Congressional Record - Senate

September 29, 2001

We are working on getting him an appointment with Dick Armey so we can get his other $50,000.

These are documents which came up in our investigation, in our hearings. We can get his other $50,000 if we can get him an
appointment with Dick Armey. The public sees that and they respond the way I respond. That is abhorrent. What are we doing,
offering access in exchange for a contribution? And the amount of money here is abhorrent. `His other $50,000.' That means he
has already given $50,000. Here is a total of $100,000. What happened to the $1,000 limit?

We thought there was a law. The problem is that in the race to compete and to win in our Federal elections, candidates and parties
have found a way around the law. And that is the soft money loophole. Hard money, the contributions which are regulated by
campaign finance laws, is, indeed, hard money. It is harder to come by. So soft money is easier to raise. You can get $100,000 or
$500,000 from just one corporation or individual. You don't have to go to 500 different people and raise $1,000, and you don't have
to go to 5,000 people and raise $100 the way you do with hard money. You can just find one person, one corporation wealthy
enough or willing enough to pay a half-million dollars and then you accept that contribution.

Now, there is another part of the current law which says if you spend money in an election in support of a candidate or opposed to
a candidate, you have to spend money that is only raised the hard way, following the limit. But one of the greatest areas of abuse
in the 1996 election was the use of hundreds of millions of dollars of unregulated, unlimited, and undisclosed money to broadcast
so-called issue ads just before an election--ads that any reasonable viewer would interpret as attacking or supporting a particular
candidate.

Here is an example of one of these so-called issue ads. This was an ad that was run against Congressman Cal Dooley in
California. This ad was paid for with unregulated, unlimited dollars. It read as follows:

Congressman Cal Dooley makes choices for you and your family.

Cal Dooley said `no' to increased money for federal prisons. Instead, Dooley gave money to lawyers. Lawyers that used
taxpayer's money to sue on behalf of prison inmates and illegal aliens.

Cal Dooley said `no' to increased money for drug enforcement. Instead, Dooley gave your money to radical lawyers who
represented drug dealers.

Is Cal Dooley making the right choices for you?

That is a so-called issue ad, at least it was called, because it didn't use the magic words `vote for,' `vote against,' `elect,' `defeat.'

And that is paid for with unlimited dollars. But here is the same ad with one of the magic words:

Congressman Cal Dooley makes choices for you and your family.

Cal Dooley said `no' to increased money for Federal prisons. Instead, Dooley gave the money to lawyers that used taxpayer's
money to sue on behalf of prison inmates and illegal aliens.

Cal Dooley said `no' to increased money for drug enforcement. Instead, Dooley gave your money to radical lawyers who
represented drug dealers.

Is Cal Dooley making the right choices for you?

That is the exact same ad except in this version I have added

the following words: `Defeat Cal Dooley.'

All of a sudden the same ad becomes an ad which under the current approach of some has to be paid for in hard dollars. If you
put that ad on and then comply with the election limits, you could go to jail. But if you put the first ad on and just said, `Is Cal
Dooley making the right choices for you?' You can put on millions of dollars of advertising. No one knows where it is coming
from, no restrictions, the exact same ad with the same effect except for one word.

Now, any viewer looking at that ad is going to say that both ads have the same effect. They are both attack ads. They are both
attacking a candidate. And yet one of those ads, if paid for with dollars that are supposed to be limited but weren't, could actually
put the person who put that ad on either in jail or given a fine. The other ad, unlimited soft money.

In the real world, there is no difference between those ads. The Supreme Court has ruled that the second ad, with the word
`defeat,' must be paid for with limited dollars. This is a candidate advocacy ad, and that is what the Supreme Court has ruled. It is
said that we can require that ads which explicitly call for the election or defeat of a candidate must be paid for in limited dollars.
But the first ad which I have put up is the functional equivalent of the second ad. It is the apparent equivalent of the second ad. It
is the real world equivalent of the second ad.

This bill, which has been introduced today, would treat these two ads the same legally because they have the same apparent
effect, the same functional effect, the same real world effect, the same practical effect. There is no difference between those ads
except for one word. And to our constituents there is no difference when they see those two ads.

We believe that the Supreme Court, because we maintain a bright-line test, will permit this law to stand. That is our hope, and that
is our belief. It is based on the real world, the real world of our constituents who, when they see those two ads I have just read,
see and hear no difference between them because they know that the first ad is an ad that is attacking a candidate just the way
the second ad does and there is no real world difference between those two ads.

Now, we intended corporations and unions not be allowed to contribute to candidates. That is the intention of the current law.
Corporations are not supposed to contribute except through political action committees. Unions are not supposed to contribute
except through very limited means.

How is it then that, for instance, corporations contribute millions of dollars? The same thing can be said for unions--millions of
dollars to these campaigns which do not comply with the current law? Congress is permitted to restrict the contributions of
corporations and unions. That was a decision in the Austin case where Justice Thurgood Marshall said that `we, therefore, have
recognized the compelling governmental interest in preventing corruption supports the restriction of the influence of political war
chests funded through the corporate form.'

Justice Marshall said, speaking for the Court, `Regardless of whether this danger of financial quid pro quo corruption may be
sufficient to justify a restriction on independent expenditures, Michigan's regulation,' which was the regulation on corporate
contributions at issue, `aims at a different type of corruption in the political arena, the corrosive and distorting effects of immense
aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and have little or no correlation to the public
support for the corporation's political ideas.'

And then he went on:

Corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections when it is deployed in the form of independent expenditures just as it can when it
assumes the guise of political contribution.

We intended to restrict corporate contributions to candidates. We intended, in our law, to say that corporations cannot contribute to
candidates at all except through the very strict rules for political action committees. Yet we have corporations and unions, both,
contributing millions of dollars that effectively get involved in campaigns and effectively go to either help candidates or hurt
candidates. It is that same soft money loophole that allows the frustration of congressional intent.

Our intent was clear. The Supreme Court has held that our intent is legitimate; that where there is an express advocacy in a
campaign for the defeat or the election of a candidate, that we are right, we are permitted, it is allowed for Congress to restrict
those kinds of contributions. That effort on the part of Congress over 20 years ago to restrict corporate and union contributions has
also been frustrated by the soft money loophole. We are determined to close that loophole. We are also determined to make it
very clear that advertisements, which are functionally the same, that have the exact same effect on the effort to defeat or elect a
candidate, be treated the same. That is part of this bill, the so-called independent expenditure part, or issue advocacy part. We
simply are adopting another very bright bright-line test.

The Supreme Court did not say it was the only bright-line test. The Supreme Court said that a bright-line test was necessary,
relative to satisfactory compliance with the first amendment. And it gave an example of a bright-line test, an example which was
realistic in the world of the 1970's. But another bright-line test is necessary now because the first test that we adopted, that the
Supreme Court used as an example, has been evaded. And the rules that were permitted by the Supreme Court to apply, the law
which the Supreme Court said was appropriate to enact relative to advocacy--to the election or defeat of a candidate--that has
been frustrated, it has been evaded, and we are now simply trying to implement it in another way which is fully compliant, we
believe, with the first amendment.

There has been a new study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which estimates that during the 1996 election cycle, as much
as $150 million was spent on so-called issue ads by political parties and groups other than candidates. Their research shows that
half of those ads favored Democrats and half favored Republicans. It found that nearly 90 percent mentioned a candidate by
name and, compared to other types of political advertising, these so-called issue ads were the highest in pure attack.

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the Annenberg Center study be inserted in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Annenberg Public Policy Center Analysis of Broadcast Issue Advocacy Ads,
September 1997

A national survey of 1,026 registered voters commissioned by the Annenberg Public Policy Center shortly after election day
showed that a majority of voters (57.6%) recalled seeing an issue advertisement during the 1996 campaign. When compared to
other political communications, using data collected from the same national survey viewership of issue advertisements ranked
below that of presidential candidate-sponsored advertising and debates. More voters recalled seeing issue advertisements than
recalled watching at least one of the short speeches delivered by President Clinton and Robert Dole using free air time donated by
broadcast networks.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center has compiled an archive of 107 issue advocacy advertisements that aired on television or
radio during the 1996 election cycle. These ads were sponsored by 27 separate organizations. Data about the content of these
advertisements are summarized below. The following figures are percentages of produced advertisements, which do not take into
account differential airing and reach of the ads. In addition, although the Center's archive does include independent expenditure
advertisements aired by parties and advocacy organizations, only the issue ads are included in this analysis.

As noted earlier, issue advertisements are those that do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. If the ads do
not call for viewers or listeners to cast a vote in a particular manner, what action do they call for? In many cases, the
advertisement makes no call to action at all. Our analysis shows that one-quarter of issue ads (25.2%) contained no action step.
Of those issue ads produced in 1996 that did solicit some actions on the part of the audience, the greatest proportion asked voters
to `call' a public official or candidate (37.4%). Some asked individuals to `tell' or `let a public official know' one's support for or
disapproval of particular policy positions (16.8%), while others asked that a call be placed directly to the advocacy organization
sponsoring the ad (15.9%). A few of the advertisements called for support or opposition to pending legislation (4.7%).

Despite the presence of clear calls to action, many advertisements did not provide information, such as a phone number or
address, to enable the individual to carry out the action. One in three (31.3%) issue ads that suggest action did not provide
sufficient actionable information.

During the 1996 election cycle, it was the norm for issue advertisements to refer to public officials or candidates for office by
name. Early nine in ten did so. It was also common for television issue advertisements to picture officials and candidates:

Both ends of the political spectrum were represented in issue advertising campaigns. Based on the number of advertisements
produced, ads generally supportive of Democratic positions and those generally aligned with Republican positions were evenly
split. Each accounted for 48.6% of the total. A few advertisements (2.8%), on term limits and flag burning, were not categorized
as Democratic or Republican.

While issue advertising echoed many dominant campaign themes, it also raised issues not addressed by the major party presidential
candidates. For instance, abortion, gay rights, pension security, product liability reform, and term limits were among the topics that
appeared in issue advocacy advertising, but were largely absent from the policy debate among the presidential candidates.

Medicare was the topic most frequently mentioned in the issue advocacy advertising of 1996. One in four advocacy ads (24.3%)
mentioned the issue.

Consistent with prior Annenberg Public Policy Center research on the discourse of political campaigns, we divided issue
advertisements into their central arguments. Arguments were categorized as advocacy (a case made only for the position
supported by the ad's sponsor), pure attack (a case made only against the opposing position), and comparison (an argument that
pairs a case against the opposition with a case for the sponsor's position). Comparison is considered preferable to pure attack
because it allows evaluation of alternative positions. Pure attack contributes to the negative tone of political campaigns.

Compared to other discursive forms, including presidential candidate ads, debates, free time speeches and news coverage of the
campaign (both television and print), issue advertisements aired in 1996 were the highest in pure attack. Two in five arguments in
issue ads attacked.

Arguments in issue ads were less likely to compare positions than debates, free time speeches, and ads sponsored by the
presidential candidates.

Because pure attack and comparison accounted for 81.3% of the arguments, so-called `advocacy ads' rarely simply advocated
their own position. Pure advocacy appeared in fewer than one in five of the ads (18.7%).

Mr. LEVIN. So the result is now a vicious combination, outside of the limits of our campaign finance laws, of, one, huge amounts
of money; two, funding the worst type of campaign attack ads. And the net result is that the exceptions to our campaign finance
laws have swallowed the rules. The rules basically no longer exist. It is up to this body and to the House to restore limits--restore
some fences around contributions so what we intended to do, and the portion of what we did that was affirmed by the Supreme
Court in the Buckley case, can be operative in the real political world that we operate in.

It is a daunting task to plug these loopholes, to make the law whole again--to make it whole, to make it effective. If we don't do
this, if we do not act on a bipartisan basis and adopt real campaign reform, and if we do not make real what Congress intended to
do 20 years ago, and which the Supreme Court has said we can do, where the advocacy of the election or defeat of a candidate is
involved--we are allowed to act relative to campaign contributions. We know that. We were told that in Buckley. Providing our
aim is at those contributions which go to the effort to elect or defeat a candidate, we are permitted to act providing we act in a
way which is clear and has a bright line, and which is aimed at a problem, a societal problem which we identify. Clean elections
are something that we are allowed to seek to achieve. We are allowed to seek to achieve the reduction of the impact of
aggregated money by corporations and power by corporations and unions. That has been permitted by the Supreme Court. It is up
to us, now, to fashion a bill which complies with those standards and we believe this bill does.

If we do not do it, if we do not put a stop to the money chase and the attack ads that are overwhelming the system and disgusting
the American people, we will let down our constituents. Marlin Fitzwater, who was the press secretary for President Bush, made
this statement in April 1992. He made this statement following a dinner for President Bush, at which the major contributors, soft
money contributors, were offered access, private receptions with the President in the White House. It was a very open offer of
access in exchange for major contributions, contributions of soft money. This is what Marlin Fitzwater said very openly and
honestly in April 1992, following that dinner: `It buys access to the system, yes. That's what the political parties and the political
operation is all about.'

He spoke the truth. He spoke the tragic truth that buying access to the system is what the political operation is all about and, too
often, what the political parties are all about. We have to change that. We have to restore to the political process what the political
parties and the political operations should be all about, which is listening to people, communicating with people, organizing people,
grassroots effort--yes, raising contributions in small amounts, limited amounts as we intended to do in the 1970's when we passed
that law. That is what the political operation and the political parties should be all about.

But whether or not they are going to, again, be about that instead of about raising $50,000 and $100,000 and $250,000 and $1
million in soft money, which is spent in the functionally equivalent way--the same way, apparently, as the so-called hard
money--whether we are going to be able to do that is going to be dependent on whether or not we can pull together Democrats
and Republicans as Americans, realize that we have a sick system of campaign finance raising and money raising, and change
it--close the loopholes, respond to the demand of the American people that the money chase and the excessive contributions and
the attack ads end.

In the next week or two, that is a decision we are going to make. I believe the majority of the Senate will support significant
reforms and the President has said he will work for the passage of McCain-Feingold and will sign it with enthusiasm. The time for
waiting while we document further campaign abuses that we all know exist is over. The time for ending those abuses is here.

I want to close by again commending the sponsors of the bill for their steadfast efforts and their commitment to campaign finance
reform. It is a privilege to be part of their cause.

I ask unanimous consent that a number of documents be printed in the Record including the campaign television advertisements
that were involved in the Cal Dooley campaign and in the Bill Yellowtail campaign. I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the
Record at this time. I yield the floor and thank the Chair.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Citizens for Reform Ad

Congressman Cal Dooley makes choices for you and your family.

Cal Dooley said `no' to increased money for federal prisons.

Instead, Dooley gave the money to lawyers. Lawyers that used taxpayers' money to sue on behalf of prison inmates and illegal
aliens.

Cal Cooley said `no' to increased money for drug enforcement.

Instead, Dooley gave your money to radical lawyers who represented drug dealers.

Is Cal Dooley making the right choices for you?

                                                --

Citizens for Reform Ad as Modified

Congressman Cal Dooley makes choices for you and your family.

Cal Dooley said `no' to increased money for federal prisons.

Instead, Dooley gave the money to lawyers. Lawyers that used taxpayers' money to sue on behalf of prison inmates and illegal
aliens.

Cal Dooley said `no' to increased money for drug enforcement.

Instead, Dooley gave your money to radical lawyers who represented drug dealers.

Is Cal Dooley making the right choices for you?

Defeat Cal Dooley.

                                                --

Citizens for Reform (as Ad Ran)

NEGATIVE TV AD ON WIFE BEATING AND CRIMINAL RECORD

Who is Bill Yellowtail?

He preaches family values, but he took a swing at his wife.

Yellowtail's explanation?

He only slapped her, but her nose was not broken.

He talks law and order, but is himself a convicted criminal.

And though he talks about protecting children, Yellowtail failed to make his own child support payments, then voted against child
support enforcement.

Call Bill Yellowtail and tell him we don't approve of his wrongful behavior.

                                                --

Citizens for Reform (With Changed Last Line)

NEGATIVE TV AD ON WIFE BEATING AND CRIMINAL RECORD

Who is Bill Yellowtail?

He preaches family values, but he took a swing at his wife.

Yellowtail's explanation?

He only slapped her, but her nose was not broken.

He talks law and order, but is himself a convicted criminal.

And though he talks about protecting children, Yellowtail failed to make his own child support payments, then voted against child
support enforcement.

Call Bill Yellowtail and tell him we don't approve of his wrongful behavior.

Vote Against Bill Yellowtail.

                                                --

                                                --

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE TRUSTEE--EVENTS &
MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS

EVENTS

Two annual trustee events with the President in Washington, DC.

Two annual trustee events with the Vice President in Washington, DC.

Annual economic trade missions: Beginning in 1994, DNC Trustees will be invited to join Party leadership as they travel abroad to
examine current and developing political and economic matters in other countries.

Two annual retreats/issue conferences: One will be held in Washington and another at an executive conference center. Both will
offer Trustees the opportunity to interact with leaders from Washington as well as participate in exclusive issue briefings.

Invitations to home town briefings: Chairman Wilhelm and other senior Administration officials have plans to visit all 50 states.
Whenever possible, impromptu briefings with local Trustees will be placed on the schedule. You will get the latest word from
Washington on issues affecting the communities where you live and work.

Monthly policy briefings: Briefings are held monthly in Washington with key administration officials and members of Congress.
Briefings cover such topics as health care reform, welfare reform, and economic policy.

VIP status: DNC trustees will get VIP status at the 1996 DNC Convention with tickets to restricted events, private parties as well
as pre- and post-convention celebrations.

DNC staff contact: Trustees will have a DNC staff member specifically assigned to them, ready to assist and respond to requests
for information.

                                                --

1997 RNC ANNUAL GALA, MAY 13, 1997, WASHINGTON HILTON,
WASHINGTON, DC

GALA LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE

Cochairman--$250,000 fundraising goal: Sell or purchase Team 100 memberships, Republican Eagles memberships or dinner
tables. Dais seating at the gala; breakfast and photo opportunities with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and Speaker of the
House Newt Gingrich on May 13, 1997; luncheon with Republican Senate and House Leadership and the Republican Senate and
House Committee Chairmen of your choice; and private reception with Republican Governors prior to the gala.

Vice chairman--$100,000 fundraising goal: Sell or purchase Team 100 memberships, Republican Eagles memberships or dinner
tables. Preferential seating at the gala dinner with the VIP of your choice; breakfast and photo opportunities with Senate Majority
Leader Trent Lott and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on May 13, 1997; luncheon with Republican Senate and House
Leadership and the Republican Senate and House Committee Chairmen of your choice; and private reception with Republican
Governors prior to the gala.

Deputy chairman--$45,000 fundraising goal: Sell or purchase three (3) dinner tables or three (3) Republican Eagles memberships.
Preferential seating at the gala dinner with the VIP of your choice; luncheon with Republican Senate and House Leadership and
the Republican Senate and House Committee Chairmen of your choice; and private reception with Republican Governors prior to
the gala.

Dinner committee--$15,000 fundraising goal: Sell or purchase one (1) dinner table. Preferential seating at the gala dinner with the
VIP of your choice; and VIP reception at the gala with the Republican members of the Senate and House Leadership.

(Benefits pending final confirmation of the Members of Congress schedules.)

                                                --

MEMORANDUM

To: Tim Barnes, Kelley Goodsell.
From: Kevin Kellum.
Re: Hot prospects.

These prospects are not `real hot', but are very realistic.

Gino Palucci, Palucci Pizza. Eric Javits has spoken with Gino who has committed to join Team 100. He asked me to call Gino's
money man in D.C. (Henry Cashen) who is in charge of fascilitating these transactions. I have spoken with Henry who said he
would get back to me and have since placed a couple of calls to his office with no response. I will call him again next week.

Ron Ricks, President, Southwest Airlines. Asst: Linda. Herb Vest has spoken with Ron and said he committed to joining Team
100, but since then Nancy has called and left a message with no return call. I will call his office next week.

Ole Nilssen (HOT), Retired inventor. We are working on getting him an appointment with Dick Armey, so we can get his other
$50,000. We had a meeting set up for this week, but Armey cancelled his Florida leg of his trip.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think, with some research by some very excellent staff members, we may have a basis for an
agreement here. I really believe we have a very strong chance, because I think we can use, to a large degree, as a basis for our
negotiations, not so much the McCain-Feingold bill but the bill that was introduced as S. 7 by Senator Robert Dole and Senator
McConnell on January 31, 1993.

This was S. 7, remembering in those days on this side of the aisle the Republicans were in the minority, so the majority had the
first five bills and the minority, the Republicans, had the next five. This is S. 7, so I don't know what 6 was, but this was the second
one.

I want to talk about this a little bit because I think it is important. This is a bill that Senator McConnell introduced and spoke on
with Senator Dole. I think it is very important. The bill was introduced in the Senate on Thursday, January 21, 1993 by Senator
Robert Dole. At the present time there are 24 cosponsors of the bill--24 Republicans. Let me tell you the cosponsors of this bill.
They were Burns, Chafee, Coverdell, Craig, D'Amato, Domenici, Durenberger, Gorton, Grassley, Gregg, Hatch, Hatfield,
Kempthorne, Lott, Lugar, McCain, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, Roth, Simpson, Stevens, Thurmond.

So, most of the present leadership of the Republican side was represented as cosponsors of this bill. Of course Senator Lott,
Senator Coverdell, Senator Nickles, the whip, Senator Craig, and of course Senator McConnell.

The bill says: Deal with campaign finance reform. Let me read very quickly from Senator McConnell's remarks.

Mr. President, in 1992, voter turnout increased, electoral competition increased, campaign spending increased. Most objective
observers of the political system . . ..

Mr. President, Democratic campaign finance bills based on spending limits and taxpayer financing do, indeed, constitute change.
They do not, however, reform. They do not improve the electoral process.

Quoting from Senator McConnell:

The Democratic bills we have seen in the past were good public relations . . .. Spending limits were totally discredited in the
presented system . . .. Mandatory spending limits are unconstitutional . . .. Taxpayer funding of the Congressional campaign
system to provide inducements or penalties is not palatable.

Then he goes on and says:

Republicans will not stand by while the first amendment is sacrificed for a facade of reform. Campaign finance reform need not
be unconstitutional, partisan, bureaucratic or taxpayer funded. The minority leader and I, joined by Republican colleagues, have
today introduced the Comprehensive Campaign Finance Reform Act, the most extensive and effective reform bill before this
Congress bar none. It bans PAC's, the epitome of special interest influence and a major incumbent protection tool. Our bill bans
soft money, all soft money, party, labor, and that spent by tax-exempt organizations. It cuts campaign costs, provides seed money
to challengers paid for, not by taxpayers, but by the political parties. It constricts the millionaires' loophole, [which, by the way,
happens to be a part of the revised package we have, I am sure by coincidence] restricts and regulates independent expenditures,
fights election fraud, and restricts gerrymandering.

Real reform: In stark contrast to the Democrats' bill, the Republican bill puts all the campaign money on top of the table where
voters can see it. Nothing would have a more cleansing effect on the electoral process.

Then:

The text of the bill eliminates all special interest political action committees, corporate, union, and trade association, also bans all
non-connected or ideological PAC's and all leadership PAC's.

Note, if a ban on non-connected PAC's is determine to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the legislation will subject
nonconnected PAC's to a $1,000 per election contribution limit.

I could not agree more with Senator McConnell's position on that.

Soft money ban: Bans all soft money from being used to influence a Federal election. Soft money is defined as the `raising and
spending of political money outside of the source restrictions, contribution limits and disclosure requirements of the Federal
Election Campaign Act and its regulations.'

So we are in complete agreement with Senator McConnell on that.

Establishes new rules for political party committees to ensure that soft money is not used to influence Federal elections, including
the requirement that national, State, and local political parties establish a separate account for activities benefiting Federal
candidates and a separate account for activities benefiting State candidates.

Requirement of full disclosure of all accounts by any political party committee that maintains a Federal account, and the
establishment of minimum percentages of Federal funds which must be used for any party building program, voter registration, get
out the vote, absentee ballots, ballot security which benefits both Federal and State candidates.

Exempts certain organizational activities, as ours does--research, get out the vote, voter registration--from coordinated or other
limitations.

Requires disclosures and allocation for these activities and retains the same coordinated expenditure limits for media expenditures.

Maintains the limit on total contributions of Federal party accounts at $20,000; limits to $50,000 per calendar year the total amount
of contributions an individual or other entity may make to national, State, or local party accounts combined.

Labor and soft money employee protection: Codifies the Supreme Court decision in Beck versus Communications Workers of
America and provides certain rights for employees who are union members.

Soft money restrictions: Prohibits tax-exempt 501(c) organizations from engaging in any activity which attempts to influence a
Federal election on behalf of a specific candidate for public office.

Extends to all 501(c) organizations the current prohibition on campaign activity which applies to 501(c) charities.

Restricts tax-exempt organizations from engaging in voter registration or get-out-the-vote activities which are not
candidate-specific if a candidate or Member of Congress solicits money for the organization.

Restricts Federal activities by State PAC's created by Members of Congress.

Reduces from $1,000 to $500 the maximum allowable contributions by individuals residing outside a candidate's State, an
interesting take on the influence of outside money.

Indexes the individual contribution limit, $1,000 per election for in-State contributions or $500 per election to out of State.

Congressional candidates using Consumer Price Index, something that I think could be very well discussed.

Prohibits bundling, which I think is a very laudable goal, and then it talks about independent expenditures.

Requires all independently financed political communications to disclose the person or organization financing it. That is very
interesting. I wonder how the Christian Coalition and the right to life and other organizations would feel about requiring all
independently financed political

communications to disclose the person or organization financing it. When Senator Feingold and I floated that proposal, it met with
a pretty strong opposition from both sides. This is a proposal that, obviously, as I have said many times, Senator McConnell made
around 4 years ago; requires that that disclosure be complete and conspicuous.

Requires timely notice to all candidates of the communications placement and content.

Defines independent expenditure to prohibit consultation with a candidate or his agents.

Requires the FCC to hold a hearing within 3 days of any formal complaint of collusion between an independent expenditure
committee and a candidate.

I must say, Mr. President, if, in the last election campaign, that provision requiring the FCC to hold a hearing within 3 days of any
formal complaint of collusion between an independent expenditure committee and a candidate had been the law of the land, they
would have been holding hearings 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Creates an expedited cause of action in Federal courts for a candidate seeking relief from expenditures which are not
independent.

Allows for a broadcast discount in the last 45 days before a primary and the last 60 days before a general election.

Permits challenger seed money, which I think is a laudable goal, and addresses a problem that we have had with giving a
challenger a level playing field.

Requires congressional candidates to declare upon filing for an election where they intend to spend alone over $250,000 in
personal funds in a race and raises the individual contribution limit to $5,000 per election, from $1,000 for all opponents of a
candidate who declare such an intention.

No limits would apply to individual contributions by party, et cetera.

Then there is a very interesting one, franked mail. Prohibits franked mass mailings during the election year of a Member of
Congress and requires more disclosure of the use of franked mail for unsolicited mailings.

Our proposal, as we know, is to cut off the name and face being mentioned in drawing a bright line. I have 60 days. Senator
McConnell's 1993 proposal prohibited franked mass mailings during the entire election year.

It goes into gerrymandering and goes into enhanced FEC enforcement. I heard my colleague from Utah complaining long and loud
about any possibility of enhanced FEC enforcement. By the way, my colleague from Utah was not here in 1993, so I kind of doubt
that he would have cosponsored this bill, as did 24 Republicans.

Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. I guess what I am saying is that we had a very good bill in 1993--a very good bill--and one that I was proud to
cosponsor, along with Senator Dole and Senator McConnell and 24 of our Republican colleagues.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a clarification?

Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. BENNETT. I was here in 1993, and I think I probably did cosponsor that. The Senator is making a good case that I probably
made a mistake.

Mr. McCAIN. Thank you. I appreciate the correction from the Senator from Utah.

That entire list of 24 Republican cosponsors of S. 7, as I mentioned, are Burns, Chafee, Coverdell, Craig, D'Amato,
Domenici, Durenberger, Gorton, Grassley, Gregg, Hatch, Hatfield, Kempthorne, Lott, Lugar, McCain, McConnell,
Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, Roth, Simpson, Stevens, and Thurmond.

Mr. President, I haven't had a chance to examine all the details of the proposal that Senator McConnell's and Senator Dole's S. 7
had, and I believe that there are probably some differences, but I will argue very strongly that we have the basis for negotiations
and possible agreement based on S. 7.

My understanding is that there is not the independent campaign bright line. That actually, as my colleagues know, was an idea that
Mr. Norm Ornstein and Mr. Mann and Mr. Trevor Potter, Professor Potter, came up with as a way of trying to get about the
issue of the independent campaigns which we all know are out of control and they are all negative campaigns.

I was, frankly, encouraged to see that Senator McConnell had proposed such a comprehensive way of reforming the campaign
system as far back as 1993, obviously displaying a degree of clairvoyance that I didn't have at the time. So I hope we can go back
to that.

Mr. President, I just want to end up--and I know Senator McConnell wants to respond to that--there is a book that Brooks
Jackson wrote called `Honest Graft: Big Money in the American Political Process.' This book is somewhat dated. It was published
in 1990. A lot of things have happened since then. Some things haven't happened. Some things haven't changed, they have just
gotten worse.

Let me quote from a chapter in his book, and I will be brief:

Nearly everyone complains that something is wrong with the American political system. Liberals see a Congress bought by
business interests, while PAC managers complain they are being shaken down by money-hungry legislators. Lawmakers detest
the rising cost of campaigning, the inconvenience and indignity of asking for money, and the criticism they endure for accepting it.
Democrats envy the Republican Party's financial strength and decry the sinister influence of big money and expensive political
technology while trying to get as much of both for themselves as possible. Republicans, portrayed by the business PACs they
nourished, seethe at their inability to dislodge Democratic incumbents. Critics of various leanings deplore lawmakers who use their
office to help themselves or moneyed benefactors. Liberal and conservative commentators alike call the system `corrupt.'

The problem isn't corruption; it is more serious than that. If unprincipled buying and selling of official favors was at fault then the
solution would be simple. Honest legislators would refuse to participate, and prosecutors or voters would deal with the rest. To be
sure, corruption does exist; it is hard to imagine any other community of 535 souls where felonies are so often proven. But those
illegalities are only symptoms of the underlying sickness.

The true predicament is that perverse incentives twist the behavior of ordinary legislators. The system of money-based elections
and lobbying rewards those who cater to well-funded interests, both by keeping them in office and by allowing men like Ferdinand
St. Germain to enrich themselves while they serve. It also punishes those who challenge the status quo, as D. G. Martin
discovered. And it bends even the best of intentions, like Tony Coelho's priestly instincts, toward the courtship of moneyed cliques.
As Coelho himself says, `the process buys you out.' The system doesn't require bad motives to produce bad Government.

America is becoming a special-interest nation where money is displacing votes. Congress commands less and less support among
the electorate as it panders increasingly to groups with money, yet its members cling to office like barnacles on a hull of a
broken-down steamer.

Mr. President, I would not use those words myself. I think they are strong words. I do respect Brooks Jackson a great deal. He is
one of the foremost authorities on campaign finance reform. But if that was the case, if that was the view of one of the most
respected commentators in 1990, can you imagine what the view of many of them are today?

Again, I want to say that I hope we can sit down and have some serious negotiations. I would, to a large degree, move to S. 7 as a
basis for a lot of those negotiations. Maybe we can get Senator Dole back, most respected by all of us, and see if Senator Dole--I
believe he still supports many of those principles. We could all sit down together.

If I can very seriously say, I hope that we can understand that what the American people want is not a filibuster and not a
gridlock, not a filibuster by Republicans, not a filibuster by Democrats, but we have shown certainly this year what we are capable
of doing when we sat down on both sides of the aisle and put the Nation on a path toward a balanced budget; when we sat down,
Republicans and Democrats alike, trading off, as is necessary, to reach a goal of giving the American people their first tax cuts in
16 years.

I believe we can do that if there is a willingness to do so, and I, for one, believe that the majority of my colleagues would agree
that there are some things that are fundamentally wrong with this system. If the majority of my colleagues agree with that, then it
seems to me we should be able to reach some kind of agreement on how we can reform that system.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am sure my good friend and colleague from Arizona will agree that politics is a team sport.
In order to be effective, we have to have allies. The bill he went back 4 years to had 24 cosponsors. I can assure my friend from
Arizona, it had a good idea from all 24. Legislation is, someone said, sort of like making sausage: a little bit of this and a little bit of
that.

I confess to having joined in cosponsoring a bill with a whole lot of things that my friend from Arizona will surely remember that I
have consistently argued against for 10 years. But the feeling was, and he remembers it because he cosponsored the bill, that we
needed to have a Republican alternative. And in the spirit of being a part of the team, I put my name on a bill. I am sure the
Senator from Arizona has never put his name on a bill with which he disagreed with any part. In fact, he said here today he is not
entirely happy with the union provision in the bill that he is putting forward.

The Senator from Kentucky may be guilty of many things, but I think in this debate rarely guilty of inconsistency and many of the
things that the Senator from Arizona mentioned I personally argued against prior to coming up with this five-legged dog. Somebody
said you might be able to make a five-legged dog, but nobody has ever seen one in nature.

That is sort of what that bill was. So I confess to having signed on to a bill much of which I thought was probably not the right
thing to do.

But let me ask the Senator from Arizona--he said on Friday and again, I believe, today, any genuinely independent expenditure
made to advocate any cause which does not expressly advocate the election or the defeat of a candidate is fully allowed. Is that
the view of the Senator from Arizona?