Statement in Support of a Modified Version of S. 25 September 26, 1997 Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to begin by once again expressing my admiration and gratitude to the senior Senator from Arizona for his extraordinary leadership on the issue of campaign finance reform . This effort has already been a long and difficult one, but it is all about his courage and his exceptional commitment to the good of this country. He is in a more difficult situation than I am in as a member of the majority party. But the fact is he is one of the greatest Republicans of our time. And they are lucky to have him. Mr. President, I also want to thank Senator Lott, the majority leader, for helping us get this bill up to the floor. And I also appreciate the fact that he took some time this morning to say a little bit about how he got here; about what it was like for him to try to be elected to the U.S. Senate. I think those kinds of stories and accounts are going to be very important as this debate proceeds because we need to tell the American people just what is involved in running for the Congress these days. We need to tell them the truth about how many people are truly invited to participate in a process that is so awash in money that almost every American must feel like they are not invited to participate. I also want to, of course, especially thank my leader, Senator Daschle, not only for his powerful statement on behalf of our bill but also for his leadership in working diligently to make sure that all 45 members of the Senate Democratic caucus are in support of the McCain-Feingold bill; a bill that has been initiated by a member of the other party. That is a great tribute to him and to the cause of bipartisanship in favor of campaign finance reform. I also want to do something that may not be terribly popular out here as the debate goes on. I want to thank the President of the United States, because the fact is he has been diligent, consistent, and persistent in support of this particular piece of legislation. He has offered his personal help. He has offered the help of his staff. Before it is finished, before we claim our final victory on this issue, I am going to certainly repeat the fact that President Clinton has been fighting for reform. Mr. President, it was just over 2 years ago that the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Thompson, and I began this long, sometimes tortuous, journey on the path to campaign finance reform . In fact, it was September 1995 when we first introduced our bipartisan reform proposal, a proposal that is centered on the premise that it is imperative that we reduce the role and influence of money on our electoral system. For 2 years, though, Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona and I have been stymied by opponents of reform who desperately cling to the absurd notion that the more money you pour into the political system that our democracy somehow gets better. Sometimes the comparison is made that we spend as much money on elections as we spend on potato chips. I don't know what this has to do with the question of political reform but it is an argument we are treated to anyway. Of course, no one outside the Washington Beltway believes in that argument. No one outside of this town thinks we need more money spent on the political process. In fact, if you talk to any average American they will tell you they are just horrified by the amount of money that is spent on our electoral system. But they are tired of excessive spending. They are tired of the onslaught of negative attack ads all throughout a campaign season. And, yet, they are even more tired--they are sick and tired--of the ongoing revelations of abuse and wrongdoing related to elected officials and campaign fundraising. Nonetheless, our opponents, such as our colleague and our friend, the junior colleague from Kentucky, continue to argue that more campaign spending somehow strengthens democracy and expands citizen participation. Of course, I disagree with him on this point. And so do the facts. The facts say this: The 1996 election speaks for itself. In 1996, candidates and parties spent in excess of $2 billion. That was an all-time record amount of campaign spending. In a year where we spent more money on Federal elections than in any other year in our history, let's ask the question: Was democracy strengthened? Did we expand citizen participation? We all know the answer. Mr. President, we did not. Almost a year after the fact we are still feeling the fallout from the 1996 elections. After months of hearings by the Governmental Affairs Committee, led by the Senator from Tennessee, it is clear that we had widespread abuse and wrongdoing on both sides of the aisle. We have had congressional investigations, a Justice Department investigation, an FBI investigation, and even a CIA investigation, all relating to the way we elected our representatives. That doesn't sound like the strengthening of democracy to me. As for participation, we had the lowest voter turnout in 72 years--a clear sign that the electorate was not exactly energized by all this campaign spending. We know the truth. They were turned off. Perhaps most disheartening, our campaign finance system just lacks any sense of fairness anymore. In 1996, incumbents outspent challengers by ratios of 2 to 1 and 3 to 1, and to no surprise. The reelection rate for Members of the House and Senate remained well above the 90 percent level. As the Senator from Arizona has said, the time for reform is right now. Over the course of the last several months, the Senator from Arizona and I have had two clear consistent messages. The first was that our preference was to work with the majority leader in scheduling debate on bipartisan reform legislation. Thankfully for the kind of cooperation that serves this body very well, we have achieved that. Of course, the majority leader has already begun the debate. He says we should not shift the subject. He wants to focus instead on the White House. But I think what we ought to focus on is the whole system. We ought to focus on the question of whether this system has anything to do with the principle that everybody's vote should cost the same. We are already hearing talk about filibusters--about ways to make sure the legislation does not pass. But I do want to say that I am very impressed with the way in which this bill came to the floor, and I am grateful. Our first choice always was the cooperative approach. Mr. President, our second message was one that the Senator from Arizona just made very plain once again. That is our willingness and continued willingness to make the changes that need to be made to do the right thing. We demonstrated this willingness to compromise when we worked with the junior Senator from Maine who suggested a number of changes to our bill that I think actually strengthen the bill. I think there may be amendments out on the floor by either party that can make the bill stronger, and a better reform bill. That is the spirit in which Senator McCain and I come to the floor. We know that this bill isn't perfect. It is not the ideal Feingold bill. It is not the ideal McCain bill. That is how we got together--by compromises and trying to come up with a reasonable passage. Prior to the August recess, the Senator from Arizona and I stood here on the Senate floor with some of our colleagues and expressed the hope that this debate would occur. We also said that if we were unsuccessful with that effort we would bring the legislation to the floor in September. Mr. President, for opponents of campaign finance reform , for those Washington interest groups--whom I like to refer to as `the Washington gatekeepers'--who joined with the Senator from Kentucky in opposing any changes to our current system, it is September. It is a Friday in September. And we hope for all of those who have declared this bill dead over and over again that today will be remembered for them as `Black Friday.' For the rest of the country, for the 90 percent of the Americans who believe we should be spending less on our elections, for the underfunded challengers who are consistently blown out of the water by well-entrenched incumbents, and for those who believe that the first amendment is a right belonging to all Americans, not just a commodity for the wealthy few, I hope this Friday will be remembered as the day we took the first step in providing with this reform proposal the first real opportunity to fundamentally change the nature of our political system. The base package of reforms the Senator from Arizona and I have pieced together represents a solid first step on the path to more comprehensive reform . As he has already highlighted, the package will ban so-called soft money. That means that the Washington soft money machine that has fostered the multihundred-thousand dollar contribution from corporations and labor unions and wealthy individuals will be shut down forever. The American people won't have to hear about outrageous levels of contributions that they couldn't even dream of giving even once in their lives. The base proposal also modifies the current statutory definition of `express advocacy.' It does not affect issue advocacy. It redefines in an appropriate manner `express advocacy' to provide a clear distinction between expenditures for communications used to advocate candidates and, on the other hand, those used to advocate issues. And that is all it does. It does not do, as the majority leader has suggested, ban billboards. Of course, it doesn't. It doesn't touch voter guides. We explicitly provide that voter guides are permitted. And it doesn't ban one single television or radio ad, ever. It simply does not do that. And we will repeat that statement as often as it needs to be repeated. Candidate-related expenditures will be subject to current Federal election laws and disclosure requirements. Of course they will. But that is all. No form of expression will be prohibited. That statement is simply inaccurate. The proposal will require greater disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures, and provide the Federal Election Commission with the tools to better enforce our campaign finance laws. It includes a strict codification of what is known as the Supreme Court's Beck decision, thus requiring labor unions to notify nonunion members that they are entitled to request a reduction of the portion of their agency fees used for political purposes. Of course, I find it laughable that anyone could believe that the central problem in the campaign finance system is an issue of union dues. That is laughable on its face. What about corporations? What about all of the other special interest groups? Does anyone really believe that labor is the only problem? Nonetheless, we try to reasonably and appropriately address this issue rather than ignoring it. Finally, the base package includes a provision that for the first time encourages candidates to abide by some kind of a voluntary fundraising restriction. That is a significant step. As my colleagues know, the Supreme Court ruled in the decision in Buckley versus Valeo that it is fully consistent with the first amendment to offer candidates incentives to encourage them to voluntarily limit their campaign spending. In fact, the Buckley Court specifically upheld the Presidential system that we have today which offers public financing in exchange for candidates agreeing to voluntary spending limits. The Senator from Arizona and I have added a provision to this base package that tracks that concept. Under current law, Mr. President, political parties are permitted to make expenditures in coordination with the Senate candidate up to a certain limit. That limit is based on the size of each State. In California, for example, the parties are each permitted to spend about $2.8 million in coordination with the candidate. Our proposal provides that candidates who decide to pour a great deal of their own personal funds into a campaign would simply no longer be entitled to those party expenditures on their behalf. Specifically, if a candidate agrees to limit their personal spending to less than $50,000 per election, they will continue to receive help from their party committees. If they don't, they just won't receive that money. It is a basic concept. If you want to pour millions and millions of dollars of your personal money into a campaign to try to buy a Senate seat, you should be able to do so. We don't disagree with Buckley versus Valeo on that point. We don't disagree. We just do not think you should get some kind of a benefit, some kind of a privilege after you have done so. It is very important to recognize that distinction. That is what Buckley said, and that is what this proposal reflects. We should not reward such candidates. We should not give them the equal benefit with their opponent who is not a millionaire and who should be able to receive that. So, Mr. President, that is the outline of our base package. It is modest reform . It is a strong step in the right direction, and it provides us with the vehicle to move campaign finance reform forward. But there is another piece to our effort. The base package makes several important reforms . But the one thing it does not do enough of is doing something about the position of incumbents and challengers in financing their campaigns . We know what the problems are. Incumbents consistently blow away challengers who lack the resources to run their campaign . The flow of campaign cash through the corridors of Congress undermines public confidence and trust in this institution. Officeholders spend more time panhandling for campaign contributions sometimes than they do on the Nation's legislative business. That is why the Senator from Arizona and I are announcing our intention to offer a McCain-Feingold amendment to our own vehicle. Why? Because we want some accountability on this issue. We want to see that the Members of the U.S. Senate are prepared to stand up in the public spotlight and tell the American people whether they are willing or unwilling to change a system that is so clearly rigged in their own favor. Mr. President, that road is going to be a true test of reform . That will be one of the votes that tells us how serious the U.S. Senate is with fundamentally changing a political system that has spiraled out of control, and has led to so many charges of abuse and undue influence; and, yes, Mr. President, corruption. Our amendment will again build on what the Supreme Court said was permissible in the Buckley decision. The amendment offers an incentive to candidates to encourage them voluntarily to limit their fundraising. The incentive in this case is a half-priced discount on television time. And that, of course, would have more to do with reducing the cost of campaigns than anything else. Candidates who wish to receive the discounted television time would have to agree to three simple rules. First, they would have to agree to raise a majority of their campaign funds from people who live in their own State. That seems reasonable. Second, they must agree to raise no more than 25 percent of their total campaign contributions from political action committees. Finally, they have to agree again to spend no more than $50,000 of their own personal money on a campaign . By doing so, Mr. President, we would provide candidates, for the first time ever, with the opportunity to run a competitive campaign without having to raise and spend millions of dollars. It tries to level the playing field. It is fair to both parties, and that provision, that amendment that we will offer, is clearly constitutional. There will be a vote on that amendment, and we will find out if Senators favor or support changing the rules that have so clearly fallen apart in recent years. I look forward to that debate. I look forward to the other amendments that will be offered that could well improve this bill even more. So before concluding, I do want to again thank my colleague from Arizona, but I want to make two points, two points that I think will be something of a road map to what will happen in the next few days. First, there is going to be, if you have a scorecard, two different groups out on the floor. One group of Senators is going to try to force a filibuster. They are going to offer amendments and use procedural tactics in any way they can to force either the Democrats or the Republicans to filibuster. The majority leader already said today, with great pride, that he would get the other side to filibuster. He has already announced that that is his goal. But there is another group of Senators, Mr. President. That is the bipartisan group. That is not the filibustering group. That is the group of Senators from both parties who are working together to avoid a filibuster and reform our system. Keep your scorecard. There are two very clear groups--the filibusterers and the bipartisan Senators. That is where we are in the difference on this issue. The second final point I want to make, Mr. President, is that not only are there two groups of Senators on this issue--and we will find out exactly who they are--there are also two different visions of our democracy represented in the Senate. One vision is the vision of a representative democracy. The other vision is what I like to call a vision, an acceptance of something that is more akin to a corporate democracy. We have become a corporate democracy. What do I mean by that? When I was 13 years old, I received a gift of a share of stock. One of our relatives wanted to teach me how the stock market worked and how our economy worked. I think it was maybe a $13 stock in the Parker Pen Co., one of our great prides in Wisconsin and in my hometown of Janesville. My father told me that in addition to owning a share of that stock, I would have a vote at the stockholders' meeting. And being already interested in politics, I thought: Great. When is the election? When is the stockholders' meeting? I want to go vote. And he laughed. He said, `Well, I better tell you something. The number of votes you get depends on how many shares you have. You don't have the same vote and the same power as everyone else because it is a corporation. It is based on how much money you are able to put into the corporation, and so you could go to the shareholders' meeting but your vote wouldn't count very much.' Mr. President, sadly, that reminds me more of America today than ever before. This is not a democracy anymore of one person-one vote. If we keep this system of $300,000, $400,000 contributions and access to politicians based on contributions, we will have sealed this as a corporate democracy, not a representative democracy. That is the question before us. Will we abandon all the other Americans who simply cannot afford the cash to play the game? We have to reject the corporate democracy, Mr. President. We have to return to a representative democracy. That is what this country is all about. That is what this institution is all about. Fortunately, in the coming days, we will find out who is on which side. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

# # #