Congressional Record - Senate

October 6,  1997

In the free society ordained by our Constitution, it is not government but the people--individually as citizens and candidates and
collectively as associations and political committees--who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public
issues in a political campaign.

Madam President, the system has not failed us. Campaign dollars are not the problem. They may be the excuse--the system,
dollars, may be the excuse for some. But our problems are with ourselves. What outrages the American people is the conduct of
some politicians--and my good friend, Senator McCain, talked about this earlier this afternoon when he referenced in the poll the
`lying windbags,' the lying windbags that many people think of as politicians, and I know that is true. But what really outrages the
American people is the conduct of some politicians and their supporters who have corrupted the system by violating the integrity of
the process for their own end.

Our political leaders have, as one of their most sacred responsibilities, the responsibility to set the moral tone in America and give
moral leadership. I do not mean religious leadership. I do not mean religious leadership. I mean moral leadership. Moral leadership
goes well beyond the rule of law and regulation. Were the great leaders of our Nation great because of laws and regulations
dictating their actions and behavior? No. Our great leaders were great because they had a moral compass and they shared that
moral compass with our people and our Nation. And they relied upon that moral compass for governance. America deserves
leaders who lead through the force of character and integrity, not through the force of regulation and law. Before we reform the
campaign finance system, we should first look at how we might reform ourselves. We might look at how we might reform
ourselves.

Madam President, I would like to end my speech this afternoon with a quote from Thomas Jefferson, our third President, one of
our Nation's strongest defenders of the rights of the American people. Thomas Jefferson said, many, many years ago:

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened
enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is surely not to take it from them, but to inform their
discretion by education.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, as I mentioned when I was last on the floor, the campaign finance reform bill we are
debating will not produce meaningful political reform. The McCain-Feingold proposal will not lead to reform because it leaves the
single greatest obstacle to competitive elections untouched. In fact, it will strengthen the single greatest obstacle to competitive
elections. That obstacle is the advantage of incumbency, which is now and always has been the single greatest perk in politics. An
incumbent has access to the podium, access to the news media, and the ability to create name identification. Any time you limit
political spending, any time you limit what the competitor can generate in terms of information, you strengthen the incumbent.

I submit that Hershey doesn't need to advertise that it sells chocolate, but a new competitor does. And those who inhabit public
office are well-known for the fact that they inhabit it. But new individuals need to have the ability to create that same awareness
in the mind of the public.

Campaign finance legislation that restricts core political speech strengthens incumbents by limiting the ability of challengers to
increase their own name recognition and to highlight the incumbents' voting record on issues of concern to the voters.

So, if you say you cannot spend much money against an incumbent, and your supporters can't talk about his or her voting record,
then you can't match the incumbent's advantages of being on C-SPAN in the Senate Chamber, of moving through the news
industry with press releases. If Senators want true political reform, the answer is to limit terms, not to limit speech. Let's limit
politicians, not the citizens. We should be talking about limiting the tenure of people in public office, not the first amendment rights
of the citizens of this country.

To this end, this afternoon, I have filed an amendment to the pending campaign finance reform legislation that would authorize
States to impose term limits on their Senators and Representatives. However, my amendment will not come up for debate or a
vote if cloture is invoked on the McCain-Feingold bill. Accordingly, a vote for cloture on McCain-Feingold is a vote against term
limits.

Let me just review for a second why term limits would provide the true reform. Incumbency is the real problem in our system. It is
the single greatest perk. Committee assignments and the ability to control committees relates to incumbency, and committee
assignments translate into big bucks. The value of incumbency is as strong or stronger, now that we have had modest reforms
over the last several years, than it was before. As a matter of fact, when campaigning was wide open 100 years ago the value of
incumbency wasn't anything like what it is now.

Madam President, 94 percent of all Members who seek reelection get reelected, and an individual challenging them, if limited in
what he or she can spend, is at a disadvantage. Madam President, 94 percent is 19 out of 20. That means that the only true
elections are for open seats.

Term limits are a tried and tested kind of reform: Forty one Governors, 20 State legislatures and the U.S. President have term
limits. It is time that the Congress be term limited as well.

Term limits mean no more politics as usual. As a matter of fact, studies done by research institutes indicate that we would have
had the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution long ago if we had term limits, which would have brought new individuals
to Washington who voted the way people do in their first two terms in office instead of voting the way they do after they have
spent term

after term after term here and begin to endorse the bureaucracy and to sanction it and to support it. I believe we should not limit
the amount that citizens can spend on politics. We should limit the amount of time politicians can spend in Washington.

I will ask that individuals vote against cloture on the McCain-Feingold bill so we would have an opportunity to vote on term limits.
A vote for cloture on McCain-Feingold will be a vote against term limits. A vote against cloture will at least provide us with the
opportunity to bring forward amendments. Those amendments, including my term limits amendment, hold the promise of giving us
a real opportunity to amend and to otherwise change the election procedures for the benefit of the people.

The people deserve honest elections. They first deserve enforcement. So much of what is being talked about these days is the
violation of laws in existence. We don't need to proliferate the laws in order to enforce them. But we do need to give opportunity
to individuals who are not a part of the system now. That cannot be done by limiting what they can spend to get known or limiting
what their supporters can spend to expose the record of those who are in office. But it can be given to them if we decide America
has enough talent to allow it to circulate individuals through the Senate and the House, and by term limits, to say that no individual
should be a lifetime occupant here, that we should give individuals an opportunity to seek election and that is the kind of campaign
reform which will really benefit America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, is there any limitation on speaking at this point? What is the parliamentary situation?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is none.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me speak for a few minutes, then, on campaign finance reform. I would like to step back
from the details of the debate. There has been some debate about limiting spending: Should we limit spending or not, should we
ban soft money or not, should we regulate phony issue advocacy ads or not, should we provide more power to the Federal Election
Commission or not--those are the kinds of questions we debate here. But I believe this entire discussion about campaign finance
reform is about one central question and that is what should determine the outcome of our Federal elections? Should we allow
money to determine the outcome of our Federal elections? Or should we allow, or try to get to a situation, where a complete and a
balanced discussion of the differences between the candidates determines the outcome of the election? Should we allow money or
helpful information to change the minds of voters? And should we allow money or robust debate to determine who wins the race?

This fundamental issue, which I think is at the center of campaign finance reform, has been obscured because opponents of
campaign finance reform have been hiding behind what I believe are mistaken Supreme Court opinions that have tried to equate
money and speech. They argue that money is speech, and, therefore, to limit money is to limit speech. They say that money is
robust debate. They say money is helpful information for voters. And they even say that money is or constitutes a complete and a
balanced discussion about the differences between candidates.

In my view this argument is blatantly wrong. To any reasoned observer of our Federal campaigns, the argument obviously is
without merit. Ask any challenger to an incumbent Senator if the millions of dollars that an incumbent is able to raise and spend in
the race has meant more robust debate, more helpful information for the voters, more complete and valuable discussions about the
difference between the candidate and the challenger?

The challenger will laugh out loud at the question.

My colleague said, to limit spending in campaigns is to assist incumbents because you have a lot of challengers out there who
would like to be able to spend more than incumbents to challenge them and to get their message out and they are not able to do so.
Madam President, that may be true for a very few rich individuals who have very substantial private wealth that they can put into
races. But for an average candidate for public office in this country, your ability to raise large sums of money and compete in the
media and buy the air time is directly dependent upon your incumbency. Accordingly, a challenger is at a very substantial
disadvantage unless we somehow restrict or control the amount of money coming into this process.

Ask any voter who has been deluged with negative TV ads, funded by swelling campaign war chests, whether those TV ads have
produced a more robust debate and provided more helpful information to the voters, or a more complete and balanced discussion
of the differences between the candidates? They would think that you were crazy to suggest that those 30-second negative TV
spots in fact improve their ability to make a reasoned judgment.

No, the vast increases in money spent in political campaigns have not produced more robust debate, they have not produced more
helpful information for voters, or more complete and balanced discussions about the differences between candidates. This
increased amount of money has meant the very opposite. In fact, voters will tell you not only that money does not equal speech,
but that excessive campaign money does equal the erosion and the undermining of our political system.

To them, money means bad government. To them, money is not speech; money is the corruption of the system. The American
people are very specific in their beliefs about this, Madam President. Voters surveyed recently by the Princeton Survey
Associates tell us exactly what the public thinks:

55 percent of the public think that campaign money gives one group more influence by keeping other groups from having their say
in policy outcomes;

50 percent think that campaign money gets some people appointed to government office who would not otherwise be considered;

48 percent think that campaign money keeps important legislation from being passed in the Senate and in the House of
Representatives;

45 percent think that campaign money leads elected officials to support policies that even those elected officials don't think are
best for the country;

41 percent think that campaign money even leads elected officials to vote against the interests of the constituents who sent them
to Washington;

63 percent of the public think that campaign money leads elected officials to spend too much time fundraising;

And, finally, 52 percent think that money, and not speech, determines the outcome of elections under our current system.

Madam President, it is hard to argue with the public's view on these various points. I submit that the arguments by opponents of
campaign finance reform, that money is speech, should not and fortunately does not pass the laugh test with the American people.

The people are right, that we desperately need to reform the campaign system. In fact, they are right that we need to do a full
U-turn from where we are today. We need to reduce the amount of money raised and spent in campaigns. We need to increase
the amount of robust debate, providing really helpful information to voters. We need to increase the amount of complete and
balanced discussions about the differences between candidates so the public has good information.

Even the modified McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill is a big step in the right direction. It does at least two very important
things. First, it will reduce the amount of big unregulated donations from corporations and unions and wealthy individuals in our
campaigns, and that is good. We need to reduce that. And second, it will regulate the huge amounts of money spent by so-called
independent special interest groups on advertising that they disguise as issue ads but are, in fact, designed to advocate the defeat
of a particular camp.

The original McCain-Feingold bill did much more. There were more affirmative proposals to actually encourage more robust
debate, more helpful information for the voters, more complete and balanced discussions of the differences between the
candidates, but the bill had to be scaled back to reduce the objections of some of the opponents of campaign finance reform. This
modified version of the bill that we now have before us does not complete the U-turn that we ought to be making, but it is turning
the car in the right direction.

Madam President, I stand ready to support the modified version of McCain-Feingold. I hope we will have an opportunity at some
point in the near future, and hopefully this week, to have an up-or-down vote on the bill. Perhaps at some point we can get past
these parliamentary maneuvers of killer amendments, of filling out the amendment tree, second-degree amendments to block an
up-or-down vote. Perhaps at some point in the near future the opponents of campaign finance reform will listen to the people and
conclude that money is not speech, that money, in fact, is undermining the political system that we were sent here to help ensure
the functioning of.

I hope we will move expeditiously this week to pass campaign finance reform. Our constituents desire it, and we should do it.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

                                         [Page: S10399]

Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, there has been a development today that has a direct bearing on this debate that I
thought would be of interest to our colleagues and particularly the occupant of the chair.

The Supreme Court today denied cert and, therefore, refused to overturn a first circuit decision, in effect confirming a district
court decision, specifically ruling unconstitutional, once again, most of the issue advocacy language in the McCain-Feingold bill
which we have before us. The similarities are noteworthy. Two of the three categories of restrictions on issue advocacy in
McCain-Feingold read as follows. As we all know, the courts have been very clear for 21 years that you are free to go out and
express your views about any of us as often as you want to, in any way that you want to, as long as you don't say certain things
like `vote for' or `vote against.' That does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission. That group does not
have to answer to a

Federal agency in order to criticize us. The Federal Election Commission, as we all know, doesn't like that. So they have issued
regulations seeking to change by regulation previous Court decisions on what is or what is not issue advocacy.

In those regulations, which are remarkably similar to two of the three sections in McCain-Feingold dealing with issue advocacy,
the similarities are noteworthy.

In the McCain-Feingold bill, the following words are used, and the words mean this in the bill, as I understand it, that if any of
these things happen, the group would fall under the Federal Election Commission and be subject to their jurisdiction. In addition to
the bright line test that the Supreme Court has already laid down, the bill would seek to add to that the following:

                                         [Page: S10400]

. . . or a campaign slogan or words that in context can have no reasonable meaning other than to advocate the election or defeat
of one or more clearly identified candidates.

Madam President, that is part of the language in the underlying bill.

Other language in the underlying bill remarkably similar to the FEC regulations struck down by the Supreme Court today read as
follows:

. . . expressing unmistakable and unambiguous support for, or in opposition to, one or more clearly identified candidates when
taken as a whole and with limited reference to external events, such as proximity to an election.

What the underlying bill is seeking to do is to outline a series of circumstances under which a group would fall within the
jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission. Currently, they are outside of that jurisdiction unless they say `vote for' or `vote
against,' tests which the Supreme Court laid down 21 years ago and has never changed.

That was the language from McCain-Feingold. Let me now read the language out of the FEC regulations which were struck down
by the Supreme Court today:

. . . more communications of campaign slogans or individual words which in context can have no other reasonable meaning than to
urge the election or defeat of a candidate.

Further language from the proposed FEC regulations which were struck down by the Supreme Court:

. . . when taken as a whole and with limited reference to external events, such as the proximity to the election, could only be
interpreted by a reasonable person as containing advocacy of the election or defeat of one or more candidates.

Further from the FEC regulations struck down by the Supreme Court today:

The electoral portion of the communication is unmistakable, unambiguous and suggestive of only one meaning.

Madam President, there is a remarkable similarity between the language struck down by the Supreme Court today and the
language of two of three of the sections in the McCain-Feingold bill which seek to redefine by statute what happens in an issue
advocacy campaign. This is an important new development.

We have had a lot of discussion on the floor of the Senate over the last week and a half about what is and isn't constitutional. It
has been suggested that there are 126 constitutional scholars out there who are certifying, in effect, that these new restrictions on
issue advocacy are, in fact, constitutional. That has been asserted by some of our colleagues, even though there have been a
whole line of Supreme Court decisions before the one today reiterating that they crafted this the way they did on purpose; it was
not an accident. The Supreme Court wanted to have the widest latitude possible for organizations to criticize us, and there is no
indication that they intended that criticism to necessarily be evaded just because it was in proximity to an election.

There is no language on the 60-day test, which is the third provision of the McCain-Feingold bill. Frankly, that is sort of a new
item. The FEC has not yet tried that. But if you look at that language and look at the fact that the Court has confirmed time and
time and time again that it meant what it said it did with regard to issue advocacy, I don't think it is much of a stretch to predict
that, if the Court is going to strike down language almost the same as two of the three sections in McCain-Feingold seeking to
make it difficult for groups to criticize us, they would be very likely to strike down the third, which makes it impossible effectively
for them to criticize us without becoming a federally registered committee in the last 60 days of an election.

As I said--I see my colleague from Washington on his feet--we can discuss as long as we want to what is and isn't constitutional.
The final word on that is the U.S. Supreme Court, and they just spoke again today on the very subject that we have been
discussing on the floor of the Senate in the last week and a half. I think it is a very important additional indication that the Court, in
spite of all the prodding of the Federal Election Commission to set up a new standard for issue advocacy, the Court has absolutely
no intention of changing its mind. It has been absolutely, unequivocally consistent for 21 years as to what you would have to put in
an advertisement to be brought within the Federal Election Campaign Act and thereby covered by the FEC.

Here is what the Court said back in Buckley--and it has had many opportunities to revisit that, it hasn't changed its mind over the
years, didn't change its mind again today--this is what the Court said. For a communication by a group to fall within the Federal
Election Campaign Act, you would have to have express words of advocacy of election or defeat, such as `vote for,' `elect,'
`support,' `cast your ballot for,' `Smith for Congress,' `vote against,' `defeat' or `reject.'

They have had 21 years to revisit that standard, 21 years to decide the Federal Election Commission knew better than the courts
about how to craft this language, 21 years to change its mind, new judges coming onto the bench and old judges leaving, and the
Court has never changed its mind, up to and including today when it refused to grant certiorari on a lower court decision, in effect
upholding the same language that has been on the books since 1976.

So, Mr. President, I think this is an important addition to the debate. I hope that Senators will note that the Supreme Court is not of
a mind to change its opinion on issue advocacy versus express advocacy, one of the important issues that we have been debating
here in the context of the proposed McCain-Feingold bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Washington is recognized.

Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. GORTON. He would.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, is there any order of sequence on the speaking?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not.

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in 1974, impelled by certain individuals and groups who felt that too much money was being spent
on political campaigns and on political speech, the Congress of the United States passed a law limiting the amount of money that a
candidate for Federal office could receive from any individual source, and limiting the amount of money that a candidate for a
Federal office could spend advocating his or her election to that office.

The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the half of that statute that limited the amount of money that a candidate could
seek from any given individual or organization or group; but about the proposition that a candidate could be limited in the amount of
money that he or she could spend on a campaign, the Supreme Court of the United States made this statement--and I quote

A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily
reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the
audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure
of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies
generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate's increasing dependence on television, radio, and other
mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective
political speech. Being free to engage in unlimited political expression subject to a ceiling on expenditures is like being free to drive
an automobile as far and as often as one desires on a single tank of gasoline.

And the Supreme Court of the United States found invalid, as a violation of the fundamental first amendment right of free
expression, any such limitation.

The same mindset that gave us those laws and that has forced those individuals or groups who feel vitally interested in the election
or defeat of a candidate to spend money in other ways, often through the political parties that sponsor those candidates, now has
brought this McCain-Feingold bill to the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Finding it ineffective simply to limit the amount of money that candidates can collect from a given individual, the bill now seeks to
limit severely the amount of money that political parties can collect with which to express their message to the American people.
The fact that this flies in the face of most thoughtful academics observing the political scene in the United States who call for
greater party responsibility and a greater role for political parties to play in order to create a greater degree of responsibility and
responsiveness in carrying out the will of the people as expressed in elections, the McCain-Feingold bill seeks to tie the hands of
parties and to render them largely ineffective.

The sponsors of the bill do recognize, however, that there are

other methods of communicating political ideas. While they did not attempt to limit the right of other individuals or organizations in
communicating their ideas directly, and in some cases not at all, they do attempt, as the Senator from Kentucky has just pointed
out, to take a form of communication called issue advocacy--that is to say, making your views known to the people of the United
States with respect to issues that come before the Congress of the United States--and force it into a category which they define
as express advocacy, essentially whenever the name of a candidate or a Government officeholder is used, and once again provide
limitations on the amount of money that can be collected for the expression of that form of advocacy.

As the Senator from Kentucky has so clearly pointed out, not only is that portion of the McCain-Feingold bill unconstitutional on
the basis of a long line of Supreme Court decisions, its unconstitutionality was reaffirmed this morning, this very morning by the
refusal of the Supreme Court even to listen to a challenge to a first circuit decision on exactly that subject.

So what we have in McCain-Feingold is, in addition to the limitation on the amount of money that can be spent or contributed to
individual candidates, an additional limitation on the amount that can be contributed to political parties, but no limitation at all on the
amount of money that can be spent independently of those political parties by the widest range of groups and individuals in the
United States who have a vital interest in the actions of this Congress unless those groups make a mistake which is absolutely
unnecessary to make and use one of a handful of magic words.

Finally, of course, McCain-Feingold does not attempt in any respect whatsoever to limit the commentary, either in news columns
or on editorial pages, on the part of the newspapers in the United States or similar commentary on radio and television stations. It
isn't long, however, since exactly such a set of potential restrictions were proposed.

With a degree of intellectual honesty, absent from this debate, in February and March of this year many of those who are here
today promoting the McCain-Feingold bill recognized that the goals they sought were blatantly violative of the first amendment to
the Constitution of the United States and proposed to amend the first amendment.

At this point, Mr. President, I think it not at all inappropriate once again to read into the Record what those Senators--I think some
30-plus of them altogether in the final vote--proposed to do to the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. They
proposed to say:

                                         [Page: S10401]

Congress shall have power to set reasonable limits on the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, and the amount of
expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for nomination for election to, or for election to,
Federal office.

It seems clear to me, Mr. President, that that constitutional amendment, were it placed in the Constitution of the United States,
would have permitted Congress to state that the New York Times, or a newspaper in a city of 50,000 people in a city in Kentucky,
could have its commentary on election campaigns limited in the same way that the present law limits contributions to candidates
today.

Now, Mr. President, I think a newspaper--I will take one of my own--say the Tri City Herald in central Washington, with a
circulation of some 40,000 newspapers a day, if it writes an editorial in favor of my candidacy, which I am pleased to say that it
has, and distributes 40,000 copies of that newspaper, it has exceeded that $1,000 campaign contribution limit if the cost of writing
and printing and distributing that newspaper exceeded 2.5 cents a copy.

Lord knows by how much the New York Times would exceed that contribution by making any kind of commentary on behalf of
or in opposition to a candidate for political office. Lord knows how much more such a commentary on network television news
could be considered to be worth.

Yet, Mr. President, at least the proponents of that constitutional amendment were being intellectually honest and at least they were
being consistent, or would have been consistent had they been willing to say they wanted to limit the way newspapers and radio
stations and television stations could comment on politics, because, obviously, if every other form of communication is going to be
limited, how in the world can we justify letting those few people in the United States with enough money to own the newspapers
or having the good fortune to be on their editorial boards and, for that matter, to write news stories about politics not be limited? Of
course they should.

But, Mr. President, the first amendment was written not when we had television or radio stations, but when we had thousands of
newspapers in the United States of America, most of them speaking much more sharply about candidates and issues than do
newspapers today. And the men who wrote the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States knew that every one of
those newspaper publishers had a greater first amendment right by the definition used by the promoters of McCain-Feingold than
did the average citizen who did not own or write for a newspaper.

But they consider that right of mass communication about political ideas to be a fundamental liberty of the people of the United
States. Now we have opponents of this bill who say it is not only not a fundamental liberty of the United States; it is such a great
evil that we need effectively to muzzle them.

Hark back to the Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court says virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass
society require the expenditure of money. We have proponents who say we should not allow the expenditure of money in amounts
that are sufficient to communicate those ideas.

Having limited the amount of money candidates can get, they now wish to limit the amount of money political parties can get. It is
clear they wish to limit the amount of money that these independent groups can get, but in the absence of their constitutional
amendment, they can't do that.

Now, last year, Mr. President, I asked this question: Were the expenditures of candidates or of political parties or of third party
interest groups the least responsible? The answer, obviously, is the latter. A candidate whose name must go on all political
communications can be immediately called to account for falsehood and, in fact, can readily be called to account even for what is
considered to be an unfair characterization of his or her own candidacy or an unfair criticism of an opponent. Expenditures by
political parties don't carry that same degree of responsibility. The occupant of the chair at the present time is not really
responsible for the communications of the Kansas State Republican Party, nor am I in my political party in my State. We will
catch a certain degree of criticism for what our parties do, but we at least have plausible deniability. But now having forced even
the parties out of the field of effective communication, we leave all political communication to the newspapers and the television
stations and those organizations, whether they are of the left or the right or of a narrow special interest, almost wholly to the field
of unregulated communication for which neither beneficiaries have any responsibility nor the victims any effective way of
responding.

The Senator from Oregon, during the course of this debate, has pointed out the impact of a law very much like the one that we are
discussing here on politics in Oregon. There the limitations on contributions for candidates were even tighter. The point that he
made of what happens in the real world was the candidates can't raise very much money, the political parties are fairly weak, so
campaigning became more negative than it had ever been before--not only more negative because of the use of the undocumented
constitutional rights of these outside groups to criticize, but from the fact that almost all of their communication was critical and
negative in nature, and the limitations on the candidates made it effectively impossible for them to answer.

My own State, Mr. President, is going through pretty much the same experience. The more the limitations on the candidates, the
greater the expenditure of money independently in so-called issue advocacy will be, and the more negative political communication
will be, as it was in the classic example of the tens of millions of dollars spent by the labor unions in 1995 and in 1996.

Now, Mr. President, one other point, and I will have to admit, along with everyone else who has spoken today, almost everything
that has been said today has been with respect to the revised McCain-Feingold bill. The issue before the Senate, however, is the
Lott-Nickles amendment. The same analysis does not attain to the Lott-Nickles amendment because it simply says that labor
unions and labor union-type organizations, while they remain entirely unlimited in the way in which they can spend their money,
and with respect to issue advocacy, can only be involved in politics by the use of money to the extent that there are members who
have paid dues into those unions who allow their money to be spent in such a fashion.

It is curious in the mind of this Senator that such an obviously just policy--not allowing my money, your money or

anyone else's money to be used to communicate ideas with which you or I or that third party disagrees, a proposition that is clearly
constitutional--should be considered to be a poison pill or the death knell for campaign reform. What could be more fundamental,
Mr. President, than the idea that the individual whose money is being spent in connection with the communication of political ideas
should have some control over how that money is spent?

Now, Mr. President, I am in a position to tell you how that works in practice because another element of one of the latest of the
campaign reforms in the State of Washington was to make just such a provision. When that provision became law, 80 percent or
more of the members of the Washington Education Association, the teacher's union, refused to allow their money to be used in
politics at all. I have just heard, though I can't be entirely certain of this statistic with respect to other labor unions, the percentage
of members who are willing to permit their money to be used is in single digits. Presumably, the members of those organizations
prefer their money to be used for the primary function of a union with collective bargaining rights and not even on politics with
which they agree, much less politics with which they disagree.

That, Mr. President, is the reason the opposition to this amendment is so fierce. That is the reason we are told most of the
proponents of McCain-Feingold will filibuster this very bill if it is included. It is just because the opposition on the part of members
of these organizations to spending their money in the way in which it has been spent over the last several years is so deep, so
broad, and so fierce.

But in this case, I want to state once again, Mr. President, we are not talking about a matter over which there could be any serious
constitutional challenge at all. We are simply talking about whether or not it is good policy. We are talking about something that
would meet the goals of McCain-Feingold to the extent that their goals are to limit the amount of money being spent on political
speech. It would certainly limit it in connection with the last campaign.

Now, I am not convinced of the case that we are spending too much money on political speech. I believe the wide diffusion of
political ideas was exactly what the first Congress of the United States had in mind when it passed the first amendment. However,
if you are going to limit political speech, you ought to do so fairly and across the board. To do so fairly and across the board, you
must gut the first amendment to the United States, you must change the Constitution, and you must say we are going to have
Government--Members of this body and the appointed Federal Election Commission--decide what speech in the political context is
legitimate and what speech is not, and the definition of that challenge is its own death knell because, defined in that fashion, there
aren't 5 percent of the American people who would agree.

We have before the Senate, Mr. President, a flawed bill with a flawed and unconstitutional goal, together with the breathtaking
statement that should we make the fundamental requirement that a man or woman's money not be spent on politics with which he
or she disagrees, that we are killing this flawed proposal.

Well, I don't think the bill becomes any more constitutional by the adoption of the Lott-Nickles amendment. I don't believe the
obvious constitutional flaws reiterated once again today by the Supreme Court of the United States are improved by it. Abstract
fairness probably is. But a bill that says that there is something wrong with the communication of ideas--the last Democratic
speaker criticized the way in which campaigns were conducted, apparently feeling that maybe we ought to have a governmental
entity that says what an individual says in a political campaign is fair or unfair. We have created the greatest and strongest
democracy in history and the greatest debate over political ideas with the first amendment as it is. I, for one, believe we ought to
leave it alone.

                                         [Page: S10402]

Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GORTON. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. McCONNELL. As the Senator from Washington pointed out, today's huge news that the Supreme Court has struck down
essentially most of the issue advocacy language in the McCain-Feingold bill, maybe we shouldn't waste our time talking about this.
But if you look at the original bill, it was designed to shut down campaigns, shut down parties, and shut down issue advocacy, and
the Senator from Washington pointed out the only entity exempt from this would have been the press which enjoys a specific
exemption under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

In fact, I have it here for our viewers if they want to look, section 431(9)(B), subsection 1:

Any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or
other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;

In other words, a blanket exemption for the press that no one else would enjoy.

I say to my colleague from Washington, just to ask a question, Westinghouse owns CBS, Disney owns ABC, and GE owns NBC.
Now, these big corporate giants in America will, through the ownership of these television broadcast networks, enjoy a total
exemption from all the restrictions that would be placed on the political speech of everybody else. This is not an unrealistic
hypothetical. We just saw Ted Turner, who used to control CNN, declare on Friday he would not sell ads to a certain group
because he did not like what they were saying.

So I ask my friend from Washington if he could speculate with me for a moment the mischief that might be created by the
ownership of the only exempt avenue to engage in free and unfettered political expression without the heavy hands of the Federal
Government,

what kind of mischief he might imagine could happen in our country?

                                         [Page: S10403]

Mr. GORTON. It would certainly increase the price of television stations and television networks. It would be a bonanza to those
corporate owners, as any other corporation that had a political agenda would find the only way it could effectively communicate its
ideas would be through the ownership of a television network or a major metropolitan newspaper and the like.

But the point made by the Senator from Kentucky is a most interesting one. Westinghouse and Disney and GE don't need to give
soft money to parties, do they? They don't need to come up with their political ideas indirectly. They have the ability to
communicate them directly, without control, without limitation as to amount, to the people of the United States. So the Senator
from Kentucky has made my own point better than I did myself. If you are going to limit political speech effectively, you are going
to have to limit everyone's political speech. And the fewer the exemptions from those limitations, the more valuable those unlimited
mouthpieces are because they cannot effectively be countered, except by someone else with the exemption.

I want to repeat one more time that I believe the constitutional amendment that was seriously debated, but defeated, on the floor
of this Senate in March would have permitted limitations on what those television networks could have done, what the New York
Times and every newspaper in the United States could have done. And it is the very fact that that constitutional amendment would
have allowed such limitations that is the reason it should not have gotten one-third of the votes of the Members of this body. It
should not have gotten any at all.

Once, however, you determine that we should continue the more than 200 years of unrestricted freedom on the part of the mass
media, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the proposition that we should limit the ability to communicate of everyone else.

As the Supreme Court decided more than 20 years ago, the ability to use money and to use, in turn, the mass media is at the very
heart of the first amendment rights. The Senator from Nebraska, who was here before, it seemed to me, had the appropriate
answer to this question. Political contributions should be freely given, not coerced. They should be immediately publicized and
made available. Those who violate those laws of disclosure ought to be appropriately punished. None of these elements is a part of
the law today, and that is where reform ought to start.

Mr. ALLARD addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today, I want to take a few minutes and let my views be known concerning campaign finance
reform. First, I want to commend my colleagues from Arizona and Wisconsin. It is not easy to introduce legislation that you know
will be adamantly opposed from the outset. I recognize this and I want to congratulate them. Second, I want to commend the
Senator from Kentucky, who on more than one occasion has stood on this floor and took an unpopular stand against popular
legislation for all the right reasons.

Mr. President, I have always been a strong advocate of congressional reform, even to the point of introducing legislation that has
upset many of my colleagues. I have always believed that congressional reform should make Congress more like the people we
represent not above them. That is why I have long been a supporter of term limits, which I believe would be one of the best
campaign finance reform measures we could ever enact.

Campaign finance reform should give every American the opportunity to participate, as fully or as little as they want. This
country's principles are based on freedom. People should have the ability to choose whether they want to participate in the system.
We cannot and should not coerce or force citizens participation in this process. Nor should we stifle citizens participation in the
electoral process. I do not believe that this quick fix of McCain-Feingold passes either one of these tests.

First, I do not believe this legislation protects the working men and women in this country. Our electoral system is a voluntary
activity. The U.S. Congress should never force participation in a voluntary activity, whether through individual activity or through
financial contributions. This is why I believe the Lott amendment is so important for any campaign finance reform legislation. I
would never do anything to stop outside groups from participating in the system, I just ask that all activity be voluntary. I would
never force anyone to support me by either their vote or through a contribution if they disagreed with my views and I believe this
should apply across the board to any group involved in our political system.

I have heard complaints that the Lott amendment would weaken the union's power and hurt the union membership. If the political
positions of the union bosses are supported like they believe they are by the membership, then there should be no problem
whatsoever for the unions to stay strong. But, if the unions' Washington office takes positions that are contrary to its membership,
then maybe they need to rethink their ways.

Also, a provision that is forgotten by many who oppose the Lott amendment is that it also applies to corporations and national
banks. The amendment makes it unlawful for any corporation or national bank to collect from or assess its stockholders any dues,
initiation fee, or other payment as a condition of employment if such dues, fee or payment will be used for political activity in which
the national bank or corporation is engaged. Likewise, a labor organization cannot collect or assess its members or nonmembers
any dues, initiation fee, or other payment if any part of such dues, fee,

or payments will be used for political activities.

I think this amendment is very clear, no matter where you work, you should not have to choose between putting food on the table
for your family or participating in an election or supporting an election. Let's make it very clear, the people who do not support this
amendment believe that working men and women, union or not, should have to choose between working or supporting issues and
elections with which they disagree.

I have also heard that being a union member is voluntary and one of the most democratic institutions since employees must vote to
start a union, elect its leaders and if they do not like the direction the union is taking then they can work to change it or as a last
resort, quit the union. If you do not like the direction of the union, you must quit your job as a last resort. I do not think any union
member should have to make that choice--a job or a political contribution. This same provision applies to corporations and national
banks. No employee should have to choose between keeping their job or participating financially to causes or elections they
disagree with.

Some want to apply this amendment to groups such as the NRA or the Sierra Club or other issue groups. The difference between
these groups and the employment condition in the Lott amendment is that joining these groups is completely voluntary and is not
tied to a job. If a member of one of these issue groups wants to quit their respective group, then they just stop paying the dues and
rip up the card. There is no employment backlash that causes that person to lose their job.

Thomas Jefferson summed it up best when he said, `To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of
opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.'

Second, in our quest of campaign finance reform, American citizens should not have to lose their voice. The first amendment is
very clear in its wording, `Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech or the press * * *.' While campaign
finance reform efforts are based on the best of intentions, whether by legislation or just simple suggestions, most of the time they
will affect individuals' first-amendment rights.

The Supreme Court has been very clear where it stands on the first amendment and campaign finance laws. Since the
post-Watergate changes to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 24 congressional actions have been declared
unconstitutional, with 9 rejections based on the first amendment. Out of those nine, four dealt directly with campaign finance
reform laws. In each case, the Supreme Court has ruled that political spending equals political speech. This Senate attempted to
change this through a constitutional amendment limiting the amount one can spend in a campaign, which only tells me that this fact
is undeniably recognized by this body.

In the now famous, or infamous to some, Buckley versus Valeo case, the Court states that:

                                         [Page: S10404]

The First Amendment denies government
the power to determine that spending to promote one's political views is wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society
ordained by our Constitution it is not the government, but the people--individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as
associations and political committees--who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political
campaign.

This simply states that the Government may not ration or regulate political speech of a citizen through spending limits or limit its
quantity any more than it can tell the local newspaper how many papers it can print, what it can print, or when it can print.

Also, the court states that ` * * * the mere growth in the cost of Federal election campaigns in and of itself provides no basis for
governmental restrictions on the quantity of campaign spending * * * .' This goes for not just the candidate but also outside groups
who want to participate in the process.

That brings me to a specific provision in the legislation before us. I have yet to hear what makes 60 days such a magic number.
How can an outside issue group's ad carry a valid message 61 days before an election but if run the next day, it would lose all
validity and become illegal. This just makes little sense. When I ran for this seat in the Senate, I was blasted from all angles by
many different groups, but that's fine. It made my life and campaign a little more difficult, but it let me explain why I voted the way
I did. These groups brought all the issues into play and no candidate can hide their record from the public.

However, no matter how I have to defend my record against these ads, I will never attempt to legislatively silence their voice. To
do so would place myself over the rest of America. I cannot support the idea that my viewpoint is so much more important, that no
one outside of the candidate can speak less than 60 days before the election. I cannot and will not quiet the electorate.

I did forget one exception during the 60-day blackout, the media. This 60-day blackout only strengthens the media and whatever
they say, cannot be challenged, except by the candidate. Today, newspaper endorsements are held off until the end of the
campaign to maximize their effect, but this 60-day blackout period will let the endorsement go without criticism from outside
groups. And I question whether once a candidate gets an endorsement, if their campaign will be covered with the same amount of
scrutiny as the other candidate, for again, any rebuttal to their coverage can only come from the candidates opponent.

I believe this provision places too much power in the hands of a few. I have the utmost respect for the media and the professionals
who work for in the field, but too much of one gets too powerful for all.

Also, I believe this 60 day blackout will be used to remove Congress from the close scrutiny of the public. Let me explain. I am
afraid that Congress will hold off some of the more controversial issues until the last 60 days before an election in order to escape
the scrutiny of these outside groups. This regulation is nothing more than politicians wanting to quiet citizens from bringing up
issues that politicians want to ignore.

Another problem arises regarding soft money. The definition of soft money is campaign money raised outside the regulatory
structure for Federal elections--or non-Federal money. These funds are raised and spent by political parties outside of the Federal
fundraising limitations to benefit the party's State and local elections efforts. While soft money is not federally regulated, it is
regulated by the 50 States. Current law already bans the use of soft money in Federal elections. Basically, a complete ban on the
ability of the parties to raise and spend any soft money would federalize all elections because any money given to the national
parties in support of state and local candidates would fall under the stricture of Federal laws.

The Buckley case clearly states that `[S]o long as persons and groups eschew expenditures that in express terms advocate the
election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, they are free to spend as much as they want to promote the candidate and his
views.' The ACLU says that `the purpose of this profound distinction is to keep campaign finance regulations from overwhelming
all political and public speech. And it is this distinction which defenders of the constitutionality of a ban on soft money continue to
disregard.'

The Court has permitted the unrestricted use of soft money by political parties and nonparty organizations in the Buckley decision
and has enhanced and given it legitimacy in its subsequent decisions, including a decision involving the Republican Party from my
own State of Colorado in 1996.

Let me also make a point about money being the determining factor in elections. In my Senate race, I was outspent by almost
$750,000--a quarter of $1 million. You don't have to have the most money to win, you just have to have the right message and I
will not legislatively try and stop someone from speaking their message during a campaign, not even my opponent's.

Many believe that now is the right time to pass a restrictive campaign finance measure with all the scandal surrounding the last
Presidential campaign and that we should take a chance on the Supreme Court to rule it constitutional. The problem with this logic
is that since 1976, the Supreme Court has referred to the Buckley decision over 100 times in setting limits on the Government's
authority to regulate political speech. I just cannot see this Supreme Court

overturning a ruling that has become the landmark decision and reference point for all campaign finance decisions.

In the end, our campaign finance system needs to be fixed, but any reform must not run counter to the first amendment. The first
amendment ensures that even if we don't like what someone says, they have the right to say it. While many believe that the
amount of money being spent in campaigns is objectionable, the Court has clearly stated that campaign spending is equal to speech
and no matter how objectionable, it is protected under the first amendment.

I will have to say that the McCain-Feingold bill has gotten organized efforts behind it, like this ad run in the Denver Post on
Thursday, October 2, by the group Campaign for America. However I would like to point out a few things.

I find some great irony in this ad. First, if McCain-Feingold passes and this ad was to be aired on TV or radio, it may just be illegal,
especially if it is within the 60-day blackout period before an election. If an incumbent believes this ad to be an attempt to influence
an election, they can challenge it, thus stifling debate. The very message they wish to send could be stopped by the legislation they
support. That is the point I would like to make.

They want to stop big money and big guys with their big bucks from buying the system, which I want to do also by the way. Well,
this group is backed by the some of the richest people in America. Actually, two of the men are on the Forbes 400 list. Plus, many
of them have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to each party. It seems to me that this group is a bunch of rich guys using
their big bucks to buy legislation. And, despite my request, I have yet to receive a full disclosure from this group on how much is
spent, who gives and how much. All I know is who sits on their board of directors.

But in all honesty, I cannot in good conscience stop them from exercising their first amendment rights. I want any campaign
finance reform legislation to encourage this--not stop it.

This is why I introduced my own bill, the Campaign Finance Integrity Act. My bill does not restrict one from exercising their
political speech rights, but asks for complete and honest disclosure for all campaign spending. While this statement is not one of
endorsement concerning my legislation, but in a review of the McCain-Feingold bill, the ACLU says, `Disclosure, rather than
limitation, of large soft money contributions to political parties, is the more appropriate and less restrictive alternative.' My bill does
just that. As a matter of fact, I believe my bill has the strongest open disclosure requirements of any bill introduced.

My bill also will require candidates to raise at least 50 percent of their contributions from individuals in the State or District in
which they are running;

Equalize contributions from individuals and political action committees [PAC's] by raising the individual limit from $1,000 to $2,500
and reducing the PAC limit from $5,000 to $2,500;

Index individual and PAC contribution limits for inflation;

Reduce the influence of a candidate's personal wealth by allowing political party committees to match dollar for dollar the personal
contribution of a candidate above $5,000, by using only hard money;

Require organization, groups, and political party committees to disclose within 24 hours the amount and type of independent
expenditures over $1,000 in support of or in opposition to a candidate.

Incorporate the Lott amendment, along with the requirement of an annual full disclosure of those activities to members and
shareholders;

Prohibit depositing of an individual contribution by a campaign unless the individual's profession and employer are reported;

Encourage the Federal Election Commission to allow filing of reports by computers and other emerging technologies and to make
that information accessible to the public on the Internet less than 24 hours of receipt;

Completely ban the use of taxpayer financed mass mailings; and

Lastly, will create a tax deduction for political contributions up to $100 for individuals and $200 for a joint return to encourage small
donations.

One of the best way to reduce special interest money is to reduce the size and scope of Federal Government and I am not alone
believing this. A recent survey by Rasmussen Research shows that 62 percent of Americans think that reducing Government
spending would reduce corruption in Government. The same survey showed that 44 percent think that cutting Government
spending would do more to reduce corruption than campaign finance reform, while 42 percent think campaign finance reform
would reduce corruption more than cutting Government spending. I have said many times, if the Government rids itself of special
interest funding and corporate welfare, then there would be little influence left for these large donors.

That is why I am fighting corporate welfare, especially thee Overseas Private Investment Corp. Some may not see OPIC in the
same light, but any benefit for corporations will just keep them coming back for more. Another way to achieve campaign finance
is too eliminate the Department of Commerce, where a majority of the corporate welfare programs are funded. Also, by scrapping
the existing Tax Code with its many tax breaks in favor of a flatter and simpler system would clean up our campaigns greatly. Big
Government solutions will not stop big business and big labor money. To break special interest money, we must break the so-called
iron triangle of big business, big labor, and big Government.

I must say that by objecting to the Washington media is very difficult for any politician, but turning your back on the first
amendment is more difficult for me. I want campaign finance reform and I have shown in my legislation how I would like to do it,
but I will not do so at the expense of the first amendment. Not even at the expense of those people's speech who will disagree
with me on this issue. The first amendment is the reason we can disagree.

Let me end with this. While big money has been made the villain, I believe it is not the money but the people. Bad people will do
bad things if given the chance. I believe that the tighter we made it, the more people will try to find loopholes resulting in more
scandals. We need to enforce the laws on the books first before we add more Government regulation is not always the answer.
To me it sounds like those who are under investigation and are calling for more Government regulation of campaigns are saying,
`Stop me before it sin again.' Well let's first uphold the law and then we can better fix it. And when we do, let's not do so at the
expense of those who legally want to exercise their first amendment rights. Don't let the bad shut out the good participants in our
system.

I yield the floor.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

                                         [Page: S10405]

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, very briefly, I thank the distinguished Senator from Colorado for an outstanding contribution to
this debate. I listened carefully to his entire speech. I thought it was truly outstanding. I just wanted to commend him for that and
thank him for his contribution to this important debate.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me say, first of all, that the distinguished Senator from Maine, Senator Collins, has been
waiting for a long time. I am most reluctant to take her spot. But I understand she has to leave. So rather than waste the time, and
with her indulgence, I hope she will forgive me, I will go ahead and proceed with my statement.

First of all, Mr. President, I would like for every Member of Congress to ask himself or herself this very simple question: How
much longer do you think our democracy can survive if we continue under the present system of financing our campaigns?

The first question ought to be: Can we continue to pass laws and elect people based on how much money they have and expect a
participatory democracy to survive?

Question No. 2: Can this democracy survive under the present system of financing campaigns if we adopt McCain-Feingold?

With the utmost respect for two dear friends in the Senate, Senator Feingold and Senator McCain, I would have to say that this
bill will help our democracy last a little longer than it would if we do nothing.

We call ourselves a participatory democracy. And yet, most people have long since quit participating.

So another question that every Member of the Senate ought to ask before they vote on this bill is: Why do only 50 percent of the
people in our country bother to vote?

The next question they ought to ask is: Why do only about 4 percent of the people in the country contribute to candidates and
parties?

We can contribute 3 bucks to the Presidential Election Fund by checking a box on our tax return, without any cost to ourselves, yet
the percentage of people who check that box is down now to about 13 percent of the people who file tax returns. Thirteen percent
will say, `Yes. I want $3 of my taxes to go to the Presidential campaigns.' I think there are an awful lot of people in this country
that think they are paying that $3 out of their own pocket. They don't pay the $3. All they do is say I would like for $3 of my
existing tax liability to go to the Presidential campaign. That system has attracted much higher percentages than in the past. But it
has been declining.

So, ask yourself. Why do only 50 percent of the people vote?

Why do only 4 percent of the people contribute?

Why is the number of people checking the box on their Federal tax return continuing to go down?

The answer to that is very simple. They don't think they count. They say to themselves: `Why should I contribute? Yes. I could
give 25 bucks. I could give 50 bucks.' But when you see $100,000 contributions in soft money, and you see the $2,000
contributions to candidates, really $4,000 if the contributor's spouse also contributes, who will believe that his $15 or $20 is going to
make a difference? And they are showing in big numbers they don't believe they count by staying home on election day.

And they see legislation passed continually where they know money was the determining factor.

I can remember when I was a young attorney just out of law school practicing law in my little hometown. A man came into my
office one day. He said, `I want you to give me $250 for a Member of Congress.' And I said, `He's not even up for reelection this
year. Why would I give him $250?' He said, `Well, they have a lot of expenses,' and so on. And I said, `Well, I'm not going to give
you $250,' the primary reason being I don't have $250. The second reason is $250 is two monthly house payments. And the third
reason is I don't even like the guy; he doesn't represent my views. And fourth, I thought, if I were going to give $250, why would I
give it to you? Why wouldn't I give it to the candidate so he would at least know I had given him $250 and I would also like for him
to know that that is a big, big amount of money for a struggling young lawyer in a little town in Arkansas.

                                         [Page: S10406]

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BUMPERS. No, I won't yield, Senator. I have been waiting all afternoon to speak.

When I ran for Governor the first time, I found asking for money the most difficult thing I had ever done. I could not believe that I
had to go around pleading with people to give me a few dollars. Nobody wanted to give me any money anyway because I had 1
percent name recognition when I started running. Some guy gave me a $100 one day, and he said, `I bet the horses all my life, but
I have never bet on such a long shot as yours.' But he gave me $100 anyway.

I asked Tom Eagleton, the fine Senator from Missouri, when he announced he was going to leave the Senate, `Tom, why are you
leaving?' He gave me three reasons. First of all, he said, `I'm tired of laughing at things that ain't funny.' The second was, `I'm tired
of answering hate mail.' And third, `I'm tired of going around with my tin cup out'--three very compelling, perfectly legitimate
reasons for wanting to leave the Senate.

As good as McCain-Feingold is, it does not remove the problem Senators face of voting on issues in which an awful lot of people
who have given them money have a dynamite interest. My son, who lives in Little Rock, and his wife had twins about a year ago,
and they had a woman who came to stay with them when the twins were born. They are very fortunate they can afford that. A
lot of people have twins and they can't afford to have that kind of help. Be that as it may, she has been a very intelligent woman. I
visit with her when I go over to see the twins. Last week she said, `You know, Dale, I don't know much about what's going on up
there, but it seems to me like you all spend all your time investigating each other.' I said, `That's right, Nancy.'

That is all we are ever going to do as long as we finance campaigns the way we do now. Every time you vote on an issue,
Senators, you are vulnerable to accusations if it benefits anybody who ever helped you. When you take money from somebody
and you vote on an issue, you better hope two things: That the issue turns out well, and that the guy who gave you money does not
turn out to be a crook because if he does, the press comes running to you: How much money did he give you or why did he give
you money? Was there any quid pro quo?

I am reluctant to mention this, but I am going to tell you the truth. I never did like the Keating case. A colleague whom I consider
to be one of the most honest men I have ever known spent $600,000 of his own personal money defending himself because he
was said to have helped somebody who gave him money in a campaign. I can promise you he would never have taken it in a
thousand years if he thought it had the least taint to it. And if Keating's S&L had made it, you would never have heard about the
Keating case. There would have been no case. But because he was giving money to a lot of people and his S&L went under, and
he turned out to be a crook, then we had this big dog and pony show in the Senate that lasted a year or more.

You know, I have been a friend of the President's for now 26

years. And as well as I knew the President, as close a friend as we have been through the years, I never heard of Whitewater
until he became President, never knew there was such a place, never knew there was such a corporation. And if Bill Clinton
hadn't had the temerity to come to Washington as the President of the United States, you would never have heard of Whitewater.
It is all how things turn out.

But to reemphasize the point I started to make, that is, colleagues, when you take a contribution from anybody, even if your own
intentions are pure, you better hope that money is coming from an honorable person. You better hope it is coming from somebody
who isn't out defrauding people. And you better be careful how you vote on issues that can help a contributor if they turn sour or
turn out to be a crook. It doesn't matter if you cast that vote on the merits. And as long as we have this system of financing
campaigns you can lie awake at night worrying about it because it is a real threat. Where a quid pro quo can be inferred, it will be.
That is the perception that will remain until we change the campaign finance law.

We have reached the point, Mr. President, where every single Member is constantly just one step away from disaster. And guilt
or innocence has little to do with the outcome. One woman told me the other day that she had been interviewed and appeared
before grand juries in one of these many investigations and was going to have to deed her house--I promise you she is totally
innocent of anything--going to deed her house to her lawyer because it is the only asset she has that will come close to covering
her legal bills.

Well, we have reached the point in this country where simple negligence, bad judgment, just plain policy differences are becoming
criminal offenses. How many independent counsels do we have running loose in this town? And how many more will we have? I
can answer that partially. As long as we finance campaigns the way we do now, there are going to be independent counsels
galore in this city. When you increase funding, spending on congressional elections in 1976 from $99 million to, in 1996, almost
$800 million, you have to ask, where is this going to end? That is an 800 percent increase in 20 years, with no letup in sight.

Look at the $450 million or almost $500 million in soft money for both parties during the last election cycle. It will be more this
year, they are already ahead of the 1995-1996 cycle. Who gives that money? It is not little struggling lawyers as I was 40 years
ago in a little town in Arkansas. It is not average folks with five and ten and fifty dollar contributions.

I will tell you when it is going to end, Mr. President. It is going to end when the American people rise up in righteous indignation
and come to the realization that the system is rotten, come to the realization that they do not count. It will end when enough people
in Congress get tired of every contribution that goes sour being microscopically addressed by the press and wondering about when
you are going to be on one of the news magazines the next episode.

There is no perfect solution to this. I happen to come down on the side of public financing. I have a bill. I wanted to introduce my
bill as an amendment. Senator Kerry and Senator Wellstone have a bill. We discussed whether to try to offer our bills as
amendments to this bill. We concluded that would probably be counterproductive, would not get many votes, probably would not
get a single Republican vote, maybe 25 or 30 Democrat votes. Yet 66 percent of the people, according to a Gallup poll in October
of last year, 66 percent of the people in this country said they favor public financing of our campaigns.

I heard the distinguished Senator from Colorado say a moment ago that he won even though he was outspent. I was too in my first
race. I ran against a Rockefeller. I guess you would call that stupidity. But in any event, I won, and when I ran for the Senate
against an incumbent, I was badly outspent. But I tell you, those are rare exceptions. I applaud anybody who spends less money
than his opponent and manages to win because 90 percent of the candidates in this country who spend the most money end up
winning. Pretty heavy odds. According to statistics to this date, if you have the money, you have a 9-to-1 chance of winning.

In the 1995-96 election cycle, 400 corporations, labor unions, and individuals contributed $100,000 or more in soft money; 400 of
them gave over $100,000. Were they after good government? Is that what they wanted? I don't mean to demean anybody,
because I have a lot of friends who have been faithful to me for 26 years in the contribution area. I can truthfully say I am most
grateful to all of them. But when I first started running for Governor in my State, there were no campaign laws and I was
absolutely aghast at the amount of cash money, greenbacks, that was floating around in campaigns. One man handed me fifty
$100 bills. I knew he had a deep and abiding interest in certain things that were bound to come up when I was elected, if I was
elected. So I handed him his fifty $100 bills back.

Do you know something? He doesn't like me to this day. You can't give people money back and make them like it, can you,
Senator?

My campaign finance director came up and said, `How are we going to run this race? You are giving more money back than we
are taking in.' I have given a lot of money back. All I am saying is, when you think about how much money $100,000 is, and when
you think about who gave it, you have to believe that they wanted something more than good government.

In 1996--listen to this--in the U.S. Senate, Senate incumbents had a 2 to 1 spending advantage over challengers. You hear people
say public financing of campaigns is welfare for the politicians. Do you know what I say to chamber of commerce and Rotary
Club members, all conservative businessmen who do not much like this idea of public financing? I remind them, you have been
investing in the stock market for several years now and you have been doing well. But I can tell you, if you really want to make
some money, if you really want a return on your investment, you opt for public financing. That will give you the biggest return of
any investment you ever made in your life, because we won't be spending a lot of money on unworthy projects that contributors
supported. It will be a great investment because it will yield a cleaner government and the people will believe it is a cleaner
government.

The average successful Senate race today costs $4 million. That is average. Some races have cost as much as $28 million. Where
will we be 20 years from now if the costs of Senate races continue to go up another 800 percent? You can't count that high. You
can't get computers to count that high at the rate we are going.

One of the problems that I have with the McCain-Feingold bill, and I am a cosponsor and ardent supporter and I certainly intend to
vote for it, but I will tell you one of my fears is, while it will help preserve our democracy for a little longer and it will take some of
the problems out of the way we finance campaigns today, nothing will cure the problem like public financing.

But the point I want to make, what I worry about is, if we pass McCain-Feingold, there will be a lot of hoopla about it, because I
have never known people as tenacious and determined and as hard-working as Senator Feingold and Senator McCain have
been on this issue. They have my deep and abiding admiration for their tenacity and their determination to try to do something
about what is wrong with the system. But if it passes, we will go home and we will pat ourselves on the back and give ourselves
the `good government' award, as Senator Hollings is always saying, and the American people will be thinking the system has
been fixed. A lot of it will have been fixed, but problems will remain and I fear that they will make the people even more cynical.

The issue advocacy ads that are really ads for a candidate--they drive me crazy. This bill would help to bring them under control,
require disclosure of the sources of money used to produce them. They are really campaign spending.

I can tell you, I have voted for one constitutional amendment since I have been in the Senate. I voted for ERA soon after I arrived
in the Senate.

Since that time, I have voted about 32 times against every constitutional amendment. Either earlier this year or last year, I voted
against Senator Hollings' amendment to the Constitution which would have allowed the Congress to set campaign spending limits.
I am going to vote for it. I want to announce now publicly, the next time Senator Hollings brings that amendment up, I intend to
support it. Despite my deep reservations about amending our Constitution, I will do almost anything to change the way we finance
campaigns in this country, because I am absolutely convinced that this system is totally destructive to our democracy. I yield the
floor, Mr. President.

                                         [Page: S10407]

Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to announce my intention to join my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, and vote for
his motion to table the amendment offered by the distinguished majority leader to the McCain-Feingold campaign reform
legislation.

This has not been an easy decision for me. I strongly support the underlying objective, if not the precise language of Senator
Lott's amendment. The principle that America's working men and women should not be required to contribute their hard-earned
money to advance the campaign of candidates they do not support is a compelling one. The strong opposition of big labor to this
reasonable proposal demonstrates their fear that many of the rank and file union members would not agree to the use of their dues
for political purposes.

But in the final analysis, my decision on this matter must be determined by considerations other than the merits of Senator Lott's
amendment. The plain truth is that its adoption will kill campaign finance reform. That is not simply my judgment; it is the judgment
of Senator McCain and Senator Feingold who have devoted so much time and energy to further the cause of reform.

When I ran for the U.S. Senate, I made a clear and unambiguous promise to the people of Maine. I promised that I would fight for
campaign finance reform. The people of my State responded by entrusting me to represent them in this body, and whatever other
loyalties that I might have, I owe my ultimate allegiance to them. I kept that promise when I cosponsored the McCain-Feingold bill,
and I am keeping it now by pledging to vote against what I have concluded is, in fact, a killer amendment.

I do, however, want to say a few words to my Democratic colleagues. At the end of the day, we will not have campaign finance
reform without sacrifices and courage on both sides of the aisle. If Senator Lott's amendment is not defeated, the spotlight will
shift to the Democrats. So far, they have had the easy road, able to proclaim their passion for reform, knowing that it faces an
uphill battle and confident that they can blame the Republicans if it does not pass.

But if their response to the Lott amendment is simply to filibuster and not to offer a reasonable compromise on the union dues
issue, an already skeptical public will reach the inevitable conclusion that Democrats are not serious about reforming the system.
A number of Democrats have urged me to put principle over party, and to them I say, `Your turn may come.'

Mr. President, a fair campaign finance system is essential to a healthy democracy. While not perfect, the McCain-Feingold bill
would give us a fair system. Given the commitment of the people of Maine to fair play, I am confident that my position on this
issue not only is right as a matter of principle, but also reflects the values of my home State.

I want to also take this opportunity to commend Senator McCain and Senator Feingold for their unceasing efforts in this very
important fight.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to

say what a Senator of courage the Senator from Maine is. This is a very difficult issue. The Senator from Maine, of course, is a
loyal Republican, but for her to come out here and have the courage to stand up and join with us to say that this amendment would
kill our bill is extremely important.

I have heard her admonition as well that this must continue to be bipartisan. But the fact that she would come out here at this key
moment and say that she will stand with a bipartisan effort, as she has done in the past, is not a minor matter. It is the same thing
the Senator from Maine did a few months ago when everyone kept saying, `You don't have any cosponsors; you only have two
Republican cosponsors.' It was the Senator from Maine who actually had some ideas that were better than our ideas, and we
added them to the bill and improved it.

Let me add both my personal and professional gratitude for the commitment of the Senator from Maine to reform. We in
Wisconsin like to think that we are the greatest reform State, but Maine sure gives us a challenge.

                                         [Page: S10408]

Ms. COLLINS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield for a question.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator for his kind comments.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to the very important discussion that the Senate is having regarding
campaign finance reform, and I commend the Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, for not only his leadership but for his
tenacity in defending what he believes and so many of us believe is an assault on the first-amendment rights of all Americans.

I also thank Senator Lott, our leader, for his leadership in scheduling this debate, and I commend my colleagues who thus far have
added insight and value to our discussion.

Mr. President, if we are to have campaign finance reform, I believe we must achieve those changes necessary to ensure public
trust in our institutions and our Government officials. Serious reform must take into consideration the significant number of
Americans who are compelled to make mandatory political contributions at their workplace as a condition of employment. No
citizen should be required to make involuntary contributions to any candidate, party, or political interest group. No corporation, no
labor union, and no business entity should have the power to twist the arms of their employees or members. These practices are
wrong and un-American, and I believe they must be ended as part of our overall effort to reform the financing of Federal
elections.

Serious reform must also contain provisions that increase the frequency and specificity of mandated contribution disclosure. I
support measures which bring about greater transparency, those that allow the American people to know the where, the when,
how much, and from whom of campaign contributions.

The last election cycle was filled with numerous activities that violated existing campaign laws. As we proceed through this
debate, we should be mindful of the fact that these new reforms do nothing to reach those past violations. We must ensure that
illegal foreign contributions are kept from election campaigns, and I believe that we must ensure disclosure violations are
uncovered and are punished. Thus, perhaps the most important so-called change we can now achieve is to ensure that the existing
laws are routinely and are properly enforced.

However, in our zeal for change, we should not compromise the rights and freedoms of the same people we claim to protect. We
must pay close attention, I believe, to the numerous Supreme Court decisions which clearly set forth that the regulation of many
campaign-related activities directly implicates first-amendment rights.

In 1974, the Supreme Court reviewed the Federal Election Campaign Act in the case of Buckley and struck down the statutory
restrictions on campaign expenditures. In its holding, the Court concluded that political discourse `is at the core of our electoral
process and of the first amendment freedoms.'

While the Court did allow a minimal level of restriction that we know about--caps on the direct contributions to candidates--and
only for the purpose of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, it granted the full protection, Mr. President, of the
first amendment to anyone spending money to communicate an idea, a belief, or a call to action.

In no uncertain terms, the Buckley decision makes clear that the first amendment forbids the Federal Government from restricting
political speech and expression rights by way of campaign expenditure limits.

Mr. President, the Buckley decision does not stand in isolation. For the past 20 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has
returned to this decision and consistently and unequivocally reaffirmed its soundness. The Court's subsequent decisions clearly
demonstrate this, such as in FEC versus National Conservative Political Action Committee. The Court, tracking the Buckley
decision, struck down restrictions on funds spent in support of publicly financed Presidential candidates in furtherance of their
election. The Court held that such expenditures fell squarely, Mr. President, within the protections of the first amendment rights.

Also, in the FEC versus Massachusetts Citizens for Life, the Court ruled that the voter guide published by an incorporated entity
was entitled, Mr. President, to first amendment protections and invalidated an enforcement action the FEC brought against this
organization.

More recently, Mr. President, in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee versus FEC, the Court again, following
Buckley, held that first amendment protection covers someone communicating an idea, a belief, or a call to action. The Court
found that political party expenditures made in support of party ideals and even party candidates were protected under the first
amendment of the Constitution of the United States so long as the expenditures were not made, as we say, in coordination with
candidates.

Mr. President, the Supreme Court rulings provide us two guideposts in our endeavor to reform campaign finance. We have the
constitutionally proscribed power and thus the responsibility to prevent corruption and/or the appearance of corruption in Federal
elections, but we can `make no law * * * [that] abridges the freedom of speech * * *,' quoting the Constitution.

Therefore, I believe that it is essential that any reform initiatives we pass do not further encroach on the basic rights protected
under the first amendment. It is not the proper role of Government, I believe, to restrict the ability of the American people to
participate in election campaigns. It would be absurd, I think, to allow the Government to control the manner in which Americans
communicate. If reform crosses these lines, I think it commands too high a price, it goes too far.

Mr. President, in light of the Supreme Court holdings, I do not understand and cannot support the present legislative efforts that
directly impinge on first amendment rights. I particularly object to the so-called reform in Senators McCain and Feingold's bill
which restricts independent parties from communicating `for the purpose of influencing a Federal election,' regardless of whether
the communication is expressed advocacy.

Just think about it. Time and again, in case after case, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that Congress

can only legislate to restrict campaign-related activities where those activities comprise the express advocacy of a particular
candidate. The Court even specified in a footnote in the Buckley case what it meant by express advocacy--communications such
as `vote for,' `elect,' `defeat' and `reject.' So when Congress places restrictions on communications that do not fall within this
tightly drawn class, it violates, according to the Court, the first amendment.

Mr. President, as we have consistently heard on the floor during this debate, the first amendment is not a loophole. It is beyond our
constitutional authority to restrict the ability of independent groups to communicate their political views where they do not engage
in express advocacy.

Mr. President, I am also greatly troubled, as are others, by a provision in Senators McCain and Feingold's bill which prohibits
independent communications that merely mention the name of a candidate within 60 days of a Federal election. Not only does
such a restriction strike at the heart of first amendment protections, it all but guarantees a free ride to the incumbent involved in
the election.

Just think about it, Mr. President. If there is no commentary regarding a candidate's performance in office at the time when the
electorate is most tuned into the campaign, no sitting Member would ever lose. Incumbents would be able to capitalize on the
inherent advantages of being in office, while challengers would be forced to rely solely on their own and probably much less
resources.

This provision is incumbent reelection insurance, not campaign finance reform. Make no mistake about it. The electorate must be
able to hear all the views about candidates in a timely manner. And candidates must be able to stomach the full range of opinions
regarding their candidacy.

Mr. President, we must clean up the system but without compromising fundamental first amendment rights. I believe this task is
difficult but not impossible. Without infringing upon any American's rights, we can ensure that the American people control the
direction of their contributions, have an understanding of who gave what to whom, and are confident that our elections are free of
foreign influence, which is so important.

Mr. President, the Senate, I believe, should work to enact these measures into law and not infringe on our first amendment rights.

I yield the floor.

                                         [Page: S10409]

Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I wonder if I might take 3 minutes as in morning business. I can go into morning business
and do this, and then we can come back to this.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield to Senator Domenici for up to 5 minutes and then have my rights
to the floor restored.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing no objection, without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator very, very much. I will be perhaps even briefer than that.

END