Statement about Interests that Oppose Campaign Finance Reform May 1, 1996 Mr. President, just briefly, before we go back on to the important business at hand, the immigration bill, I just want to call to the attention of the body an article today in the Washington Post entitled `Campaign Finance Proposal Drawing Opposition From Diverse Group.' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that article be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: From the Washington Post, May 1, 1996 [FROM THE WASHINGTON POST, MAY 1, 1996] Campaign Finance Proposal Drawing Opposition From Diverse Group (BY RUTH MARCUS) An unusual alliance of unions, businesses, and liberal and conservative groups is trying to defeat campaign finance legislation that would abolish political action committees and impose other restrictions on election spending. The informal coalition, which met for the second time yesterday, includes groups that usually find themselves on opposite sides of legislative and ideological battles: unions including the AFL-CIO, National Education Association and National Association of Letter Carriers, and the National Association of Business Political Action Committees (NABPAC), which represents 120 business and trade association PACs. Also among the 30 organizations at the meeting were conservative groups such as the Cato Institute, Conservative Caucus and Americans for Tax Reform; liberal groups such as EMILY's List, the women's political action committee; and others, including U.S. Term Limits, the National Women's Political Caucus, the National Association of Broadcasters and the American Dental Association. Yesterday's meeting, at AFL-CIO headquarters here, was organized by Curtis Gans of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, a nonpartisan organization that studies voter turnout. Gans opposes the campaign finance proposal pending in Congress. `The unifying principle is essentially that the approaches that have been pushed by Common Cause and Public Citizen are wrong . . . and their answers to the problems are wrong,' Gans said, referring to two of the leading groups pushing the campaign finance legislation. He said the groups that met yesterday were `unanimous' about the need to do `public education' activities to counter a debate that Gans said `has essentially been dominated by the Common Cause position.' But the diverse assemblage was unable even to agree to Gans's draft joint statement about the issue. Common Cause president Ann McBride said the meeting showed `labor and business . . . coming together and agreeing on the one thing that they can agree on, which is maintaining the status quo and their ability to use money to buy outcomes on Capitol Hill.' The meeting reflects a stepped-up effort by foes of the proposal. NABPAC has launched a print and radio advertising campaign here and in districts of members who support the bill.The ads target individual lawmakers by name. `Legislation sponsored by Rep. David Minge . . . will make it harder for average Americans to contribute to campaigns and to run for office,' said a newspaper ad that ran in the Minnesota Democrat's district. `The next time you see Rep. David Minge ask him this simple question: Why do you want more millionaires in Congress?' NABPAC also is encouraging its members to cut off contributions to lawmakers who support the bill, and last month sent a memorandum to members of Congress enclosing copies of its ads. `The plans are to aggressively market this in other appropriate areas of the country,' NABPAC executive vice president Steven F. Stockmeyer said in the memo. Three sponsors of the campaign finance bill in the House, Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) and Linda A. Smith (R-Wash.), fired back at NABPAC in a letter to its members last week, calling the memorandum a `thinly veiled threat to keep members from co-sponsoring' the legislation. `[I]ntimidating members into staying off of the bill by either subtly or blatantly threatening to withhold campaign contributions is disgraceful and justifies why our legislation is needed,' they wrote. `Frankly, these efforts simply inspire us further to try to end the system of checkbook lobbying in Washington.' But Shays said yesterday that `some members are [scared] because they don't want to be the enemy of these groups.' A Common Cause study released last week found that NABPAC members gave $106 million to current members of Congress from 1985 to 1995. In addition to abolishing PACs, the campaign finance bill, sponsored in the Senate by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Fred D. Thompson (R-Tenn.), would set voluntary state-by-state spending limits and, for those who agree to the limits, require television stations to offer 30 minutes of free time in evening hours and cut rates for other advertising before primary and general elections. Critics contend that abolishing PACs would diminish the ability of average citizens to join together to have their voices head and would increase the influence of wealthy citizens. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, what this article is about is a reaction to the effort that Senator McCain and I and others have been preparing to try to change our Nation's campaign financing system. There are those who have indicated that the effort will go nowhere because it is already too late in the 104th Congress, and that it is just going to go the way of all other campaign finance reform efforts in the past. Frankly, Mr. President, this article gives me heart. It is eloquent testimony to the reason why we have got to have campaign finance reform in this country and why we need it now. What happened yesterday was, according to the article, an unusual alliance of unions, businesses, and liberal-conservative groups trying to defeat campaign finance legislation that would abolish political action committees and other restrictions on election spending, got together, all together, to try to kill the McCain-Feingold bill. It included groups such as the AFL-CIO, the NEA, National Association of Letter Carriers, the National Association of Business Political Action Committees, Cato Institute, Conservative Caucus, Americans for Tax Reform, EMILY's List--you name it--National Association of Broadcasters, the American Dental Association. This was a gathering of all the special interests in Washington, even before we have had the bill come up, saying, `Let's kill it before it has a chance to live.' The reason it gives me heart, Mr. President, really, there are two reasons. First of all, if this bill is not going anywhere, what are they worried about? Why are they coming together, as they so infrequently do, to kill a piece of legislation that is the first bipartisan effort in 10 years in this body to try to do something about the outrageous amount of money that is spent on campaigns and the outrageous influence that this community, Washington, has on the entire political process in this country? I recall when I ran for the U.S. Senate, I might talk to somebody from the labor community or to an independent banker, and they would say, `Gee, we think you are a pretty good candidate, but first I have to check with Washington to see if I can support you.' That is how the current system works. You have to check in with Washington first. I think that gives way too much power to this town and way too much power to these special interests that want to kill campaign finance reform in this Congress. It gives me heart that there is concern. It also gives me heart that they are drawing attention to the fact. In fact, this article is eloquent testimony to what is really going on in this country. There is too much money in this town; there is too much money in these elections. What they are trying to do, Ann McBride of Common Cause pointed out, is to preserve the status quo, the meeting of labor and business coming together and agreeing on the one thing they can agree on, which is maintaining the status quo and their ability to use money to buy outcomes on Capitol Hill. What our bipartisan effort is about is returning the power back to the people in their own home States, to let them have more influence over elections than the special interests that run this town. We will join this issue on the floor, and we will fight these special interests head on, regardless of their new coalitions. Mr. President, I simply indicate we are prepared, as I did a couple of days ago along with other Senators, we are prepared to offer this as an amendment to a bill in the near future, or if the leadership sees it this way, to bring this up as separate legislation. The time is drawing near for campaign finance reform. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

# # #