BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1997 (Senate

Congressional Record - Senate

September 29, 2001

But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be
necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first
enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

While he was certainly both a revolutionary and a visionary, Madison never allowed himself to stray too far from the practical
realities of the world in which he lived. To him, the lack of human perfection was thus the basis for government, and a factor
which must be taken into account in providing a government with sufficient powers to accomplish its necessary functions, while at
the same time holding it fully accountable to the governed. We must hold those who run for Federal elective office fully
accountable to tight regulations and complete disclosure in the raising and spending of campaign dollars.

Last week on the Senate floor, Senator Thompson delivered a very fine statement on campaign finance reform and free speech
in which he pointed out that, in the real world, this current debate about campaign finance reform and free speech is not one of
absolutes, as some would have it. This is not a choice between a system of unfettered free speech and government regulation, for
our current system recognizes many, many instances in which there is a legitimate, and constitutional, public interest in regulating
speech, from slander laws, to prohibitions on the disclosure of the identities of American intelligence agents, to the campaign arena
itself, with a longstanding ban on corporate contributions, and quarter-century and older limits on other forms of contributions and
disclosure requirements.

So the debate really isn't about free speech. TV isn't free, yet it's the main vehicle by which Federal candidates connect to their
voters, and the single most important factor driving up campaign costs. In the words of Dr. Norm Ornstein, a noted political
scientist and recent witness in the Governmental Affairs hearing, the question is not free speech, but whether we will erect some
fences to prevent the worst abuses of campaign financing to occur. I'm for tighter fences, to prevent the horse from getting out of
the barn next time.

Campaign finance reform opponents also sometimes claim to be concerned that such efforts will further increase the advantage
currently enjoyed by incumbents. Even on its face, I have a hard time taking this argument seriously. I am aware of very, very
few cases in the real world of contemporary American politics, whether at the Federal, State, or local level, where incumbents do
not enjoy a substantial advantage over challengers under the current system. And, it is difficult to imagine any situation under
which any form of campaign limits, whether or contributions or spending, will not constrain far more the incumbents rather than
the challengers.

For example, earlier this year, the group Public Citizen presented one of the first detailed analyses of the

likely impact of the expenditure limits contained in the original version of McCain-Feingold, based not on theoretical conjecture, but
on the actual results had S. 25 been in effect in the most recent elections for each of the 100 U.S. Senate seats, based on the
1992, 1994, and 1996 Senate elections. The findings of the Public Citizen study clearly demonstrate that had the provisions of
McCain-Feingold been in effect since 1992, Senate campaign spending would have been reduced by $259 million--that's $259
million--with far more of this reduction coming among incumbents than challengers. While fully 90 percent of all the Senate
incumbents were able to exceed McCain-Feingold's spending limits, just 24 percent of all the challengers did so. In other words, 9
out of 10 Senate incumbents would have been forced to spend less by McCain-Feingold, while only one in four challengers would
have seen their spending constrained. This should put to rest any legitimate argument that spending limits are an incumbent's
protection measure. The record does not bear this out, and as the figures demonstrate, this is not even a close call.

Some also charge that McCain-Feingold, in whatever version, would somehow advantage Democrats more than Republicans. First
of all, one of the prime sponsors of S. 25 is my good friend and fellow Vietnam veteran, the distinguished senior Senator from
Arizona. Senator McCain is many things. He is a wonderful human being, and a fine Senator. But, he is also a very faithful
Republican. He would never put forward a proposal which would harm is party.

Once again, the Public Citizen report bears out this commonsense wisdom.

Since 1992, almost identical portions of Democratic and Republican Senate candidates would have exceeded McCain-Feingold
spending limits: 54 percent of Democrats, 59 percent of Republicans. You can't get much more of a level playing field than that.

And, while the revised version of McCain-Feingold does not contain spending limits, the principles of greater constraint on
incumbents than challengers, and of relatively even partisan impact, applies to soft money and issue advocacy advertising as well.

As I have told anyone who has asked, I like being a U.S. Senator. Having the privilege of representing my State in this body,
where such giants as Clay, Webster, Calhoun, Norris, LaFollette, Dirksen, and Russell have served with distinction is the greatest
honor of my life. But, sitting here day by day, with evidence continually mounting in the Governmental Affairs Committee hearings
of campaign abuses, and public opinion surveys chronicling the loss of public trust in the political process, not to mention the
ongoing massive fundraising which takes place all the time in the Nation's Capital, I cannot but conclude that the current campaign
finance system is broken and cries out for reform.

We have heard a lot of talk, and we will hear more talk this week and next, about these abuses, and about the general topic of
campaign finance reform. But, the time is coming when we must take action. Certainly, the revised McCain-Feingold package is
not perfect; it is not all that I think needs to be done to remedy our problem, but it is an essential first step aimed at dealing with the
worst of these abuses which currently plague our campaign system.

The revised bipartisan campaign finance reform proposal does not contain spending limits, does not contain limits on PAC's, and
does not provide free or discounted broadcast air time for Federal candidates, all of which I personally favor. It places no limits on
what groups or organizations say in their campaign-related communications.

What the proposal does do is this: It bans soft money contributions to and spending by the national political parties--something that
has been the bane of those that care about campaign finance reform, and who have witnessed the testimony before the
Government Affairs Committee. It should be noted that the pursuit of soft money is at the root of almost all of the questionable
fundraising activities identified to date by the Governmental Affairs Committee upon which I sit.

I might say also that if you ban soft money then all contributions, whether you are a union member, a citizen, stockholder, would be
voluntary because you would have only two ways you could contribute: Independently on your own, or through a political action
committee registered with the Federal Elections Commission. That is voluntarily as well.

The bill modifies the definition of `express advocacy.' These are ads, unfortunately, that don't provide a clear distinction between
communications used to advocate issues from those used to back or oppose candidates. This bill would require that clear
distinction.

Under the proposal, independent groups will be free to air either kind of ad, but to qualify for the `issue ad' designation and thereby
to avoid the disclosure and financing requirements applied to candidates and party committees, they merely have to not use a
candidate's name or else run more than 60 days before the election. This hardly represents an infringement on free speech.

It improves the enforcement of existing laws by expanding disclosure and Federal Election Commission monitoring capability. It
strengthens current law in such areas as fundraising from Federal property, and the use of the Congressional franking privilege.

It strictly codifies the Beck decision concerning the right of nonunion members to have a refund of any union fees used for political
purposes to which they object.

It bars political parties from making coordinated expenditures on behalf of candidates who do not agree to limit their own personal
spending on their own behalf.

It bans all campaign contributions and expenditures by foreign sources.

In addition to this core package, Senators McCain and Feingold will offer an amendment, which I strongly support, to establish a
voluntary system in which those candidates who raise a majority of their contributions in their home State, accept no more than 25
percent of total contributions from political action committees, and spend no more than $50,000 of their own money in the election
would receive a 50-percent discount on television costs.

We must have controls--rigid, well-enforced controls--on campaign financing because campaigns are the embryo of democratic
government itself. Men are not angels, yet we must find ways to govern ourselves in a fair and democratic manner. Therefore, we
must enact laws to control the financing of campaigns for Federal office in a fair and democratic manner.

My colleagues, the country is watching what we do on campaign finance reform. Make no mistake about this. They are
understandably skeptical that we will take action to reform the system under which we all were elected. Their expectations for our
action are quite low. Let's surprise the public as well as ourselves. Let's prove that physicians can heal themselves. Let's take the
bull by the tail.

I urge my colleagues to support the distinguished efforts of two courageous Senators, John McCain and Russell Feingold, who
through their diligence, persistence, and strong belief in upholding the finest traditions of our democratic process have brought us to
this hour.

I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me first thank my friend, the Senator from Georgia, for his kind remarks, but more importantly
for his steadfast support on the issue of campaign finance reform.

The first thing that the Senator from Georgia did when he became a Member of this distinguished body was to cosponsor our
legislation. But he didn't stop there. He has been out here every single time we have had to fight the battle. And I know he will be
again. I thank very much the Senator from Georgia for his support.

I also want to thank my colleagues, Senators Levin, Lieberman, Dorgan, Collins, and, of course, Senator McCain for taking
the time on what is usually a quiet Monday to have a very intense debate to continue this discussion on campaign finance reform.

Mr. President, one of the most important tactics that has been used already in this debate is to single out a couple of provisions of
the McCain-Feingold modification and to suggest that they are the entire bill. It happens that the provisions that have been
discussed--the issues having to do with express advocacy, and a couple of others--are very important provisions, but you would
swear that they were the whole bill. That is because it is virtually impossible to criticize or attack the rest of the bill. Let us
remember what is included in the entirety of the McCain-Feingold modification--the bill that we introduced today.

First of all, it completely bans soft money. We have heard virtually nothing on the floor effectively criticizing banning these
$100,000, $200,000, and $500,000 contributions that have clearly undermined our political process and made a mockery of the fact
that for almost a century corporations have not been allowed to give contributions to campaigns directly, and for almost half a
century labor unions have not been allowed to give contributions directly to campaigns. Our bill bans that, and the other side
apparently has dropped their concern about that.

There is also virtually no discussion of the fact that our bill strongly improves the provisions having to do with disclosure of
information about campaign contributions; and strengthens the hand of the Federal Elections Commission so it can do its job; so we
can enforce the current laws--the very argument that we have heard the majority leader and the Senator from Kentucky make.
`Why don't we enforce the current law?'

Why no comment about the series of important provisions in our bill that do exactly that, that improve disclosure and improve
enforcement?

Why no comment on the lowering of contribution limits from $200 to $50? If somebody gives $100 to a candidate, we think this
ought to be reported.

Why no comment on the fact that our bill strengthens the hand of the Federal Election Commission by tripling the penalty for
knowing, willful violations of Federal election law? This is exactly the kind of provision that the other side claims we should have
and yet fails to mention it is part of the bill.

Why no mention of the fact that our bill does provide for electronic filing with the FEC on a daily basis of campaign contributions
so that the public does not have to wait and the media do not have to wait for 6 months to find out whether a contribution occurred
in close proximity to a vote? Our bill provides for that. Our bill provides that the FEC would make campaign finance records
available on the Internet within 24 hours of their filing.

The bill also strengthens the hand of the Federal Election Commission by permitting the FEC to conduct random audits at the end
of a campaign to ensure compliance with Federal election law. We are strengthening the hand of enforcement under the current
law.

Why no discussion at all of the fact that our bill, in addition to the other issues, makes it absolutely clear that campaign
contributions cannot be used for personal purposes? You cannot buy a new suit with campaign contributions. You cannot finance
various family activities or mortgage payments or country club memberships. Some of this has been done in the past. Why no
comment on the fact that our bill tightens up on that?

Why no reference to the fact that the McCain-Feingold bill requires political advertisements to carry a disclaimer that clearly
identifies who is responsible for the content of the campaign ad?

Do you know what really irritates my constituents in Wisconsin? It is all those negative ads and the fact that the candidates who
put them out make sure that they are not identified, that people do not know who made the ad? The McCain-Feingold bill says if
you want to say it, you can say it, but how about letting us know you are saying it. The other side completely ignores this provision
that I think would be of great appeal to many members of the public.

Why doesn't the other side say anything about the fact that the McCain-Feingold bill bans the practice of using mass mailings
under the franking privilege in an election year? We get rid of that. We get rid of that incumbent protection provision in current
law that allows Senators to send out thousands, tens of thousands, of items at public expense, at Government expense when they
are running for reelection. We get rid of that. I happen to not do these mailings anyway. A number of Senators do not do them
anyway. But we get rid of that in an election year. But no comment whatsoever from the other side.

Our bill also clarifies, which is long overdue, that it should be absolutely unlawful to raise any money or solicit any money on
Federal property, whether it be in the White House or whether it be in the Capitol or whether it be in one of these Senate or
House office buildings. We do know that even Members of Congress have already said that they have done that. This bill makes it
clear that there are no excuses for doing that in the future.

No reference from the other side except for a brief one to the fact that we do begin in this bill to voluntarily provide an incentive to
candidates to limit their spending. Our bill, as we introduced it today as a modification to the underlying bill, says that if you
contribute over $50,000 of your own personal money to a campaign, you can do that, but you shouldn't be able to get the large
party-coordinated expenditures to assist you. We do that.

We have provisions relating to clarifying contributions regarding money contributions from foreign nationals.

All of this is in the bill. They are very good provisions. But yet, in an effort to distort what this bill is about, the focus has been on
only one or two provisions rather than the heart of the bill.

Mr. President, I should like to summarize the debate today by pointing out that all of this emphasis on a couple of items in the bill to
the exclusion of the rest of the bill is merely a prelude to the three principal arguments that our opposition has raised thus far as we
have debated the issue on Friday and today.

The first argument has been the primary argument in the past, but it is flagging. The argument that our bill will be deemed
unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court just is not having the same luck it has had in the past.

The senior Senator from Kentucky recently said on one of the national news shows with reference to me, he said:

Russ has got no constitutional experts with any
credentials who will say that this is going to be upheld in court.

That was on Fox News Sunday, September 14, 1997. Not one constitutional expert, the Senator from Kentucky said, would
support our view that the basic provisions of the bill are constitutional.

That was an unfortunate claim because 1 week later we were able to release a letter signed by 126 constitutional experts across
this country representing 88 different institutions, including those in Kentucky, saying just the opposite--126 constitutional scholars
specifically said that the ban on soft money and those provisions that relate to providing voluntary incentives to candidates to limit
their spending are perfectly constitutional within the ruling of the Supreme Court 20 years ago in Buckley versus Valeo.

It is hard to read this chart because there are so many of them, because 126 of the leading constitutional experts in this country
say that this constitutional argument is wrong. In fact, the constitutional argument is nothing but a smokescreen because it has
been shifting from month to month. First, it was the claim that the PAC ban was unconstitutional, even though the Senator from
Kentucky knew very well that we had a backup provision because of that concern which he himself had introduced in the past.
The Senator from Kentucky had proposed the very provision that he said was unconstitutional. So then he shifted to saying that
banning soft money was unconstitutional.

Well, that is not working out very well after 126 constitutional scholars say just the opposite. There is no credible argument under
current law that banning that kind of contribution is unconstitutional. There simply is no credible authority who believes that.

So the Senator from Kentucky shifts again. He says that providing voluntary incentives to candidates to limit their spending is
unconstitutional. But that is the very thing that Buckley versus Valeo laid out as a mechanism by which you could limit spending
voluntarily.

So now the Senator from Kentucky seems to have dropped all of these constitutional arguments and all he has left now is to try to
say that our attempt to clarify the meaning of express advocacy is unconstitutional. Well, he is wrong about that, too. But as he
admitted in the Chamber today--and this is critical--in the worst-case scenario, in the very worst-case scenario, if he is right and
we are wrong, the Supreme Court will simply strike that provision down.

Our bill is severable. What does that mean? It means that if the Supreme Court determines a provision is unconstitutional, they can
sever that provision, leaving the rest of the bill intact. That's exactly what the Court did in the landmark case of Buckley versus
Valeo, where the Court said you can't have mandatory spending limits, and it severed that from the bill, but the Court did say you
could have contribution limits, which is what we have had for 20 years. This is where PAC's are limited to $10,000 per campaign,
where individuals are limited to $1,000 per individual. So the fact is that these constitutional arguments, if they are right, in the
worst-case scenario, will simply be dealt with by the Supreme Court doing their job. Now, why can't we do our job and let the
Supreme Court do their job?

Where was the concern of the Senator from Kentucky about this when he voted for the Communications Decency Act, saying
that it violated the first amendment? And the Supreme Court voted 9 to nothing: No, you can't do that. It was taken care of, it was
struck down. It is not a law. So, this is a smokescreen. Mr. President, 126 constitutional scholars have already said that the basic
provisions of our bill are constitutional.

So, the constitutional argument is flagging. So the opponents of reform, who I think sometimes can also be known as the
filibusterers, go to a second tactic, that is killing the bill by trying to force a filibuster. Today, not surprisingly--the majority leader
had his choice of any amendment he could offer. That is his right. He could offer a substitute amendment, a whole new bill, he
could offer a simple amendment having to do with certain kinds of contributions or aspects of soft money or FEC enforcement--he
could choose any amendment he wanted. What did the majority leader choose? And what did he use to fill up the tree? He used a
provision specifically and harshly directed at labor unions. The majority leader, and I do appreciate his letting us have this bill come
to the floor, came out here and said that that choice, to be the first item we debate, was not intended as a poison pill.

What does that mean? What it means is, he is saying he didn't pick that amendment as a way to cause a filibuster. But this does
not square with what the majority leader said last Friday. He was quoted in the Wall Street Journal, saying `I set it up so they will
be filibustering me.' That is what I am talking about. He had his choice. He came out here, he purposely offered a strong antilabor
amendment, he set it up in the hope that he would force Members on the other side of the aisle to filibuster the bill so that he and
his colleagues would not be blamed for killing it. How can you say that's not a poison pill, if your very statement was that you set it
up so the other side would filibuster? That is the definition of a poison pill. Let no one mistake this. This is an intentional effort to
kill campaign finance reform.

Why, if this concern about this issue was so great, was it not brought up earlier? This is S. 9, that he has brought up. It is a bill I
believe offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. Why was this not brought out to the floor earlier? Why is this the item that we
lead with, if it is not intended to destroy campaign finance reform and make sure somebody else gets blamed for it? It is a poison
pill. It's a more dangerous attack than the flimsy constitutional arguments. It does run the risk--it does run the risk of destroying the
bill, and everyone should know that when we vote on the poison pill antilabor amendment, that is exactly what it does.

Most of the time that has been taken up on the floor of the Senate by those who seek to kill this legislation has been devoted to a
third attempt. That third attempt is to make the public believe that this bill somehow creates a giant Government bureaucracy that
is going to regulate their speech. If I could just show a copy of the bill--the problem with that is, in the past, when folks have tried
to argue that a bill is a huge Government bureaucracy bill, they hold up the bill. They hold up the President's budget: 2,000 pages.
They hold up the health care bill and they weigh it on a scale. But this is not going to work with the McCain-Feingold bill. It is only
55 pages. It is pretty hard, the way lawyers write, to set up a giant Government bureaucracy in 55 pages.

But that is what they want folks to believe. They want folks to believe that somehow we are creating a new world of campaign
financing that will change the way things are done in this country and will change the ability of members of the public to speak
their mind in an election. I think it is just the opposite. I think what the current system is, I think the status quo, that the Senator
from Kentucky defends so vigorously, is so at variance with the system that I grew up to believe in that it is shocking. I think we
have come so far from the notion of one person one vote; so far from the notion that every child born in this country could grow
up to serve in the House or serve in the Senate, or perhaps even be President, that it is an embarrassment.

Look at what Mr. Tamraz said recently about this system and how he apparently gamed it. He said, before the Governmental
Affairs Committee on September 18, 1997, in response to a question--the question was a very direct question:

Was one of the reasons that you made these contributions because you believed it might get you access? That's my question.

Mr. Tamraz' response was very straightforward. He said:

Senator, I'm going even further. It's the only reason--to get access, but what I'm saying is once you have access, what do you do
with it? Is it something bad or something good. That's what we have to see.

When I heard that comment from Mr. Tamraz I just couldn't help but think how far we had come from the America that I was
brought up to believe in. Maybe I was naive, growing up back in Janesville, WI, but I really believed it when my parents told me

that, `You may not be the richest kid in town, you may not be the most powerful person in the town or in the State or in the
country. But every American has the same vote. Your vote counts the same as a Rockefeller's.' That was the name we used in
those days.

So, when you look at the story of what has happened in the last 30 years, I can't help but reflect that when I was 7 years old and
John F. Kennedy was running for President, the way that we would sort of observe a Presidential campaign was not just through
the television. There were a few television sets. You could go out to the Sauk County 4-H fair. There was a little Democratic
booth. Just a few feet away was a little Republican booth. And there was a little ribbing going back and forth. You know, those
booths have not moved an inch in 37 years. They are in the exact same place they always were. That is where the campaign was,
people talking to each other.

Nobody said anything about raising money. I'm sure they had to fund their campaigns, but that was not what the news stories
were about. I'm sure the Senator from Utah, who is on the floor, would agree with me, that that was not the nature of the
discussion, who had the most money to win an election in those days. Then, as I got into my teen years, the civil rights movement
came upon us, the Vietnam war, the beginning of the environmental movement, the women's movement--so many political
movements; on the other side of the political spectrum, the great concern that arose about law and order in this country. These
were the great discussions of our time, as well as others.

I recall some kind of conversation about Howard Hughes giving some money to both Presidential candidates, but it was sort of an
odd story, an esoteric story. `What is going on? Why would this rich fellow, a recluse, give all this money to Presidential
campaigns?' It was not the stuff of public life. It was not the news, who was giving what money to what political party. In fact, the
gentleman who used to hold this seat before I did, a couple of Senators back, my friend Gaylord Nelson, told me recently that in
his distinguished career in Wisconsin politics as a Member of this body for 18 years, he never once made a phone call to raise
money. He never once picked up the phone and said: Hey, I'm running for reelection, can you give me some money?

I suggest that those were the good old days. What the Senator from Kentucky is trying to defend is a new world, where not only
are Senators expected to make phone calls almost every day to raise money for their campaigns, but where Senators and others
are encouraged to call up people and ask them for $100,000. This is not the system that I grew up with. This is not the system that
led the late Robert Kennedy to refer to politics as an honorable profession.

Then, in high school, the people used to rib me a little bit. I guess I was a little bit too open about my desire to go into politics.
Some of them would say, because I talked so much I would be a good politician, and other comments like that. But the one thing
they never said to me was, `Russ, if you want to go into politics you have to go out and make $10 million first; that there is an
opening ante, there is an opening fee, that you must be a millionaire.' That we are, in effect, recreating here in Washington the
House of Lords, which we freed ourselves from over 200 years ago. Nobody ever said that to me.

Politics was still church dinners and Rotary clubs and the State fair and all those things that one may regard as corny. But the fact
is, it was a pretty good system. This is a lousy system; a system where somebody pays $300,000 to get in a room to be with his
competitor who has paid $300,000, a room that none of us could ever get in. That is a lousy system.

I was still under the perhaps naive belief, in 1982 when I sought election to the State senate in Wisconsin, my first race for public
office--I was under the illusion that money wasn't important. Thanks to the good laws of the State of Wisconsin it wasn't terribly
important.

I had no money, but the State law provided that if I could raise $17,000, the State would match it with $17,000 if I agreed to a
$34,000 limit and that that would be a reasonable amount for a campaign voluntarily. That's what I did.

I wrote to every relative I had. I wrote to a few former professors and teachers of mine. They all sent in a few dollars. We had
$17,000 by August, and we went out and campaigned. I went to the Sauk County Fair, walked in parades, and had some very civil
and nice debates with my opponent.

I do remember a brief moment, though, at the end of that campaign when one of the senior Democratic officials in the State called
me up and said, `Russ, you're going to lose if you don't borrow $10,000 for the last few days.'

I said, `I can't do that. I'm just not going to do that to my family.'

He was almost right, because I only won that election by 31 votes out of 47,000. It was the closest election in the history of the
Wisconsin State Senate. But the fact is, it was reasonable--$35,000. It was something I could at least think about as a person of
average means.

Now the same races in that same district, just 15 years later, cost something like $250,000, $300,000 just for a Wisconsin State
Senate seat that pays somebody some $35,000 to $40,000. But yet I still believe, because I won by the slimmest of margins, that
running for office was not equal to having a lot of money.

I got a bit of a rude awakening, Mr. President, in 1987 when I started thinking about running for the U.S. Senate. I thought I had
amassed a decent record over the years as a Wisconsin State Senator, and I wanted to run against the incumbent senator. But as
I went around the State gradually for several years trying to build a grassroots organization, I wasn't asked what I had done in the
State Senate; I wasn't asked what I had done before I was in the State Senate; I wasn't asked what my views might be. Almost
every single encounter, whether with the media or with a potential supporter, was, `Russ, this is fine and good and you seem like a
nice young fellow, but where are you going to get the money?'

`Where are you going to get the money, Russ?'

`How can you possibly think you have a right or an opportunity to run for the U.S. Senate unless you are independently wealthy or
if you are well connected to Washington?'

That was the message I was given over and over again. Anybody who knows the kind of race I went through--I had a lot of good
fortune, obviously, because I am standing here--that was my biggest problem. I wasn't considered credible because I wasn't
wealthy. That didn't feel to me like what my parents had told me. That didn't feel to me like the assurance that I would have a fair
chance to compete with everyone else simply because I am an American citizen. It felt really bad. Maybe it made me work hard.
Maybe it made me stay the course.

It got particularly difficult when I would go to a group with whom I had a good relationship; for example, the independent bankers,
a group with whom I have a very good relationship. I always admired their independence in Wisconsin. And I said to them, `Could
you give me some support for my race?'

They said, `Well, we think you have done a good job, but we have to check in with Washington.' There is a guy in Washington

who makes this decision.

Then when I checked in with some of my friends in the labor unions, whom I probably do support on many, many issues, I thought
they would be able to decide at the local whether or not they would want to back me. But, no, they had to check in with
Washington, with the Washington gatekeepers who want to kill this bill. That is what I learned about the system.

Of course, partially because my two primary opponents were both very well-heeled and attacked each other that I wound up
winning the primary. They used their money to make each other look pretty bad, and I wound up winning the primary because I
was the other guy who was running. And that gave me momentum to win the final election.

As I stand here with these colleagues I admire greatly, sometimes I wonder, am I the last person of average wealth and income
who will ever serve in this body? Is the door going to slam on people who actually worry about making ends meet, people who
actually worry about their mortgage payment, as I do? Am I the last person who is not a millionaire who will be invited to serve in
this institution?

I don't think that is the way it will end up, but I can tell you this, if we don't pass a reform like the one we have before us today, it
will be. I cannot in good conscience look at a high school senior today, as I was in 1971, and say, `You know, it would be great if
you pursued a political career; it will be wonderful; just learn the issues, work with people, show people that you are a natural
leader.' I can't just leave it at that. If I am being honest with a young person, I would have to say, `And you better darn well come
up with $10 million or nobody is going to take you seriously.' That hurts my image of America that I have to say that to a high
school senior today.

The opponents of this bill have absolutely no answer for those high school students. They say somehow that free speech in
America means that they don't matter, it means that they can't participate, it means that they don't have the same right that
everyone else does to run for an office in the House or Senate and have some kind of a belief that they can prevail.

Each of us, I suppose, wants to tell our own story of how we got here, as I just did. It is a great honor to serve in this body. Less
than 2,000 Americans have ever done so. I appreciated it when the majority leader the other day spoke to some of his concerns
when he was running for office. This is the only issue where all the Members of the Senate are experts, because we have been
through it and we know.

But the reason I am involved with this bill is that the senior Senator from Arizona had the courage to come to me and say, `Look,
we've got to do something to change this system, to put aside our partisan differences.' We just decided that we couldn't live with
a country where a Presidential candidate would begin his campaign, make the high point of his announcement for President the
following statement:

I have the most reliable friend you can have in American politics and that is ready money.

That was a leading comment in an announcement for President of the United States. I don't remember either John F. Kennedy or
Richard Nixon leading their campaigns in 1960 with that comment, on anyone else. That is a tragic commentary on where we
have come over the years.

So that is what this really comes down to. You have heard the constitutional arguments and have seen them fall. You see

already an attempt to bring a `poison pill' out on the floor to kill this bill by making it too harsh for either side to accept and destroy
its bipartisan nature. You have heard the effort to distort what this bill really does by suggesting that somehow our bill will create a
large governmental involvement in free speech.

The fact is, it is this system that is destroying free speech. It is a system where people can give hundreds of thousands of dollars
of unregulated money or give huge contributions or fundraisers of hard money to candidates that cut the average person out of the
process. This is the corporate democracy that we have come to.

So, in the coming days, we will hear more of the efforts of our opponents to take each little piece of the bill and indicate that there
is a problem here or a problem there. Of course, that is the purpose of the debate. But we are ready, Senator McCain and I, to
negotiate to solve some of the real problems. But what we will not tolerate is the suggestion that we should do nothing. Our
opposition has no alternative. They have no answer to the careening role of money in American politics. They just want to kill this
bill and get back to the business of running elections.

Mr. President, there will be much more to say on this bill.

All I can say is that we will not allow this debate to become mired in the minutia of important issues that ultimately would be
resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. We will come back again and again to the central point that this is still a country of one
person-one vote, not $1 million-1 million votes. And it is still a country where every high school student should at least be able to
think or dream about participating in the process without having to become a multimillionaire first.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have listened to my colleague from Wisconsin chat about these problems. You know, in all honesty,
I wonder sometimes if we do not treat the American public like they are idiots, when in fact the American public is a very smart
collective group of people.

You know, I just do not see why in the world we have to have government interfere with the first amendment privileges of free
speech, just to mention one constitutional issue involved here, just because some think there are millionaires in the Senate. There
have always been millionaires in the Senate, as far as I know, at least in this century. But there have always been a number of
Senators--and there is a great number of Senators here today--who are not millionaires who made it here the hard way, even
under this present system, and who will always be able to make it because the American people are not idiots.

They are smart. They know what is going on. They have the ability to choose between competing candidacies. Every once in a
while you know some of us worry about it because of some people who make it here, but, in all honesty, it seems to me that to put
another layer of Federal regulations on what people can say and do in politics is not the way to do it, and it presumptively seems to
believe that the American people do not have the capacity collectively or individually to make right decisions for themselves with
regard to politics.

The thing that I find heinous and offensive in the current political structure is that we have all kinds of advocacy groups out there,
some of which support only one party to the exclusion of the other, who spend millions and millions of dollars that are never
reported in this political process.

I will just cite with particularity one group. I remember when the AFL-CIO decided they were going to spend $35 million in
advocacy during the last campaign. Now, we Republicans all understand that because virtually every penny of that goes for liberal
Democrats. The only Republicans that they ever support --and there are very few of those; and if there is a moderate-to-liberal
Democrat, they will support the Democrat every time over even a liberal Republican for the most part--very few of the liberal
Republicans are supported by them, but if any are, they have to be very liberal.

So virtually every dollar of the union movement goes into liberal Democratic Party politics. But $35 million is a drop in the bucket
because the Congressional Research Service mentions that in every 2-year election cycle the trade union movement puts between
$100 and $500 million into the political process, not one penny of which is reported in any filing or disclosure form.

There is nothing in the Republican Party that comes close

to that type of economic leverage, and yet I have to say McCain-Feingold does absolutely nothing about that. There is good reason
for it, because you would be restricting the right of the trade union movement in this country to express their viewpoints with
regard to their political beliefs. But you are not talking about distortion.

Mr. President, $100 to $500 million every 2 years in local, State, and Federal politics, not one penny of which is reported. The $35
million was reported because those were direct contributions to individuals, or actually most of it was not reported because most of
it was soft money that was used to advocate for Democratic, liberal Democratic Party politics.

In fact, ask conservative Democrats how much union money they get as a general rule. Not very much. So you know, I
sometimes think that we beat our gums in here over what appear to be on the surface important principles but which really in
reality would undermine the very constitutional process that we have.

In that regard, let me just mention that I think one of the most prescient articles on this subject ever written was written by George
Will in the Washington Post yesterday. I know it has been mentioned here on the floor before. But let me just read a little bit from
that article.

I did not come here wanting to talk about campaign finance `reform,' but I did want to say these few remarks. But I did read this
today, and I brought it with me. He just says, `Here Come the Speech Police,' which is the title of the article--`Here Come the
Speech Police.' George goes on to say:

Almost nothing that preoccupies Washington is as important as Washington thinks almost all its preoccupations are. But now
Congress is considering some version of the McCain-Feingold bill, which raises `regime-level' questions. It would continue the
change for the worse of American governance. And Washington's political class hopes the bill's real importance will be
underestimated.

With a moralism disproportionate to the merits of their cause, members of that class--including the exhorting, collaborative
media--are mounting an unprecedentedly sweeping attack on freedom of expression. Nothing in American history--not the left's
recent campus `speech codes,' not the right's depredations during 1950s McCarthyism or the 1920s `red scare,' not the Alien and
Sedition Acts of the 1790s--matches the menace to the First Amendment posed by campaign `reforms' advancing under the
protective coloration of political hygiene.

I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

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

From the Washington Post, Sept. 28, 1997

[FROM THE WASHINGTON POST, SEPT. 28, 1997]

Here Come the Speech Police

(BY GEORGE F. WILL)

With a moralism disproportionate to the merits of their cause, members of that class--including the exhorting, collaborative
media--are mounting an unprecedented sweeping attack on freedom of expression. Nothing in American history--not the left's
recent campus `speech codes,' not the right's depredations during 1950s McCarthyism or the 1920s `red scare,' not the Alien and
Sedition Acts of the 1790s--matches the menace to the First Amendment posed by campaign `reforms' advancing under the
protective coloration of political hygiene.

Such earlier fevers were evanescent, leaving no institutional embodiments when particular passions abated. And they targeted
speech of particular political content. What today's campaign reformers desire is a steadily thickening clot of laws and an
enforcing bureaucracy to control both the quantity and the content of all discourse pertinent to politics. By the logic of their aims,
reformers cannot stop short of that. This is so, regardless of the supposed modesty of the measure Congress is debating.

Reformers first empowered government to regulate `hard' money--that given to particular candidates. But there remains the
`problem' of `soft' money--that given to parties for general political organizing and advocacy. Reformers call this a `loophole.'
Reformers use that word to stigmatize any silence of the law that allows unregulated political expression. So now reformers want
to ban `soft' money. But the political class will not stop there.

Its patience is sorely tried by the insufferable public, which persists in exercising its First Amendment right of association to
organize in groups as different as the Sierra Club and the National Rifle Association. One reason people so organize is to
collectively exercise their First Amendment right of free speech pertinent to politics. Therefore reformers want to arm the speech
police with additional powers to ration the permissible amount of `express advocacy,' meaning speech by independent groups that
advocates the election or defeat of an identifiable candidate.

But the political class will not stop there. Consider mere issue advocacy--say, a television commercial endorsing abortion rights,
mentioning no candidate and not mentioning voting, but broadcast in the context of a campaign in which two candidates differ
about abortion rights. Such communications can influence the thinking of voters. Can't have that, other than on a short leash held
by the government's speech police. So restriction of hard money begets restriction of soft, which begets restriction of express
advocacy, which begets regulation of issue advocacy--effectively, of all civic discourse.

The political class is not sliding reluctantly down a slippery slope, it is eagerly skiing down it, extending its regulation of political
speech in order to make its life less stressful and more secure. Thus is the First Amendment nibbled away, like an artichoke
devoured leaf by leaf.

This is an example of what has been called `the Latin Americanization' of American law--the proliferation of increasingly rococo
laws in attempts to enforce fundamentally flawed laws. Reformers produce such laws from the bleak, paternalistic premise that
unfettered participation in politics by means of financial support of political speech is a `problem' that must be `solved.'

One reason the media are complacent about such restrictions on (others') political speech is that restrictions enhance the power of
the media as the filters of political speech, and as unregulated participants in a shrunken national conversation. Has the newspaper
in which this column is appearing ever editorialized to the effect that restrictions on political money--restrictions on the ability to
buy broadcast time and print space and other things the Supreme Court calls `the indispensable conditions for meaningful
communication'--do not restrict speech? If this newspaper ever does, ask the editors if they would accept revising the First
Amendment to read:

`Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press, but Congress can restrict the amount a newspaper may spend on
editorial writers, reporters and newsprint.'

As Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican, and others filibuster to block enlargement of the federal speech-rationing
machinery, theirs is arguably the most important filibuster in American history. Its importance will be--attested by the obloquies
they will receive from the herd of independent minds eager to empower the political class to extend controls over speech about
itself.

Mr. HATCH. Let me just quote a couple of other paragraphs because I think this article really sums it up. I do not know how
anybody could disagree with this article. I am skipping over quite a bit of it which I think is worthy of consideration by anybody,
but let me just read a couple more paragraphs:

What a comment, terrific comment. And it sums it up pretty well:

Has the newspaper in which this column is appearing ever editorialized to the effect that restrictions on political
money--restrictions on the ability to buy broadcast time and print space and other things the Supreme Court calls `the indispensable
conditions for meaningful communication'--do not restrict speech? If this newspaper ever does, ask the editors if they would
accept revising the First Amendment to read:

`Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press, but Congress can restrict the amount a newspaper may spend on
editorial writers, reporters and newsprint.'

As Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican, and others filibuster to block enlargement of the federal speech-rationing
machinery, theirs is arguably the most important filibuster in American history. Its importance will be attested by the obloquies they
will receive from the herd of independent minds eager to empower the political class to extend controls over speech about itself.

What an article. He sums it up better than anybody I know. Frankly, I commend this article to anybody who cares about free
speech rights, that this bill, as modified, would eviscerate.

I don't quite agree with George Will, that this may be the most important constitutional filibuster in history, but it is certainly one of
the most important. I know of others that have been, I think, equal in importance, not the least of which is the debate we had on
the resignation of the President a few years ago.

END

Page: