on their ``share in the general prosperity.'' He also introduced the first modern political advertising operation. In 1895, Mark Hanna remarked that ``there are two things that are important in politics. The first is money--and I can't remember what the second one is.'' Mr. President, I believe Senator Hanna got it wrong. Money isn't the most important thing in politics. Integrity is. Integrity is essential to democracy. Without integrity we lose public confidence. And without public confidence, a democratic government loses its ability to function. We all know--whether we will admit it or not--that the current system is broken. I hope we can work together. I hope we can come up with a comprehensive, workable plan to fix it. The currency of politics should be ideas--not cash. Cloture Motions Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send two cloture motions to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. The legislative clerk read as follows: Cloture Motion We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Daschle amendment, No. 2298, to S. 1593: Tom Daschle, Chuck Robb, Mary L. Landrieu, Joseph Lieberman, Jack Reed, Max Baucus, Barbara Boxer, Richard H. Bryan, Jeff Bingaman, Tim Johnson, Harry Reid, Robert G. Torricelli, Blanche L. Lincoln, Dianne Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, Richard J. Durbin, Daniel K. Akaka, Ron Wyden, Byron L. Dorgan, and Tom Harkin. Cloture Motion The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second cloture motion. The legislative clerk read as follows: Cloture Motion We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reid of Nevada amendment No. 2299: Tom Daschle, Chuck Robb, Barbara Boxer, Joseph Lieberman, Jack Reed, Richard H. Bryan, Jeff Bingaman, Tim Johnson, Harry Reid, Blanche L. Lincoln, Dianne Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, Richard J. Durbin, Daniel K. Akaka, Ron Wyden, Byron L. Dorgan, Tom Harkin, and Barbara Mikulski. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the amendment offered by the minority leader and the Senator from New Jersey. As you know, this amendment is almost identical to the Shays-Meehan bill that passed the House of Representatives by a decisive, bipartisan vote of 252-177. It is time for the Senate to show the same courage and pass this important legislation. as I enter my eleventh political campaign and my fourth California statewide election, I am one who knows a little about the dynamics of campaigning in expensive races. In the 1990 race for Governor, I had to raise about $23 million. In the first race the Senate, $8 million; in the second race, $14 million. In 1994, my opponent spent nearly $30 million in his attempt to defeat me. My experiences have led me to believe that the current campaign finance system is badly flawed and in need of overhaul. Since 1976, the first election after the last major revision of campaign finance laws, the average cost of a winning Senate race went from $609,000 to $3.8 million in 1998. The average cost for a winning House candidate rose from $87,000 in 1976 to $679,000 in 1998. Campaigns in 2000 are very different than they were in 1976. Clearly, our campaign finance system must be reformed to reflect these differences. I have been a strong supporter of federal campaign finance reform since my first election to the Senate. Campaigns simply cost too much and it is long past time that Congress does something about it. I believe very strongly that this will be the final real opportunity this millennium to make significant structural reforms to our campaign finance system. Two of the fundamental changes that I believe must be made are a complete ban on soft money contributions to political parties and making independent campaign ads subject to contribution limits and disclosure requirements as are a candidate's campaign ads. While I have a great deal of respect for the persistence the Senators from Arizona and Wisconsin have demonstrated in pushing the Senate to act on campaign finance reform, I am concerned that the underlying bill, S. 1953, is too narrow to constitute a real reform of the campaign finance system. Banning soft money without addressing issue advocacy will simply redirect the flow of undisclosed money in campaigns. Instead of giving soft money to [[Page S12662]] political parties, the same dollars will be turned into ``independent'' ads. The issues of soft money ban and independent advertisements go hand in hand and one can not be addressed without the other. soft money ban The ability of corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to give unlimited amounts of soft money to political parties is the largest single loophole in the current campaign finance structure. The lack of restrictions on soft money enables anonymous individuals and anonymous organizations to play a major role in campaigns. They can hit hard and no one knows from where the hit is coming. The form that soft money is increasingly taking is negative, attack ads that distort, mislead, and misrepresent a candidates position on issues. These ads have become the scourge of the electoral process. This is the third time in as many years that the Senate has had the opportunity to pass meaningful campaign finance legislation. Last year, a minority of Senators blocked its passage and they appear poised to do so again. The consequence of this action is clear: voters will continue to become disenchanted with the political process and the flow of money into campaigns and the access it buys will continue to grow. The numbers speak for themselves. According to the Federal Election Commission, the Republican party raised $131 million in soft money during the 1998 election cycle. That is a 149 percent increase over the last mid-term election in 1994. The Democratic party is not much better. We raised $91.5 million, a 89 percent increase. Soft money contributions are continuing to rise. In the first 6 months of this year, Republicans raised $30.9 million. 42 percent more than in the first six months of the 1997-98 election cycle. Democrats raised $26.4 million, a 93 percent increase. One organization, Public Citizen, estimates that soft money spending this election cycle will exceed $500 million. That is double the amount spent in the last presidential election cycle and six times as much as in 1992. At some point this escalation of campaign spending has got to stop. We simply cannot continue down this path. A complete ban on soft money contributions to political parties is the first and most basic way to reduce the amount of money in our campaigns. issue advocacy That brings me to the other disturbing trend in the American political system: the rise of issue advocacy. This campaign loophole allows unions, corporations, and wealthy individuals to influence elections without being subject to disclosure or expenditure restrictions. During last year's debate, I mentioned a study released by the Annenberg Public Policy Center that estimated that during the 1995-96 election cycle independent groups spent between $135 and $150 million on issue advocacy. The Center has done a similar study for the 1997-98 cycle and the result is quite disturbing. They estimate that the amount spent on issue advocacy more than doubled to between $275 million and $340 million. These ads do not use the so-called ``magic words'' that the Supreme Court identified as express advocacy and, therefore, are not subject to FEC regulation. The Annenberg study found, however, that 53.4 percent of the issue ads mentioned a candidate up for election. The Center found another unfortunate twist to issue advocacy. Prior to September 1, 1998, that is in the first 22 months of the election cycle, only 35.3 percent of issue ads mentioned a candidate and 81.3 percent of the ads referred to a piece of legislation or a regulatory issue. After September 1, 1998, during the last 2 months of the campaign, a dramatic shift occurred. The proportion of ads naming specific candidates rose to 80.1 percent and those mentioning legislation fell to 21.6 percent. A similar shift can be seen in terms of attack ads. Prior to September 1, 33.7 percent of all ads were attack oriented. After September 1, over half were. These findings clearly demonstrate that as election day gets closer, issue ads become more candidate oriented and more negative. This kind of unregulated attack advertisements are poisoning the process and driving voters away from the polls. The amendment offered by the minority leader defines ``express advocacy'' communications as advocating election or defeat of candidate by: First, using explicit phrases, words, or slogans that have no other reasonable meaning than influence elections; second, referring to a candidate in a paid radio or TV broadcast ad that runs within 60 days of election; or third, expressing unmistakable, unambiguous election advocacy. This provision draws a clear line between true issue advertising and electioneering activities. It is an important part of any real reform effort and I applaud the minority leader for seeing that we have an opportunity to vote on it. other issues This amendment also contains a number of important issues that are not contained in the underlying bill. I understand the sponsors of the bill removed them in an attempt to force a straight up or down vote on the soft money ban. I do feel, however, that some of these provisions will significantly improve the campaign finance system and are worth mentioning. The bill mandates electronic filing; allows the FEC to conduct random audits of campaigns within 12 months of an election; makes it easier for the FEC to initiate enforcement action; and increases penalties for knowing and willful violations of election law. This amendment would lower the threshold for disclosure of contributions from $200 to $50. It would prevent candidates from depositing contributions of $200 if the disclosure requirements are not complete. It would also require the FEC to post contribution information on the Internet within 24 hours of receipt. These are commonsense steps to making our elections more open to the public. Voters are increasingly feeling cut out of the political process. By allowing an open window into our campaigns, we can begin the process of reconnecting with voters. In closing, Mr. President, I want to again thank the Senators from Arizona and Wisconsin. Without their leadership on this issue we would not have come as far as we have. This body is now faced with a choice. We have been at this same point several times in the last couple of years and each time we have failed to act and each time the American public has grown more cynical and lost more confidence in their government. With the passing of every election, it becomes more and more clear that our campaign system desperately needs reform. I remain hopeful that this is the year that Congress can finally come together in support of legislation that brings about a real improvement in our campaign system. Let's make the first election of the twenty-first century one of which we can be proud. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that I cannot support this amendment at this time. I want to make it clear why. The amendment would essentially restore all of the provisions of S. 26, which is the original McCain-Feingold legislation to this bill. I still support those provisions and strongly believe that most, if not all, should be enacted into law. Now is not the time to do so. My good friend, Russ Feingold, and I spent much time debating as to how we could move forward on the subject of campaign finance reform. We, along with many others who have supported this effort for many years, came to the conclusion that some reform is better than no reform. Unfortunately, if this amendment is adopted, a political point will be made, but reform will be doomed, and the sponsors of this present amendment are very well aware of that. We all know there are 52 votes for S. 26. We all know that. We went through a long period of debate and amending. We know there are 52 votes. Tell me where the additional 8 votes are for S. 26, and I will be the first to sign on and support this. I ask my dear friends who just propounded what is basically McCain- Feingold, where are the votes? I think the answer is obvious. What we have tried to do in proposing a ban on soft money and a codification of that is to start a process [[Page S12663]] which has succeeded in this great deliberative body over many years with amendments and disposal of amendments, up or down, and improving the bill but letting the Senate work its will. We have already picked up one additional vote. I am told there are other Members on this side of the aisle who are considering supporting this legislation. But it is also clear that those same people who are leaning towards supporting would not vote for S. 26 in its entirety because of their strongly held--although I don't agree, I respect their views--view that the independent campaign aspect of the original McCain-Feingold has constitutional difficulties associated with it. We know the facts. We need 60 votes to prevail, and 52, while a majority, is not enough and will not be until the rules of the Senate are changed where 51 votes are necessary for passage. For some time, I hoped that my colleagues who oppose reform would allow a majority in both bodies to prevail and do what the vast majority of the American public desires. But the opponents of reform, defenders of the status quo, won't cede their rights. I have learned from previous debates on other matters not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The bill before the Senate represents a modest step but a very important step forward. I want to emphasize that point again. If we can pass the underlying bill, we will have made an extremely important and vitally needed step forward. There is no observer of this issue of campaign finance reform who does not disagree that banning of soft money would have an important and salutary effect on the evils and ills of the present campaign finance system. There is no objective observer, whether they are for or against campaign finance reform, who would deny that the single act about allowing soft money would have a significant effect on the present system. Do I personally desire that a more comprehensive bill be passed into law? Yes. In my 16 years in the Congress, I have learned to be a realist. Simply put, if this amendment is accepted, campaign finance reform will be dead. There will be no reform this year and most likely next year. During that period, I am sure that more loopholes in the current system will be found and exploited. Public cynicism will have grown and, unfortunately, nothing will have changed except the same political points will have been made once again and, undoubtedly, more and more money will be awash in our political process. The New York Times had it right on 14 October. Let me quote: An important but little-noticed boost was given to campaign finance reform in the Senate this week. Sam Brownback of Kansas became the eighth Republican to break with his party's leadership and support the McCain-Feingold soft-money ban, scheduled for debate today. There are now 53 votes to choke off a Republican-led filibuster and pass the bill, only seven votes short of what is needed. The pressure is mounting on other Republicans to support reform. But amid these favorable developments, a move by Robert Torricelli and some other Democratic supporters of reform could undercut the cause. The risk is posed by a Democratic attempt to block Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold from advancing a stripped- down version of their reform legislation. The new McCain- Feingold bill would omit a section preventing independent groups from raising unlimited money for sham campaign ads two months before an election. Some Republicans say that because that section threatens free speech, they cannot go along with the central objective of reform, which is to ban unlimited donations to campaigns waged by political parties. Shrinking the bill to a simple soft-money ban for parties has paid off. Senator Brownback is on board and other Senate Republicans may follow. Mr. Torricelli and the Democratic Senate leader, Tom Daschle, are nonetheless determined today to scrap the new McCain-Feingold bill and substitute the original bill, with the limits on independent groups. This is a serious tactical mistake that raises questions about the Democrats' commitment to campaign finance reform. They ought to know that the bill they are pushing does not have the votes to break a filibuster, whereas the revised McCain-Feingold bill has a chance of getting them. It would be especially grievous if their move played into the destructive tactics of Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other Republican foes of reform. Mr. McConnell might even try to deliver enough votes for the Democratic move, allowing it to pass because in the end the bill in that form will surely die. Some Democrats, noting that the House passed its broader Shays-Meehan reform last month, warn that a narrower bill in the Senate will not survive either. But Mr. Brownback's courageous move makes it worth a try. Mr. President, I think the New York Times has it right. I think we should determine that this would be viewed by many as a cynical ploy which would assure the failure of campaign finance reform. I believe we need to vote down this amendment, return to what has given those who have been laboring on this issue for many years, some optimism, and to go back to a process where there are amendments on the specific issues. If we correctly debate and amend this issue, each one of those provisions of the original provisions of McCain-Feingold will be brought up for consideration, voted, and the body will work its will. It is abundantly clear that if this amendment is adopted, it is the end of campaign finance reform. Have no doubt about the effect of this amendment. No one should have any doubt about the effect of this amendment. I hope that is well understood by Americans all over this country who have committed themselves, people such as ``Granny D,'' who yesterday visited with me and Senator Feingold. She has walked across this country. People have committed themselves to reforming this system. People such as her all over America deserve better than what is being done with this amendment. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey. Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, every Senator who has taken the floor has given the appropriate compliments to Senator Feingold and Senator McCain. I will be no exception. Congress has been considering campaign finance reform for more than a decade. There have been, by my estimation, 3,000 speeches made on the floor of the Senate for campaign finance reform, some 6,500 pages of Congressional Record, 300 pieces of legislation. Indeed, we would not be at this moment without Senator Feingold or Senator McCain. They deserve that credit. I found their arguments in recent years so persuasive that I am today joining Senator Daschle in presenting their own legislation. The original McCain-Feingold bill, which found its way to the House of Representatives, is before the Senate now as the Shays-Meehan legislation. Similar in content and purpose, it is comprehensive campaign finance reform. Regarding advocacy of that reform, I take a second place to no Member in my years in the Congress. I have never voted against campaign finance reform, and I never will. I believe the integrity of this system of government and the confidence of the American people is at issue. It is not by chance that only a third of the American people are participating in some elections. Even in the choice of the Presidency of the United States, with those not registered and those not choosing to vote in many of our localities and States, half of the American people are not participating. It is not that they do not recognize the choice is important. I do not believe they have a lack of confidence in our country. They do not respect the process because they believe they do not have an equal position, and it is money that is the heart of that problem. When we entered into this new phase of campaign finance reform 2 years ago, along with most Members of this institution, I had great ambitions for how far we could go with reform. Indeed, in private conversation, almost every Member of this Senate knows the fundamentals of comprehensive reform. We started with such ambition. We were going to subject all independent advocacy groups in issue advertising to the rules of the FEC. We were going to require full and immediate disclosure by all contributors. We were going to ban soft money to the political parties. We were going to prohibit foreign interests. We were going to reduce the cost of television time. We even discussed the subsidies of mail to inform voters. One by one almost every one of these reforms has been eliminated from the legislation. Political cultures in all of our States are different. In my State, in Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas, and California, I don't believe [[Page S12664]] real campaign finance reform is possible without reducing the cost of television advertising. There is a reason for the spiraling rise of campaign spending; it is the cost of television advertising. In each of the large metropolitan areas, 90 percent of the money goes to feed the television networks. That was the first reform to be eliminated. Then there was the advocacy of subsidized mail. It went the way of public finance--one by one by one. Yet, because the need for reform is so overwhelming and the public confidence is so much in question, I joined in the last Congress with Senator McCain and Senator Feingold and reluctantly supported their legislation. Although I believe these critical provisions for the reduced cost of television advertising were essential for reform in my area of the country, I joined in support of the McCain-Feingold. That was to be followed by the House of Representatives which reached the same judgment in a historic vote for Shays-Meehan. That brings the Senate to this moment. In a frustration I share with other advocates of campaign finance reform, the mantra of the day has become: Do something, do anything. Pass some legislation. Call it reform. Let's put the problem behind us. If only it were so easy. The new legislation presented by Senators McCain and Feingold has a single objective: to eliminate soft money fundraising from Democratic and Republican Parties. It is a worthwhile objective, but it does raise the prospect that if passed it will eliminate the chance to have any further campaign finance reform. If history is any guide, every decade we get one chance to redesign this system. We are largely still governed by the Watergate reforms of 1974. Through a series of court rulings and FEC decisions, they clearly are no longer producing a system that was once envisioned. If we institute but this single change, we will not create a new system of our design but, in my judgment, be governed by the law of unintended consequences. Let's look for a moment at this new national campaign system. If Senator Daschle and I fail and the House of Representatives legislation in Shays-Meehan is rejected and instead we adopt this very narrow reform as envisioned by Senators McCain and Feingold, we eliminate soft money fundraising by the political parties, but it is maintained for issue advocacy and independent expenditures. The principal rise in campaign advertising in recent years is not the political parties; it is this independent advocacy expenditure. This chart tells the story. In 1998, the Democratic and Republican Parties spent $64 million in issue advocacy spending; nonparty advocacy groups spent $276 million, rising at a rate of 300 percent cycle to cycle. In my hand I have the list of 70 advocacy groups. It begins alphabetically with the AFL-CIO and ends with the Vietnam Veterans. In between are many organizations I support and believe have a worthwhile contribution to the national political debate; some I note I do not believe have great contributions to the political debate. But they are all heard--in the last election cycle, $276 million worth of advocacy. The legislation before the Senate by Senators Feingold and McCain does nothing about the expenditures, nothing. Nothing. Many exist as nonprofit tax-free organizations under the IRS Code. From whom they raise money is unknown. As to the sources of their contributions, no one in this Senate could attest. They often exist before the public eye as names that misrepresent their purpose and are designed to shield their objectives. They are not just a part of the national political advertising debate; they are coming to dominate it. What is this new campaign finance world that will be produced if Senator Daschle and I fail and the House of Representatives Shays- Meehan legislation is rejected? A national political debate that is fought by surrogates. The Democratic and Republican Parties will be within FEC rules, raising money only at $1,000 per person, $50 a person, $100 a person--a good system, where every name will be known, limits will be imposed to reasonable amounts. But over our heads will be a far larger contest fought by the AFL-CIO, with millions more dollars of expenditures, the Christian Coalition, anti-abortion groups, chemical companies, automobile companies, steel companies, that will spend millions, indeed, if history now is any guide, hundreds of millions of dollars of advocacy. Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. TORRICELLI. I will be happy to yield. Mr. REID. Yesterday, in a colloquy I had with the senior Senator from Arizona, we established that in the very sparsely populated State of Nevada, in the last general election--I was a candidate, Harry Reid, running for election, and John Ensign, Congressman Ensign, was running for my seat--we spent over $20 million in our direct campaigns and in the soft money. That is established. You can determine how much that is. The Senator would acknowledge that; is that right? Mr. TORRICELLI. I would. Mr. REID. Yet to this day, a year after the election, we do not know how much money was spent by these outside groups you are talking about, the NRA, the League of Conservation Voters, the truckers---- Mr. TORRICELLI. You don't know how much was spent or who spent it? Mr. REID. No; nor where their money came from. Is that the point the Senator is making? Mr. TORRICELLI. It is the central point. The proper system is the full disclosures we have for the Democratic and Republican Parties; limit those political parties just to these hard money contributions within the law, but extend that to all Americans who participate in the national political debate. The fact that my colleague, as a Senator, has accounted for every dollar he has raised, and he did so within limits, but these major groups enter his State either on his behalf or against his candidacy, yet my colleague doesn't know who they are or where their money is coming from and to whom they are accountable, is the heart of the problem. Mr. REID. I say to my friend from New Jersey, in the election that was held in the State of Nevada last year, Congressman Ensign and Senator Reid never really campaigned because of all the outside influences. Our campaigns were buried in all these independent expenditures and State party expenditures. At least with my campaign, and that of the State party, anyone in the world can find out how much money was spent. But for the independent expenditures, no one in the world can find out what money was spent. Mr. TORRICELLI. I point out to the Senator from Nevada, this is not simply a problem with our adversaries; sometimes it is a problem with our allies. When I go to the people of New Jersey, I want to present to them who I am and what I want to do, what my record is as a Senator. Groups whose support I am very proud of--AFL-CIO, National Abortion Rights League, Sierra Club, environmental groups--I am proud to have their support, but I don't want them presenting my campaign. Under the system that would be in place if Shays-Meehan were rejected, the political parties would be further restricted from advertising. I think they should be restricted with soft money. But if these advocacy groups were to take over, they would hijack your campaign; they would tell the people of your State what you were for and what you were against. It is not only your adversaries who will be out there presenting a campaign against you with these enormous amounts of money, it is even your allies who are not so restricted. Mr. REID. I say to my friend, in the election of 1986, when Senator Bryan was elected to the Senate, he was a sitting Governor at the time. At that time, there were these ads that came from nowhere, hundreds of thousands of dollars of ads in the State of Nevada. These ads were talking about Social Security. One would think these ads were run by some organization that had some concern about Social Security. We learned later that those ads were being paid for by foreign auto dealers--talking about the United States of America's Social Security plan. That is what happens when these groups have unfettered, unrestricted ability to spend money on any subject they want for any cause they want. [[Page S12665]] Mr. TORRICELLI. Let me say to the Senator from Nevada, that is not atypical. Health care in this country has been undermined by advocacy of insurance companies whose principal interest is not the delivery of quality health care to people who are currently uninsured, but they stand behind these blind advertising campaigns where no one knows where the money comes from. Just as in the campaign of my colleague from Nevada, we have polluters who are running ads on environmental protection; we have people on consumer safety who are representing groups that are damaging to individual consumers. That is because none of these groups is disclosable and none is accountable. In the current system, bad as it is, while these groups can run these advertising campaigns, the political parties are also raising soft money and there is a chance to answer them. Now the political parties will no longer be able to raise these funds, but these advocacy groups will continue in an upward spiral of spending. Senator Daschle's point is, let's eliminate this gross fundraising and these soft money expenditures across the board within 60 days of an election by putting everybody under the FEC rules. Senator McCain has said, ``But that will not pass.'' It may not. But it passed in the House of Representatives, and 60 Republicans came to join with the Democratic majority in passing it. We are not 20 or 30 or 40 votes from passing it in the Senate, we are 7 or 8. I would come back here every week of every month of every year until we restored the integrity of this Government and got comprehensive campaign finance reform. But the answer is not to lower our ambitions for campaign finance reform, to have a new, distorted system to make American politics fought by surrogates over the heads of candidates. The answer is to remain committed to this reform, reveal to the American people who is voting against it, who is stopping it, and let the American people decide. Mr. REID. I say to my friend in conclusion--and I appreciate his allowing me to ask him a question or two--first of all, I hope beyond all hope the Shays-Meehan bill passes. That is the amendment that has been filed by our leader, the Democratic leader. I hope that passes. I am going to do everything I can to make sure that passes. I hope we have Republicans of goodwill who will support that legislation. I have offered another amendment that would eliminate soft money. I respect and appreciate what the Senator from New Jersey has said. Certainly there is merit to what he said. But I believe, as I think does most everyone in the Democratic conference, that even if Shays- Meehan for some reason fails, there will be a significant number of us, out of desperation regarding the system that is so bad in this country, who will support the so-called soft money ban. I hope we do not get to that. I hope Shays-Meehan passes. The Senator makes a compelling case for what might happen. I hope something short of that will happen and the soft money ban will bring some reality to the system. Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Nevada. I note the problems of which I speak are not theoretical. Groups are already adjusting to the possibility that there will be a soft money ban in the political parties but no Shays-Meehan reform. They therefore are adjusting to this new reality. Let me give an example. Congressman DeLay has now formed a group, Citizens For A Republican Congress. He has gone to the wealthiest donors in the Nation, promising them a safe haven for anonymous and limitless contributions to the 2000 elections. He is reportedly planning on spending $25 to $30 million in 30 competitive House races in soft money. So Congressman DeLay will now, if this happens in the Democratic and Republican Parties, personally be directing a larger advertising campaign than the Democratic or Republican Parties in either House of Congress. The former advisers to Congressman DeLay are also forming a Republican issues majority committee, which is planning on spending $25 million. Already in a previous cycle, in the 1996 cycle, Americans for Tax Reform received $4.6 million from the Republican National Committee that they were able to spend on issue advocacy. United Seniors Association spent $3 million in direct mail in seven States in the 1996 election. They are an IRS tax-exempt 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. U.S. Term Limits, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charitable organization, spent $1.8 million in 1996; Americans for Limited Terms, $1.8 million in seven States; American Renewal, $400,000, a 501(c)(3). These are charitable organizations. The Tax Code has these provisions for people who want to help churches, synagogues, and Americans who are hurt and damaged, and to help build communities. They are being used as a cover for political advertising and no longer simply a force on the fringes of American politics. Look at the chart I have on my left: 1998 elections. Nonparty advocacy groups are two-thirds of all the issue ads in U.S. politics. The political parties, Democratic and Republican Parties, are one- third. If the sum total of the legislation offered by Mr. McCain and Mr. Feingold is that we will largely eliminate this third, when a Senator stands here a year from now going over this same problem, this entire pie chart will be advocacy groups, many of them tax-free organizations that are hiding who is contributing to them, who is running them, where their money is coming from, often using disguised names and running surrogate campaigns over the heads of political candidates. Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. TORRICELLI. I will be happy to yield to the Senator. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from New Jersey has the floor and has agreed to yield for a question from the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me ask a question, if I can, about the chart I believe he has up at this time. Is the Senator from New Jersey aware the $276 million estimate of issue advertising in the 1998 cycle, which the Senator has there I believe, includes all issue advertising, not just ads that are so-called phony issue ads? Is the Senator aware this chart actually covers all issue ads? Mr. TORRICELLI. I think I said it covers all. Mr. FEINGOLD. It covers the Harry and Louise type of ads, tobacco ads and ads just related to bills that do not have anything to do with campaigns directly. Mr. TORRICELLI. It covers all of those. I do not see that because they are dealing with an issue, they are not otherwise intending to influence an election. Mr. FEINGOLD. Fair enough. I wanted to establish that. The chart the Senator from New Jersey is using relates to an entire election cycle, a 2-year period, and it covers all sorts of ads. That means all kinds of true issue ads and so-called phony issue ads, as well as political party ads, are included in his chart. All three categories are in there. That is the basis on which he makes his argument. Is he aware the Shays-Meehan bill--which, of course, Senator McCain and I essentially wrote in the first place--that he has offered as an amendment would have no effect on any ad aired before the last 2 months of an election campaign? Mr. TORRICELLI. I am aware of it, and if it was my design, I would have it apply to issue advocacy ads throughout the calendar so everyone is equal. To quote Senator McCain, making the perfect the enemy of the good, if it is your argument that because I cannot bring all issue advocacy under FEC hard money limits, therefore we should do none, that, I think, is to surrender the point and we will not make any progress. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if the Senator will further yield, that is very interesting because it is essentially the same argument the Senator from New Jersey is using against the McCain-Feingold approach at this time which is, unless you do it all, it is not worth doing some because the soft money would flow to outside groups. Mr. TORRICELLI. My argument is, I believe, the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona are making a premature retreat. I concede [[Page S12666]] there may not be 60 votes in the Senate today for comprehensive campaign finance reform, but I do believe there is mounting public pressure. I believe Senators who vote against comprehensive campaign finance reform, who will vote against us on cloture on the amendment offered by Senator Daschle, are accountable to the people in their States. In the House of Representatives 2 years ago, the passage of comprehensive campaign finance reform was equally unlikely. Sixty Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with Democrats for real reform. These numbers are untenable. You cannot explain to the American people that you allow this charade to continue of people hiding behind these groups and spending $1 million, $100,000 contributions that are not accountable. I respect the Senator's work, but I believe we would do better to remain on this. I believe, in the alternative, you are going to establish a system where these groups dominate American politics as you silence the political parties. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield for a question? Mr. TORRICELLI. I would, but Senator Bennett is standing. If we could go to him next. Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding for a question, and I precede the question with a comment that I think the Senator from New Jersey is doing us a very worthwhile service in pointing out the reality of the world in which we would live if soft money were banned for political parties but not for everybody else. I agree with the Senator from New Jersey, absolutely in his words, when he says the debate would be fought by surrogates which would take place over our heads, a far larger context. I ask the Senator to give us his opinion of what would happen if Shays-Meehan, which he is endorsing, were to pass and then the Supreme Court were to strike down as unconstitutional the ban on issue ads by outside groups? Would that not, in fact, then leave us with the situation which the Senator from New Jersey is decrying, I think appropriately, as a bad system? Mr. TORRICELLI. Senator Bennett raises a very worthwhile point. Indeed, as Senator McConnell has noted in a number of cases, this is all an interesting debate. There are various sides trying to do good things, but the last word is in the Supreme Court, and, indeed, whether or not the Supreme Court will allow us to ban issue advocacy through soft money contributions to advocacy groups or even the political parties remains a question. If the Senator's point is correct, we could end up in the same place with, I will concede to you, the current McCain-Feingold if the Court were to do so. Senator McConnell has also pointed out it is a question of whether the Court will allow us to maintain the current limits on campaign fundraising in any case. Senators who vote on this should be aware that the Court, before we are concluded, will change probably much of what we are writing. Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, if I can ask a further question of the Senator from New Jersey, if he is aware--I know he is aware because he is a very astute student of politics but maybe not aware enough to comment without further research--if he is aware of what has happened in the State of California where they have virtually unlimited initiative opportunities and virtually every truly contentious political issue is now decided by initiative rather than by the legislature and the amount of money that is spent in an initiative fight dwarfs any of the sums we are talking about here. In the State of California, when an initiative fight comes up over an issue, which traditionally would be handled by the State legislature, the special interests on both sides of that fight routinely go over the hundreds of millions of dollars on both sides of the fight which dwarf the amount of money spent for a senatorial or gubernatorial race in that State. I ask if the Senator is aware of some of those particulars and if he will comment on the implications of that on a national basis if we get to the point where issues are fought out by special interest groups with unlimited budgets being spent on both sides, the implications on the role of the legislature in its constitutional responsibility to control the legislative agenda. Mr. TORRICELLI. We may not be on the same side of the debate for comprehensive reform, but I think our dialog can help Senators understand the world in which we are entering, because if we, indeed, reject Shays-Meehan and only go to this narrow reform, that single adjustment is going to change the American political debate as we know it. The Senator has raised some of the means by which it will change. I will predict for the Senator the new environment in which we are going to live: The Democratic and Republican Parties that now receive great amounts of this soft money with a wink and a nod are simply going to direct it to favorite organizations. Instead of soft money contributions coming to the Republican National Committee, for example, people who are interested in a particular issue are going to give it to an advocacy group. You will never know who they are. The contribution will never be known, but the money will be redirected, and rather than leaders of the party deciding how to present the issue, those groups will do so. Second, I predict to you the Democratic and Republican Parties will establish their own independent wings, much like legally what Senator D'Amato did with the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. Down the hall, they put a new sign on the door, new incorporators, a new name, took money, and did issue advocacy. As long as you do that fully at arm's length, it is fine to do. But the same soft money you think you are banning in the parties will now go to these independent groups or affiliated groups. Unless this is done comprehensively, you are only going to have money flow in through different windows. What bothers me the most is that the people who are most honest about the process and most committed to stopping this abuse will suffer while those who are prepared to do the winks and nods, establishing the other organizations, working on some affiliated arm's-length basis will succeed. In any case, we are not going to stop this money; we are going to redirect it. The only way to stop it, in my judgment, is comprehensive reform. Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. TORRICELLI. I am happy to. Mr. FEINGOLD. I think this is an extremely useful exchange that really goes to the core question about this legislation. I want to thank the Senator from New Jersey, even though we may come to different conclusions about specific tactics in what we do here. I thank the Senator for allowing us to talk about this because this is really what it is all about. Let me first reiterate my concern and ask a question about the totality of the ads the Senator suggested on his charts. Would the Senator concede that when you are dealing with ads that simply have to do with legislation, prior to 60 days, let's say, for example--the kind of tobacco ads we have seen; the ads we have seen about the Patients' Bill of Rights, the so-called Harry and Louise ads during the health care debate--there is no way under either Shays- Meehan or under McCain-Feingold, or even under any other legislation, we could prohibit those ads? Is that something with which the Senator would agree? Mr. TORRICELLI. I think it is difficult to know how the Supreme Court is going to deal with all of this. But certainly, if you get outside the 60 days and you are attempting to bring people under FEC regulations for issue advocacy outside of the 60 days, your case will clearly be weakened. Mr. FEINGOLD. I am specifically talking here about ads that do not talk about elections at all, they are simply talking about legislation. The Senator will concede, without a constitutional amendment, we could not prohibit such ads? Mr. TORRICELLI. I don't dispute that, although, indeed, if we were really doing comprehensive reform, which seems to be lost in the Senate, frankly, I would be going to that question on disclosability and tax deductibility and people remaining in tax-free status to do so. That would be comprehensive reform. But for the purpose of the argument, I will concede the point. [[Page S12667]] Mr. FEINGOLD. Fair enough. I think that is important because we have to distinguish here between the kinds of ads we are talking about. If it is the case, as the Senator from New Jersey suggests, that banning soft money will cause money to flow to phony issue ads, I think it is also rather difficult to dispute--in fact, you seem to concede-- if we prohibit that, that the money will just flow to generic issue ads as well. Isn't that your likely scenario? Mr. TORRICELLI. That is the scenario I predict. Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me follow then to the really important question you are raising about the possibility of the attempts to evade our attempts to simply ban party soft money. I don't doubt for a minute that the Senator is right, that the attempt will be made to evade the intent of the law, and in some cases it could succeed. But is the Senator aware that the McCain-Feingold soft money ban, the bill we have introduced, will prohibit Federal candidates from raising money for these phony outside groups such as the organization that is connected with Representative DeLay? Are you aware that that provision is actually in this soft money ban? Mr. TORRICELLI. I am aware of it. And I believe it will be proven to be entirely ineffective. Mr. FEINGOLD. Are you further aware that the bill will prohibit the parties from transferring money to 501(c)(4) organizations such as Americans for Tax Reform, which you mentioned a short time ago? Mr. TORRICELLI. There would be no reason to do so. They are no longer raising soft money, so why would they need to transfer? Mr. FEINGOLD. So that route will be blocked. Mr. TORRICELLI. That route will be blocked. Instead, the environment we create would be this. Is the Senator from Wisconsin, with his familiarity with American politics and American fundraising, generally of the belief that people who are now contributing $100,000 or $250,000 contributions, because they are advocating some perspective in American politics, when you pass this law, you are going to sit at home and say: You know, I guess I'm just not going to be heard; I'm going to remove myself from the process because that's the right thing to do? I think the Senator from Wisconsin must at least be suspicious that that money, that same check, is going to work itself into Americans for Tax Justice or one of these other 70 organizations that are engaged in this political advertising. It may not happen, as the Senator has appropriately written the bill, that a Member of Congress or a political party leader calls one of these contributors and says: Send your check to so-and-so. But certainly the Senator is aware it will not be very hard for political leaders to divert this money by a wink or a nod or some smile in the right direction, and we are going to end up, instead, having these surrogate organizations running these campaigns. Mr. FEINGOLD. I further ask the question--I do appreciate these answers--I think when you look at the tough provisions we put in this bill, although nothing is ever perfectly complete if somebody is willing to violate the law and take their chances, but what we are talking about here is corporate executives, CEOs, who now give money directly to political parties, taking the chance of running afoul of these new criminal laws. I have this chart. It is a list of all the soft money double givers. These are corporations that have given over $150,000 to both sides. Under the Senator's logic, these very same corporations--Philip Morris, Joseph Seagram, RJR Nabisco, BankAmerica Corporation--each of these would continue making the same amount of contributions; they would take the chance of violating the law by doing this in coordination with or at the suggestion of the parties, and they would calmly turn over the same kind of cash to others, be it left-wing or right-wing independent groups? I have to say--and I will finish my question--I am skeptical that if they cannot hand the check directly to the political party leaders, they will take those chances. I share your suspicions about some group trying to funnel this money. There is no question that some of that will happen. But wouldn't you concede there has to be some serious risk, in our soft money ban, for these corporations to pull this kind of a stunt? Mr. TORRICELLI. Reclaiming my time, I do not doubt there are some people who will not participate in doing so. But in what is a rising tide of soft money contributions in the country, they will be overwhelmed by people who will because it is not illegal. It will not be illegal. It will be fundamentally clear which of these affiliated organizations each political party supports and favors. It certainly is not going to be lost upon many donors that the Democratic Party looks favorably upon the Sierra Club or NARAL. I doubt that any major Republican contributor is not going to understand that Grover Norquis

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1999--Resumed
(Senate - October 15, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S12660-S12681] BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1999--Resumed Amendment No. 2298 (Purpose: To provide a complete substitute) Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for himself, Mr. Torricelli, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. Kerry, proposes an amendment numbered 2298. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'') Amendment No. 2299 To Amendment No. 2298 Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment numbered 2299 to amendment No. 2298. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'') The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Thomas Paine, the famed orator of the American Revolution, once offered an explanation for why corrupt systems last so long. He said: A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises, at first, a formidable cry in defense of custom. That is certainly true of the way we pay for campaigns in this country. Our reliance on special interest money to run political campaigns is such an old habit that for a long time it had the superficial appearance of being right but not anymore. While there is still a vocal minority who deny it, a clear majority in this Congress, and an overwhelming majority of the American people, know that our current campaign finance system is broken. The American people understand that special-interest money too often determines who runs, who wins, and how they govern. Opponents of change tell us that no one cares much about campaign finance reform. I believe they're mistaken. I believe the tide has turned. Instead of hearing a ``formidable cry in defense of custom,'' to use Tom Paine's expression, what we are hearing now is a growing demand for change. One of the newest voices demanding change belongs to a group of more than 200 CEOs of major corporations. They call themselves the Committee for Economic Development, and many of them are Republican. They're pushing for a ban on soft money because, they say, they're ``tired of being shaken down'' by politicians looking for campaign contributions. They, like the rest of America, will be watching this debate, Mr. President. Another reason I believe the tide has turned is because this election cycle has gotten off to such an ominous start. At both the Presidential and congressional level, we are on pace to shatter all previous records. During the first six months of this year, soft money donations--the unlimited, unregulated contributions to political parties--were already 80 percent above where they were at this point in the last Presidential election cycle, in 1995. There really are no limits any more, Mr. President. We all know that. The current system is more loophole than law. Opponents argue that our Constitution forbids us from correcting the worst abuses in the system. I disagree with their pinched interpretation of our Constitution. In any case, I believe our conscience demands that we at least try to fix the system. And so during this debate, Senator Torricelli and I, and others, will offer the Shays-Meehan plan. As I said, I have great admiration and respect for what Senator Feingold and Senator McCain have attempted to achieve. But I believe we can--and must--go further than their bill now allows. Shays-Meehan is fair. It does not place one party or another at an advantage. It treats incumbents and challengers in both parties fairly. Shays-Meehan is bipartisan. Shays-Meehan is passable. It has already passed the House. It is signable. The President will sign it into law. Most importantly, Shays-Meehan is comprehensive. Not only does it ban unregulated ``soft money'' to political parties--the biggest loophole in the current system--it also prevents soft money from being re- channeled to outside groups for phony ``issue ads.'' This is critically important, Mr. President. Spending on sham ``issue ads'' by advocacy groups and special interests more than doubled between the '96 and '98 election cycles--to somewhere between $275 million and $340 million. A 1997 study by the respected Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found that phony ``issue ads'' are nearly identical to campaign ads--with two exceptions. The ``issue ads'' are more attack-oriented and personal. And, it is harder to identify the sponsor. These ads epitomize the negative campaigning--without any accountability--the public so dislikes. Shays-Meehan closes the ``issue ad'' loophole. It does so by applying existing rules to ads targeting specific candidates that are run by advocacy groups within 60 days of an election. It does not silence anyone. It merely says, if you want to participate in the election process, you have to follow the rules. In addition to closing the ``soft money'' and ``issue ad'' loopholes, Shays-Meehan makes two other important changes. First, it provides for expanded and speedier disclosure of both campaign contributions and expenditures--plus, stiffer penalties for anyone who violates the requirements. Second, it bans direct and indirect foreign contributions to political campaigns. Shays-Meehan won a bipartisan majority in the other body, Mr. President. It deserves the same in this Senate. When a person gives money to a judge who is deciding his case, we call that bribery. But when special interests give money to politicians who vote on bills that help or hurt them, we call that ``business as usual.'' Some mistakenly call it ``free speech.'' Let's be very clear: Shays-Meehan is not an attack on free speech. It advances free speech by ensuring that those with the biggest checkbooks are not the only voices that are heard. Shays-Meehan represents extraordinarily modest reforms. It doesn't fix every problem with our current system. But it bans the worst excesses. It is not a panacea. But it is a credible and necessary first step in rebuilding people's trust in government. I have no doubt we will hear a great deal over the next few days about abuses of the current system. [[Page S12661]] There are abuses--on both sides of the aisle. That's why we're having this debate. But it's not enough just to decry the abuses. If you're really outraged by the abuses, fix the system that invites them. Defenders of the status quo have tried to dissuade some of us from supporting real reform by warning how much it might cost us in lost campaign contributions. What about how much the current system costs us in lost credibility? Listen to this quote: Senators and Representatives, faced incessantly with the need to raise ever more funds to fuel their campaigns, can scarcely avoid weighing every decision against the question ``How will this affect my fundraising prospects.'' rather than ``How will this affect the national interest?'' Do you know who said that? It wasn't some Pollyanna progressive. That was Barry Goldwater, in 1995. And even if we don't make those kinds of calculations, it doesn't matter. No one has to prove that money influences our votes. It's damaging enough that people believe money influences our votes. There are other ways the current system costs us as well. Like the cost of endless fundraising. The demeaning, demanding money chase. In 1998, it cost an average of $4.9 million to run a successful Senate campaign. To raise that kind of money, you have to bring nearly $16,000 a week, every week, for 6 years. That is the minimum it takes. Some people have to raise twice that much. And we all know what that means. It means we spend hours and hours in campaign offices, dialing for dollars, instead of doing what people sent us here to do. It means running to fundraisers every night--sometimes two and three a night--instead of working on problems that affect families--or maybe just having dinner every once in a while with our own families. But the biggest cost of the current system is the cynicism it produces in people. The American people are disgusted, and they feel disenfranchised, by the current system. Every election cycle, the amount of money goes up, and voting goes down. Defenders of the status quo say we need soft money for ``party building'' activities--like ``get out the vote'' drives. If you really want to get out the vote, get the money out of politics! Pass Shays-Meehan. We expect opponents will use every procedural trick and advantage they can think of to try to block any real reform. They will offer amendments not to strengthen our proposal, but to sink it. They should know: The American people understand that game. They can tell the differences between protecting principles, and protecting partisan advantage. We make this pledge at the beginning of this debate: If Shays-Meehan does not pass, we will do everything we can to build a coalition for real reform. We will work with Senator Feingold and Senator McCain to strengthen their proposal and make it, once again, a comprehensive plan. When you read the history of campaign finance, one of the names that stands out is Mark Hanna. U.S. Senator. Wealthy businessman. Ohio political boss. And head, at the turn of the last century, of his national political party. Mark Hanna is widely credited with being the father of systemic campaign fundraising techniques. He introduced the concept, for instance, of regularly assessing businesses for contributions to his party, based on their ``share in the general prosperity.'' He also introduced the first modern political advertising operation. In 1895, Mark Hanna remarked that ``there are two things that are important in politics. The first is money--and I can't remember what the second one is.'' Mr. President, I believe Senator Hanna got it wrong. Money isn't the most important thing in politics. Integrity is. Integrity is essential to democracy. Without integrity we lose public confidence. And without public confidence, a democratic government loses its ability to function. We all know--whether we will admit it or not--that the current system is broken. I hope we can work together. I hope we can come up with a comprehensive, workable plan to fix it. The currency of politics should be ideas--not cash. Cloture Motions Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send two cloture motions to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. The legislative clerk read as follows: Cloture Motion We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Daschle amendment, No. 2298, to S. 1593: Tom Daschle, Chuck Robb, Mary L. Landrieu, Joseph Lieberman, Jack Reed, Max Baucus, Barbara Boxer, Richard H. Bryan, Jeff Bingaman, Tim Johnson, Harry Reid, Robert G. Torricelli, Blanche L. Lincoln, Dianne Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, Richard J. Durbin, Daniel K. Akaka, Ron Wyden, Byron L. Dorgan, and Tom Harkin. Cloture Motion The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second cloture motion. The legislative clerk read as follows: Cloture Motion We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reid of Nevada amendment No. 2299: Tom Daschle, Chuck Robb, Barbara Boxer, Joseph Lieberman, Jack Reed, Richard H. Bryan, Jeff Bingaman, Tim Johnson, Harry Reid, Blanche L. Lincoln, Dianne Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, Richard J. Durbin, Daniel K. Akaka, Ron Wyden, Byron L. Dorgan, Tom Harkin, and Barbara Mikulski. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the amendment offered by the minority leader and the Senator from New Jersey. As you know, this amendment is almost identical to the Shays-Meehan bill that passed the House of Representatives by a decisive, bipartisan vote of 252-177. It is time for the Senate to show the same courage and pass this important legislation. as I enter my eleventh political campaign and my fourth California statewide election, I am one who knows a little about the dynamics of campaigning in expensive races. In the 1990 race for Governor, I had to raise about $23 million. In the first race the Senate, $8 million; in the second race, $14 million. In 1994, my opponent spent nearly $30 million in his attempt to defeat me. My experiences have led me to believe that the current campaign finance system is badly flawed and in need of overhaul. Since 1976, the first election after the last major revision of campaign finance laws, the average cost of a winning Senate race went from $609,000 to $3.8 million in 1998. The average cost for a winning House candidate rose from $87,000 in 1976 to $679,000 in 1998. Campaigns in 2000 are very different than they were in 1976. Clearly, our campaign finance system must be reformed to reflect these differences. I have been a strong supporter of federal campaign finance reform since my first election to the Senate. Campaigns simply cost too much and it is long past time that Congress does something about it. I believe very strongly that this will be the final real opportunity this millennium to make significant structural reforms to our campaign finance system. Two of the fundamental changes that I believe must be made are a complete ban on soft money contributions to political parties and making independent campaign ads subject to contribution limits and disclosure requirements as are a candidate's campaign ads. While I have a great deal of respect for the persistence the Senators from Arizona and Wisconsin have demonstrated in pushing the Senate to act on campaign finance reform, I am concerned that the underlying bill, S. 1953, is too narrow to constitute a real reform of the campaign finance system. Banning soft money without addressing issue advocacy will simply redirect the flow of undisclosed money in campaigns. Instead of giving soft money to [[Page S12662]] political parties, the same dollars will be turned into ``independent'' ads. The issues of soft money ban and independent advertisements go hand in hand and one can not be addressed without the other. soft money ban The ability of corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to give unlimited amounts of soft money to political parties is the largest single loophole in the current campaign finance structure. The lack of restrictions on soft money enables anonymous individuals and anonymous organizations to play a major role in campaigns. They can hit hard and no one knows from where the hit is coming. The form that soft money is increasingly taking is negative, attack ads that distort, mislead, and misrepresent a candidates position on issues. These ads have become the scourge of the electoral process. This is the third time in as many years that the Senate has had the opportunity to pass meaningful campaign finance legislation. Last year, a minority of Senators blocked its passage and they appear poised to do so again. The consequence of this action is clear: voters will continue to become disenchanted with the political process and the flow of money into campaigns and the access it buys will continue to grow. The numbers speak for themselves. According to the Federal Election Commission, the Republican party raised $131 million in soft money during the 1998 election cycle. That is a 149 percent increase over the last mid-term election in 1994. The Democratic party is not much better. We raised $91.5 million, a 89 percent increase. Soft money contributions are continuing to rise. In the first 6 months of this year, Republicans raised $30.9 million. 42 percent more than in the first six months of the 1997-98 election cycle. Democrats raised $26.4 million, a 93 percent increase. One organization, Public Citizen, estimates that soft money spending this election cycle will exceed $500 million. That is double the amount spent in the last presidential election cycle and six times as much as in 1992. At some point this escalation of campaign spending has got to stop. We simply cannot continue down this path. A complete ban on soft money contributions to political parties is the first and most basic way to reduce the amount of money in our campaigns. issue advocacy That brings me to the other disturbing trend in the American political system: the rise of issue advocacy. This campaign loophole allows unions, corporations, and wealthy individuals to influence elections without being subject to disclosure or expenditure restrictions. During last year's debate, I mentioned a study released by the Annenberg Public Policy Center that estimated that during the 1995-96 election cycle independent groups spent between $135 and $150 million on issue advocacy. The Center has done a similar study for the 1997-98 cycle and the result is quite disturbing. They estimate that the amount spent on issue advocacy more than doubled to between $275 million and $340 million. These ads do not use the so-called ``magic words'' that the Supreme Court identified as express advocacy and, therefore, are not subject to FEC regulation. The Annenberg study found, however, that 53.4 percent of the issue ads mentioned a candidate up for election. The Center found another unfortunate twist to issue advocacy. Prior to September 1, 1998, that is in the first 22 months of the election cycle, only 35.3 percent of issue ads mentioned a candidate and 81.3 percent of the ads referred to a piece of legislation or a regulatory issue. After September 1, 1998, during the last 2 months of the campaign, a dramatic shift occurred. The proportion of ads naming specific candidates rose to 80.1 percent and those mentioning legislation fell to 21.6 percent. A similar shift can be seen in terms of attack ads. Prior to September 1, 33.7 percent of all ads were attack oriented. After September 1, over half were. These findings clearly demonstrate that as election day gets closer, issue ads become more candidate oriented and more negative. This kind of unregulated attack advertisements are poisoning the process and driving voters away from the polls. The amendment offered by the minority leader defines ``express advocacy'' communications as advocating election or defeat of candidate by: First, using explicit phrases, words, or slogans that have no other reasonable meaning than influence elections; second, referring to a candidate in a paid radio or TV broadcast ad that runs within 60 days of election; or third, expressing unmistakable, unambiguous election advocacy. This provision draws a clear line between true issue advertising and electioneering activities. It is an important part of any real reform effort and I applaud the minority leader for seeing that we have an opportunity to vote on it. other issues This amendment also contains a number of important issues that are not contained in the underlying bill. I understand the sponsors of the bill removed them in an attempt to force a straight up or down vote on the soft money ban. I do feel, however, that some of these provisions will significantly improve the campaign finance system and are worth mentioning. The bill mandates electronic filing; allows the FEC to conduct random audits of campaigns within 12 months of an election; makes it easier for the FEC to initiate enforcement action; and increases penalties for knowing and willful violations of election law. This amendment would lower the threshold for disclosure of contributions from $200 to $50. It would prevent candidates from depositing contributions of $200 if the disclosure requirements are not complete. It would also require the FEC to post contribution information on the Internet within 24 hours of receipt. These are commonsense steps to making our elections more open to the public. Voters are increasingly feeling cut out of the political process. By allowing an open window into our campaigns, we can begin the process of reconnecting with voters. In closing, Mr. President, I want to again thank the Senators from Arizona and Wisconsin. Without their leadership on this issue we would not have come as far as we have. This body is now faced with a choice. We have been at this same point several times in the last couple of years and each time we have failed to act and each time the American public has grown more cynical and lost more confidence in their government. With the passing of every election, it becomes more and more clear that our campaign system desperately needs reform. I remain hopeful that this is the year that Congress can finally come together in support of legislation that brings about a real improvement in our campaign system. Let's make the first election of the twenty-first century one of which we can be proud. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that I cannot support this amendment at this time. I want to make it clear why. The amendment would essentially restore all of the provisions of S. 26, which is the original McCain-Feingold legislation to this bill. I still support those provisions and strongly believe that most, if not all, should be enacted into law. Now is not the time to do so. My good friend, Russ Feingold, and I spent much time debating as to how we could move forward on the subject of campaign finance reform. We, along with many others who have supported this effort for many years, came to the conclusion that some reform is better than no reform. Unfortunately, if this amendment is adopted, a political point will be made, but reform will be doomed, and the sponsors of this present amendment are very well aware of that. We all know there are 52 votes for S. 26. We all know that. We went through a long period of debate and amending. We know there are 52 votes. Tell me where the additional 8 votes are for S. 26, and I will be the first to sign on and support this. I ask my dear friends who just propounded what is basically McCain- Feingold, where are the votes? I think the answer is obvious. What we have tried to do in proposing a ban on soft money and a codification of that is to start a process [[Page S12663]] which has succeeded in this great deliberative body over many years with amendments and disposal of amendments, up or down, and improving the bill but letting the Senate work its will. We have already picked up one additional vote. I am told there are other Members on this side of the aisle who are considering supporting this legislation. But it is also clear that those same people who are leaning towards supporting would not vote for S. 26 in its entirety because of their strongly held--although I don't agree, I respect their views--view that the independent campaign aspect of the original McCain-Feingold has constitutional difficulties associated with it. We know the facts. We need 60 votes to prevail, and 52, while a majority, is not enough and will not be until the rules of the Senate are changed where 51 votes are necessary for passage. For some time, I hoped that my colleagues who oppose reform would allow a majority in both bodies to prevail and do what the vast majority of the American public desires. But the opponents of reform, defenders of the status quo, won't cede their rights. I have learned from previous debates on other matters not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The bill before the Senate represents a modest step but a very important step forward. I want to emphasize that point again. If we can pass the underlying bill, we will have made an extremely important and vitally needed step forward. There is no observer of this issue of campaign finance reform who does not disagree that banning of soft money would have an important and salutary effect on the evils and ills of the present campaign finance system. There is no objective observer, whether they are for or against campaign finance reform, who would deny that the single act about allowing soft money would have a significant effect on the present system. Do I personally desire that a more comprehensive bill be passed into law? Yes. In my 16 years in the Congress, I have learned to be a realist. Simply put, if this amendment is accepted, campaign finance reform will be dead. There will be no reform this year and most likely next year. During that period, I am sure that more loopholes in the current system will be found and exploited. Public cynicism will have grown and, unfortunately, nothing will have changed except the same political points will have been made once again and, undoubtedly, more and more money will be awash in our political process. The New York Times had it right on 14 October. Let me quote: An important but little-noticed boost was given to campaign finance reform in the Senate this week. Sam Brownback of Kansas became the eighth Republican to break with his party's leadership and support the McCain-Feingold soft-money ban, scheduled for debate today. There are now 53 votes to choke off a Republican-led filibuster and pass the bill, only seven votes short of what is needed. The pressure is mounting on other Republicans to support reform. But amid these favorable developments, a move by Robert Torricelli and some other Democratic supporters of reform could undercut the cause. The risk is posed by a Democratic attempt to block Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold from advancing a stripped- down version of their reform legislation. The new McCain- Feingold bill would omit a section preventing independent groups from raising unlimited money for sham campaign ads two months before an election. Some Republicans say that because that section threatens free speech, they cannot go along with the central objective of reform, which is to ban unlimited donations to campaigns waged by political parties. Shrinking the bill to a simple soft-money ban for parties has paid off. Senator Brownback is on board and other Senate Republicans may follow. Mr. Torricelli and the Democratic Senate leader, Tom Daschle, are nonetheless determined today to scrap the new McCain-Feingold bill and substitute the original bill, with the limits on independent groups. This is a serious tactical mistake that raises questions about the Democrats' commitment to campaign finance reform. They ought to know that the bill they are pushing does not have the votes to break a filibuster, whereas the revised McCain-Feingold bill has a chance of getting them. It would be especially grievous if their move played into the destructive tactics of Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other Republican foes of reform. Mr. McConnell might even try to deliver enough votes for the Democratic move, allowing it to pass because in the end the bill in that form will surely die. Some Democrats, noting that the House passed its broader Shays-Meehan reform last month, warn that a narrower bill in the Senate will not survive either. But Mr. Brownback's courageous move makes it worth a try. Mr. President, I think the New York Times has it right. I think we should determine that this would be viewed by many as a cynical ploy which would assure the failure of campaign finance reform. I believe we need to vote down this amendment, return to what has given those who have been laboring on this issue for many years, some optimism, and to go back to a process where there are amendments on the specific issues. If we correctly debate and amend this issue, each one of those provisions of the original provisions of McCain-Feingold will be brought up for consideration, voted, and the body will work its will. It is abundantly clear that if this amendment is adopted, it is the end of campaign finance reform. Have no doubt about the effect of this amendment. No one should have any doubt about the effect of this amendment. I hope that is well understood by Americans all over this country who have committed themselves, people such as ``Granny D,'' who yesterday visited with me and Senator Feingold. She has walked across this country. People have committed themselves to reforming this system. People such as her all over America deserve better than what is being done with this amendment. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey. Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, every Senator who has taken the floor has given the appropriate compliments to Senator Feingold and Senator McCain. I will be no exception. Congress has been considering campaign finance reform for more than a decade. There have been, by my estimation, 3,000 speeches made on the floor of the Senate for campaign finance reform, some 6,500 pages of Congressional Record, 300 pieces of legislation. Indeed, we would not be at this moment without Senator Feingold or Senator McCain. They deserve that credit. I found their arguments in recent years so persuasive that I am today joining Senator Daschle in presenting their own legislation. The original McCain-Feingold bill, which found its way to the House of Representatives, is before the Senate now as the Shays-Meehan legislation. Similar in content and purpose, it is comprehensive campaign finance reform. Regarding advocacy of that reform, I take a second place to no Member in my years in the Congress. I have never voted against campaign finance reform, and I never will. I believe the integrity of this system of government and the confidence of the American people is at issue. It is not by chance that only a third of the American people are participating in some elections. Even in the choice of the Presidency of the United States, with those not registered and those not choosing to vote in many of our localities and States, half of the American people are not participating. It is not that they do not recognize the choice is important. I do not believe they have a lack of confidence in our country. They do not respect the process because they believe they do not have an equal position, and it is money that is the heart of that problem. When we entered into this new phase of campaign finance reform 2 years ago, along with most Members of this institution, I had great ambitions for how far we could go with reform. Indeed, in private conversation, almost every Member of this Senate knows the fundamentals of comprehensive reform. We started with such ambition. We were going to subject all independent advocacy groups in issue advertising to the rules of the FEC. We were going to require full and immediate disclosure by all contributors. We were going to ban soft money to the political parties. We were going to prohibit foreign interests. We were going to reduce the cost of television time. We even discussed the subsidies of mail to inform voters. One by one almost every one of these reforms has been eliminated from the legislation. Political cultures in all of our States are different. In my State, in Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas, and California, I don't believe [[Page S12664]] real campaign finance reform is possible without reducing the cost of television advertising. There is a reason for the spiraling rise of campaign spending; it is the cost of television advertising. In each of the large metropolitan areas, 90 percent of the money goes to feed the television networks. That was the first reform to be eliminated. Then there was the advocacy of subsidized mail. It went the way of public finance--one by one by one. Yet, because the need for reform is so overwhelming and the public confidence is so much in question, I joined in the last Congress with Senator McCain and Senator Feingold and reluctantly supported their legislation. Although I believe these critical provisions for the reduced cost of television advertising were essential for reform in my area of the country, I joined in support of the McCain-Feingold. That was to be followed by the House of Representatives which reached the same judgment in a historic vote for Shays-Meehan. That brings the Senate to this moment. In a frustration I share with other advocates of campaign finance reform, the mantra of the day has become: Do something, do anything. Pass some legislation. Call it reform. Let's put the problem behind us. If only it were so easy. The new legislation presented by Senators McCain and Feingold has a single objective: to eliminate soft money fundraising from Democratic and Republican Parties. It is a worthwhile objective, but it does raise the prospect that if passed it will eliminate the chance to have any further campaign finance reform. If history is any guide, every decade we get one chance to redesign this system. We are largely still governed by the Watergate reforms of 1974. Through a series of court rulings and FEC decisions, they clearly are no longer producing a system that was once envisioned. If we institute but this single change, we will not create a new system of our design but, in my judgment, be governed by the law of unintended consequences. Let's look for a moment at this new national campaign system. If Senator Daschle and I fail and the House of Representatives legislation in Shays-Meehan is rejected and instead we adopt this very narrow reform as envisioned by Senators McCain and Feingold, we eliminate soft money fundraising by the political parties, but it is maintained for issue advocacy and independent expenditures. The principal rise in campaign advertising in recent years is not the political parties; it is this independent advocacy expenditure. This chart tells the story. In 1998, the Democratic and Republican Parties spent $64 million in issue advocacy spending; nonparty advocacy groups spent $276 million, rising at a rate of 300 percent cycle to cycle. In my hand I have the list of 70 advocacy groups. It begins alphabetically with the AFL-CIO and ends with the Vietnam Veterans. In between are many organizations I support and believe have a worthwhile contribution to the national political debate; some I note I do not believe have great contributions to the political debate. But they are all heard--in the last election cycle, $276 million worth of advocacy. The legislation before the Senate by Senators Feingold and McCain does nothing about the expenditures, nothing. Nothing. Many exist as nonprofit tax-free organizations under the IRS Code. From whom they raise money is unknown. As to the sources of their contributions, no one in this Senate could attest. They often exist before the public eye as names that misrepresent their purpose and are designed to shield their objectives. They are not just a part of the national political advertising debate; they are coming to dominate it. What is this new campaign finance world that will be produced if Senator Daschle and I fail and the House of Representatives Shays- Meehan legislation is rejected? A national political debate that is fought by surrogates. The Democratic and Republican Parties will be within FEC rules, raising money only at $1,000 per person, $50 a person, $100 a person--a good system, where every name will be known, limits will be imposed to reasonable amounts. But over our heads will be a far larger contest fought by the AFL-CIO, with millions more dollars of expenditures, the Christian Coalition, anti-abortion groups, chemical companies, automobile companies, steel companies, that will spend millions, indeed, if history now is any guide, hundreds of millions of dollars of advocacy. Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. TORRICELLI. I will be happy to yield. Mr. REID. Yesterday, in a colloquy I had with the senior Senator from Arizona, we established that in the very sparsely populated State of Nevada, in the last general election--I was a candidate, Harry Reid, running for election, and John Ensign, Congressman Ensign, was running for my seat--we spent over $20 million in our direct campaigns and in the soft money. That is established. You can determine how much that is. The Senator would acknowledge that; is that right? Mr. TORRICELLI. I would. Mr. REID. Yet to this day, a year after the election, we do not know how much money was spent by these outside groups you are talking about, the NRA, the League of Conservation Voters, the truckers---- Mr. TORRICELLI. You don't know how much was spent or who spent it? Mr. REID. No; nor where their money came from. Is that the point the Senator is making? Mr. TORRICELLI. It is the central point. The proper system is the full disclosures we have for the Democratic and Republican Parties; limit those political parties just to these hard money contributions within the law, but extend that to all Americans who participate in the national political debate. The fact that my colleague, as a Senator, has accounted for every dollar he has raised, and he did so within limits, but these major groups enter his State either on his behalf or against his candidacy, yet my colleague doesn't know who they are or where their money is coming from and to whom they are accountable, is the heart of the problem. Mr. REID. I say to my friend from New Jersey, in the election that was held in the State of Nevada last year, Congressman Ensign and Senator Reid never really campaigned because of all the outside influences. Our campaigns were buried in all these independent expenditures and State party expenditures. At least with my campaign, and that of the State party, anyone in the world can find out how much money was spent. But for the independent expenditures, no one in the world can find out what money was spent. Mr. TORRICELLI. I point out to the Senator from Nevada, this is not simply a problem with our adversaries; sometimes it is a problem with our allies. When I go to the people of New Jersey, I want to present to them who I am and what I want to do, what my record is as a Senator. Groups whose support I am very proud of--AFL-CIO, National Abortion Rights League, Sierra Club, environmental groups--I am proud to have their support, but I don't want them presenting my campaign. Under the system that would be in place if Shays-Meehan were rejected, the political parties would be further restricted from advertising. I think they should be restricted with soft money. But if these advocacy groups were to take over, they would hijack your campaign; they would tell the people of your State what you were for and what you were against. It is not only your adversaries who will be out there presenting a campaign against you with these enormous amounts of money, it is even your allies who are not so restricted. Mr. REID. I say to my friend, in the election of 1986, when Senator Bryan was elected to the Senate, he was a sitting Governor at the time. At that time, there were these ads that came from nowhere, hundreds of thousands of dollars of ads in the State of Nevada. These ads were talking about Social Security. One would think these ads were run by some organization that had some concern about Social Security. We learned later that those ads were being paid for by foreign auto dealers--talking about the United States of America's Social Security plan. That is what happens when these groups have unfettered, unrestricted ability to spend money on any subject they want for any cause they want. [[Page S12665]] Mr. TORRICELLI. Let me say to the Senator from Nevada, that is not atypical. Health care in this country has been undermined by advocacy of insurance companies whose principal interest is not the delivery of quality health care to people who are currently uninsured, but they stand behind these blind advertising campaigns where no one knows where the money comes from. Just as in the campaign of my colleague from Nevada, we have polluters who are running ads on environmental protection; we have people on consumer safety who are representing groups that are damaging to individual consumers. That is because none of these groups is disclosable and none is accountable. In the current system, bad as it is, while these groups can run these advertising campaigns, the political parties are also raising soft money and there is a chance to answer them. Now the political parties will no longer be able to raise these funds, but these advocacy groups will continue in an upward spiral of spending. Senator Daschle's point is, let's eliminate this gross fundraising and these soft money expenditures across the board within 60 days of an election by putting everybody under the FEC rules. Senator McCain has said, ``But that will not pass.'' It may not. But it passed in the House of Representatives, and 60 Republicans came to join with the Democratic majority in passing it. We are not 20 or 30 or 40 votes from passing it in the Senate, we are 7 or 8. I would come back here every week of every month of every year until we restored the integrity of this Government and got comprehensive campaign finance reform. But the answer is not to lower our ambitions for campaign finance reform, to have a new, distorted system to make American politics fought by surrogates over the heads of candidates. The answer is to remain committed to this reform, reveal to the American people who is voting against it, who is stopping it, and let the American people decide. Mr. REID. I say to my friend in conclusion--and I appreciate his allowing me to ask him a question or two--first of all, I hope beyond all hope the Shays-Meehan bill passes. That is the amendment that has been filed by our leader, the Democratic leader. I hope that passes. I am going to do everything I can to make sure that passes. I hope we have Republicans of goodwill who will support that legislation. I have offered another amendment that would eliminate soft money. I respect and appreciate what the Senator from New Jersey has said. Certainly there is merit to what he said. But I believe, as I think does most everyone in the Democratic conference, that even if Shays- Meehan for some reason fails, there will be a significant number of us, out of desperation regarding the system that is so bad in this country, who will support the so-called soft money ban. I hope we do not get to that. I hope Shays-Meehan passes. The Senator makes a compelling case for what might happen. I hope something short of that will happen and the soft money ban will bring some reality to the system. Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Nevada. I note the problems of which I speak are not theoretical. Groups are already adjusting to the possibility that there will be a soft money ban in the political parties but no Shays-Meehan reform. They therefore are adjusting to this new reality. Let me give an example. Congressman DeLay has now formed a group, Citizens For A Republican Congress. He has gone to the wealthiest donors in the Nation, promising them a safe haven for anonymous and limitless contributions to the 2000 elections. He is reportedly planning on spending $25 to $30 million in 30 competitive House races in soft money. So Congressman DeLay will now, if this happens in the Democratic and Republican Parties, personally be directing a larger advertising campaign than the Democratic or Republican Parties in either House of Congress. The former advisers to Congressman DeLay are also forming a Republican issues majority committee, which is planning on spending $25 million. Already in a previous cycle, in the 1996 cycle, Americans for Tax Reform received $4.6 million from the Republican National Committee that they were able to spend on issue advocacy. United Seniors Association spent $3 million in direct mail in seven States in the 1996 election. They are an IRS tax-exempt 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. U.S. Term Limits, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charitable organization, spent $1.8 million in 1996; Americans for Limited Terms, $1.8 million in seven States; American Renewal, $400,000, a 501(c)(3). These are charitable organizations. The Tax Code has these provisions for people who want to help churches, synagogues, and Americans who are hurt and damaged, and to help build communities. They are being used as a cover for political advertising and no longer simply a force on the fringes of American politics. Look at the chart I have on my left: 1998 elections. Nonparty advocacy groups are two-thirds of all the issue ads in U.S. politics. The political parties, Democratic and Republican Parties, are one- third. If the sum total of the legislation offered by Mr. McCain and Mr. Feingold is that we will largely eliminate this third, when a Senator stands here a year from now going over this same problem, this entire pie chart will be advocacy groups, many of them tax-free organizations that are hiding who is contributing to them, who is running them, where their money is coming from, often using disguised names and running surrogate campaigns over the heads of political candidates. Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. TORRICELLI. I will be happy to yield to the Senator. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from New Jersey has the floor and has agreed to yield for a question from the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me ask a question, if I can, about the chart I believe he has up at this time. Is the Senator from New Jersey aware the $276 million estimate of issue advertising in the 1998 cycle, which the Senator has there I believe, includes all issue advertising, not just ads that are so-called phony issue ads? Is the Senator aware this chart actually covers all issue ads? Mr. TORRICELLI. I think I said it covers all. Mr. FEINGOLD. It covers the Harry and Louise type of ads, tobacco ads and ads just related to bills that do not have anything to do with campaigns directly. Mr. TORRICELLI. It covers all of those. I do not see that because they are dealing with an issue, they are not otherwise intending to influence an election. Mr. FEINGOLD. Fair enough. I wanted to establish that. The chart the Senator from New Jersey is using relates to an entire election cycle, a 2-year period, and it covers all sorts of ads. That means all kinds of true issue ads and so-called phony issue ads, as well as political party ads, are included in his chart. All three categories are in there. That is the basis on which he makes his argument. Is he aware the Shays-Meehan bill--which, of course, Senator McCain and I essentially wrote in the first place--that he has offered as an amendment would have no effect on any ad aired before the last 2 months of an election campaign? Mr. TORRICELLI. I am aware of it, and if it was my design, I would have it apply to issue advocacy ads throughout the calendar so everyone is equal. To quote Senator McCain, making the perfect the enemy of the good, if it is your argument that because I cannot bring all issue advocacy under FEC hard money limits, therefore we should do none, that, I think, is to surrender the point and we will not make any progress. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if the Senator will further yield, that is very interesting because it is essentially the same argument the Senator from New Jersey is using against the McCain-Feingold approach at this time which is, unless you do it all, it is not worth doing some because the soft money would flow to outside groups. Mr. TORRICELLI. My argument is, I believe, the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona are making a premature retreat. I concede [[Page S12666]] there may not be 60 votes in the Senate today for comprehensive campaign finance reform, but I do believe there is mounting public pressure. I believe Senators who vote against comprehensive campaign finance reform, who will vote against us on cloture on the amendment offered by Senator Daschle, are accountable to the people in their States. In the House of Representatives 2 years ago, the passage of comprehensive campaign finance reform was equally unlikely. Sixty Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with Democrats for real reform. These numbers are untenable. You cannot explain to the American people that you allow this charade to continue of people hiding behind these groups and spending $1 million, $100,000 contributions that are not accountable. I respect the Senator's work, but I believe we would do better to remain on this. I believe, in the alternative, you are going to establish a system where these groups dominate American politics as you silence the political parties. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield for a question? Mr. TORRICELLI. I would, but Senator Bennett is standing. If we could go to him next. Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding for a question, and I precede the question with a comment that I think the Senator from New Jersey is doing us a very worthwhile service in pointing out the reality of the world in which we would live if soft money were banned for political parties but not for everybody else. I agree with the Senator from New Jersey, absolutely in his words, when he says the debate would be fought by surrogates which would take place over our heads, a far larger context. I ask the Senator to give us his opinion of what would happen if Shays-Meehan, which he is endorsing, were to pass and then the Supreme Court were to strike down as unconstitutional the ban on issue ads by outside groups? Would that not, in fact, then leave us with the situation which the Senator from New Jersey is decrying, I think appropriately, as a bad system? Mr. TORRICELLI. Senator Bennett raises a very worthwhile point. Indeed, as Senator McConnell has noted in a number of cases, this is all an interesting debate. There are various sides trying to do good things, but the last word is in the Supreme Court, and, indeed, whether or not the Supreme Court will allow us to ban issue advocacy through soft money contributions to advocacy groups or even the political parties remains a question. If the Senator's point is correct, we could end up in the same place with, I will concede to you, the current McCain-Feingold if the Court were to do so. Senator McConnell has also pointed out it is a question of whether the Court will allow us to maintain the current limits on campaign fundraising in any case. Senators who vote on this should be aware that the Court, before we are concluded, will change probably much of what we are writing. Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, if I can ask a further question of the Senator from New Jersey, if he is aware--I know he is aware because he is a very astute student of politics but maybe not aware enough to comment without further research--if he is aware of what has happened in the State of California where they have virtually unlimited initiative opportunities and virtually every truly contentious political issue is now decided by initiative rather than by the legislature and the amount of money that is spent in an initiative fight dwarfs any of the sums we are talking about here. In the State of California, when an initiative fight comes up over an issue, which traditionally would be handled by the State legislature, the special interests on both sides of that fight routinely go over the hundreds of millions of dollars on both sides of the fight which dwarf the amount of money spent for a senatorial or gubernatorial race in that State. I ask if the Senator is aware of some of those particulars and if he will comment on the implications of that on a national basis if we get to the point where issues are fought out by special interest groups with unlimited budgets being spent on both sides, the implications on the role of the legislature in its constitutional responsibility to control the legislative agenda. Mr. TORRICELLI. We may not be on the same side of the debate for comprehensive reform, but I think our dialog can help Senators understand the world in which we are entering, because if we, indeed, reject Shays-Meehan and only go to this narrow reform, that single adjustment is going to change the American political debate as we know it. The Senator has raised some of the means by which it will change. I will predict for the Senator the new environment in which we are going to live: The Democratic and Republican Parties that now receive great amounts of this soft money with a wink and a nod are simply going to direct it to favorite organizations. Instead of soft money contributions coming to the Republican National Committee, for example, people who are interested in a particular issue are going to give it to an advocacy group. You will never know who they are. The contribution will never be known, but the money will be redirected, and rather than leaders of the party deciding how to present the issue, those groups will do so. Second, I predict to you the Democratic and Republican Parties will establish their own independent wings, much like legally what Senator D'Amato did with the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. Down the hall, they put a new sign on the door, new incorporators, a new name, took money, and did issue advocacy. As long as you do that fully at arm's length, it is fine to do. But the same soft money you think you are banning in the parties will now go to these independent groups or affiliated groups. Unless this is done comprehensively, you are only going to have money flow in through different windows. What bothers me the most is that the people who are most honest about the process and most committed to stopping this abuse will suffer while those who are prepared to do the winks and nods, establishing the other organizations, working on some affiliated arm's-length basis will succeed. In any case, we are not going to stop this money; we are going to redirect it. The only way to stop it, in my judgment, is comprehensive reform. Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. TORRICELLI. I am happy to. Mr. FEINGOLD. I think this is an extremely useful exchange that really goes to the core question about this legislation. I want to thank the Senator from New Jersey, even though we may come to different conclusions about specific tactics in what we do here. I thank the Senator for allowing us to talk about this because this is really what it is all about. Let me first reiterate my concern and ask a question about the totality of the ads the Senator suggested on his charts. Would the Senator concede that when you are dealing with ads that simply have to do with legislation, prior to 60 days, let's say, for example--the kind of tobacco ads we have seen; the ads we have seen about the Patients' Bill of Rights, the so-called Harry and Louise ads during the health care debate--there is no way under either Shays- Meehan or under McCain-Feingold, or even under any other legislation, we could prohibit those ads? Is that something with which the Senator would agree? Mr. TORRICELLI. I think it is difficult to know how the Supreme Court is going to deal with all of this. But certainly, if you get outside the 60 days and you are attempting to bring people under FEC regulations for issue advocacy outside of the 60 days, your case will clearly be weakened. Mr. FEINGOLD. I am specifically talking here about ads that do not talk about elections at all, they are simply talking about legislation. The Senator will concede, without a constitutional amendment, we could not prohibit such ads? Mr. TORRICELLI. I don't dispute that, although, indeed, if we were really doing comprehensive reform, which seems to be lost in the Senate, frankly, I would be going to that question on disclosability and tax deductibility and people remaining in tax-free status to do so. That would be comprehensive reform. But for the purpose of the argument, I will concede the point. [[Page S12667]] Mr. FEINGOLD. Fair enough. I think that is important because we have to distinguish here between the kinds of ads we are talking about. If it is the case, as the Senator from New Jersey suggests, that banning soft money will cause money to flow to phony issue ads, I think it is also rather difficult to dispute--in fact, you seem to concede-- if we prohibit that, that the money will just flow to generic issue ads as well. Isn't that your likely scenario? Mr. TORRICELLI. That is the scenario I predict. Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me follow then to the really important question you are raising about the possibility of the attempts to evade our attempts to simply ban party soft money. I don't doubt for a minute that the Senator is right, that the attempt will be made to evade the intent of the law, and in some cases it could succeed. But is the Senator aware that the McCain-Feingold soft money ban, the bill we have introduced, will prohibit Federal candidates from raising money for these phony outside groups such as the organization that is connected with Representative DeLay? Are you aware that that provision is actually in this soft money ban? Mr. TORRICELLI. I am aware of it. And I believe it will be proven to be entirely ineffective. Mr. FEINGOLD. Are you further aware that the bill will prohibit the parties from transferring money to 501(c)(4) organizations such as Americans for Tax Reform, which you mentioned a short time ago? Mr. TORRICELLI. There would be no reason to do so. They are no longer raising soft money, so why would they need to transfer? Mr. FEINGOLD. So that route will be blocked. Mr. TORRICELLI. That route will be blocked. Instead, the environment we create would be this. Is the Senator from Wisconsin, with his familiarity with American politics and American fundraising, generally of the belief that people who are now contributing $100,000 or $250,000 contributions, because they are advocating some perspective in American politics, when you pass this law, you are going to sit at home and say: You know, I guess I'm just not going to be heard; I'm going to remove myself from the process because that's the right thing to do? I think the Senator from Wisconsin must at least be suspicious that that money, that same check, is going to work itself into Americans for Tax Justice or one of these other 70 organizations that are engaged in this political advertising. It may not happen, as the Senator has appropriately written the bill, that a Member of Congress or a political party leader calls one of these contributors and says: Send your check to so-and-so. But certainly the Senator is aware it will not be very hard for political leaders to divert this money by a wink or a nod or some smile in the right direction, and we are going to end up, instead, having these surrogate organizations running these campaigns. Mr. FEINGOLD. I further ask the question--I do appreciate these answers--I think when you look at the tough provisions we put in this bill, although nothing is ever perfectly complete if somebody is willing to violate the law and take their chances, but what we are talking about here is corporate executives, CEOs, who now give money directly to political parties, taking the chance of running afoul of these new criminal laws. I have this chart. It is a list of all the soft money double givers. These are corporations that have given over $150,000 to both sides. Under the Senator's logic, these very same corporations--Philip Morris, Joseph Seagram, RJR Nabisco, BankAmerica Corporation--each of these would continue making the same amount of contributions; they would take the chance of violating the law by doing this in coordination with or at the suggestion of the parties, and they would calmly turn over the same kind of cash to others, be it left-wing or right-wing independent groups? I have to say--and I will finish my question--I am skeptical that if they cannot hand the check directly to the political party leaders, they will take those chances. I share your suspicions about some group trying to funnel this money. There is no question that some of that will happen. But wouldn't you concede there has to be some serious risk, in our soft money ban, for these corporations to pull this kind of a stunt? Mr. TORRICELLI. Reclaiming my time, I do not doubt there are some people who will not participate in doing so. But in what is a rising tide of soft money contributions in the country, they will be overwhelmed by people who will because it is not illegal. It will not be illegal. It will be fundamentally clear which of these affiliated organizations each political party supports and favors. It certainly is not going to be lost upon many donors that the Democratic Party looks favorably upon the Sierra Club or NARAL. I doubt that any major Republican contributor is not going to understand that Grov