March 19, 2001

Mr. President, today the Senate begins debate on a defining issue in American politics — the question of whether unlimited, unregulated contributions to political campaigns are forwarding democracy or undermining it.

In this Senator's mind, the answer to that question is quite clear: no democracy can thrive — if indeed survive — if it is awash in massive quantities of money. Money that threatens to drown out the voice of the average voter of average means. Money that creates the appearance that a wealthily few have a disproportionate say over public policy. And money that places extensive demands on the time of candidates — time that they and the voters believe is better spent discussing and debating the issues of the day.

The McCain-Feingold legislation before the Senate today is a good first start toward reform of a campaign system that is broken, plain and simple. I, for one, would like to have public financing of our federal campaigns. I would like to see free or reduced-rate T.V. and radio time for candidates. I would like for any negative ad to display the face and voice of the candidate on whose behalf that aid is aired.

The McCain-Feingold legislation is not as comprehensive as some of us would prefer. But it does address two of the most pressing deficiencies in our system of campaign finance — undisclosed soft money contributions and sham issue ads.

I have consistently supported this legislation. Today I call on my colleagues, and President Bush, to work with us to restore accountability to our system of campaign finance, and confidence in our system of representative democracy.

Let me be absolutely clear on one essential point. Unlike previous debates, this time we have an opportunity to pass meaningful campaign finance reform. We can reclaim our system of financing campaigns by cutting off the flow of unregulated and unlimited soft-money. We must end it, and not just mend it.

Like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I feel strongly about the need for reform, and I am frustrated at this body's continued inability to move forward with legislation to address this problem. Time and again we have seen thoughtful, appropriate - and, I must emphasize, bipartisan efforts to stop the spiraling money chase that afflicts our political system, only to see a minority of the Senate block further consideration of the issue. It is almost as if the opponents of reform are heeding the humorous advice of Mark Twain, who once said, "Do not put off until tomorrow what can be put off till day after tomorrow just as well."

Mr. President, it is now long past the day after tomorrow, and we simply cannot afford to wait any longer to do something about the tidal wave of money that is drowning our system of government and eroding the public's confidence in the integrity of our democracy.

With that said, I strongly support S.27, known as the McCain-Feingold legislation. Why do I support it? Because it is "real" reform, not "sham" reform. And I congratulate my two colleagues for their persistence and tenacity in pursuing it. This bill accomplishes critically important goals. It closes the most serious loopholes in our current campaign finance system.

The bill:
• shuts down the system of unlimited, unregulated, and undisclosed soft money;
• bans direct or indirect contributions from foreign nationals;
• requires disclosure of electioneering communications masquerading as issue ads; and
• prohibits fund-raising by federal officials on federal property. -->

  There are those of my colleagues who would argue that when it comes to political campaigns, money is speech and speech should be unlimited. Let me be clear — I can not agree more that political speech should be unlimited. The free flow of information and ideas is the hallmark of a democracy. But to equate speech with money is not only a false equation, it is also a dangerous one to our democracy. When that speech and those ideas are paid for overwhelmingly by a few wealthy individuals, or foreign nationals, or anonymous groups, or by undisclosed contributors, the speech is neither free nor democratic. It is encumbered by the unknown special interests who have paid for it. And it minimizes, or excludes, the speech of those who lack substantial resources.

  This special interest speech — paid for with unlimited, undisclosed soft money — creates, at a minimum, the appearance of undue influence, if not an implied quid pro quo by the contributor. Does anyone seriously believe that corporations and associations contribute millions of dollars in soft money just because they are good citizens and want to encourage free speech? Let us be serious. It cannot be argued that such special interest soft money contributions were made to promote political speech and better public policy without any expectation of consideration in return.

  That expectation of special consideration, or an unspoken quid pro quo, is the very appearance of undue influence that the supreme court has repeatedly upheld as a compelling reason for limiting campaign contributions.

  Unlimited contributions simply do not equate to free speech. Although the final statistics on the total amount of money contributed in the 2000 election cycle is not yet complete, we do know the overall estimate for expenditures on federal elections in the 1999-2000 election cycle is between $2.4 and $2.5 billion dollars. And that is a conservative total.

  Let me put that in perspective for my colleagues. The average expenditures necessary for a winning Senate candidate increased from $609,000 in 1976 to over $7 million dollars in the 1999-2000 election cycle. At that amount, the average Senate candidate would have to raise the equivalent of $3,000 per day for every day of a six-year Senate term.

  It is past time to restore sanity, and accountability, to our system of financing elections. I welcome this debate and look forward to amendments offered to both improve the McCain-Feingold legislation and restore the integrity of the manner in which we finance elections.