[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4154-4209]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2001
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 27, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 27) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 to provide bipartisan campaign reform.
Pending:
Torricelli amendment No. 122, to amend the Communications
Act of 1934 to require television broadcast stations, and
providers of cable or satellite television service, to
provide lowest unit rate to committees of political parties
purchasing time on behalf of candidates.
Amendment No. 122
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of the Torricelli amendment No.
122.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the Senate now turns its attention to
what is the other half of the campaign finance problem. It is, after
all, not simply what is raised but why money is raised and where it is
going.
This Senate, for 5 years, has had to overcome four filibusters to get
us to this moment in considering campaign finance reform. We have voted
on 113 occasions to reform the campaign finance laws. We have
considered 300 pieces of legislation, heard 3,000 speeches, and filled
6,000 pages of the Congressional Record. But none of this will mean
anything, this legislation will accomplish no more than leading to a
less informed public with less political dialog, if we do not
complement the reduction in fundraising with more availability of
information by reducing the cost.
The McCain-Feingold legislation, as written, will not abate the
expense of running for political office. It could, if not amended,
simply lead to an American public, as Senator McConnell has said many
times, that is less informed with less political speech. I know no one
in the country who believes that is the kind of reform we genuinely
seek.
The Alliance for Better Campaigns recently stated:
Reform must do more than limit the supply of political
money. It must also restrain the demand for political money.
There is a perception in the media and in the public that the entire
problem of campaign financing is the amount of money. That is a
problem, but it is not the only problem. Members of this institution
know that an equal burden that must be addressed is the amount of time
Senators and Members of the House of Representatives are taken away
from their legislative responsibilities, not meeting with ordinary
citizens, to cater to the wealthy to gain access to this money.
On the chart on my left, I have taken a State at random, New Jersey,
and given an indication of what it takes in time to run what all future
Senate campaigns in New Jersey probably will cost--a minimum of $15
million. This would require, under current campaign finance laws,
raising $20,833 every day 7 days a week for 2 years, or 150 fundraising
events, each raising $100,000, or 1,500 events at $10,000 per event,
1,500 fundraisers at $10,000.
We can make it more difficult to raise the money. We can eliminate
soft money. The question remains: Are we simply adding to the burden of
how
[[Page 4155]]
much time candidates must spend doing that? If we are eliminating
categories of money, making it more difficult to get the $15 million,
all we could be doing is adding to that time which candidates must
spend finding it. That will not be an achievement. That is why today we
are dealing with the other half of the equation--not what is raised but
how much is spent.
The 2000 elections provide an illustration. Common Cause estimates
that the 2000 elections cost $3 billion. This is a 50-percent increase
over 1996, begging the question, At this rate of increase, where is the
Nation going?
Obviously, to anyone in the system, by far the greatest component of
this campaign spending is the cost of television advertising. Indeed,
one-third of the $3 billion raised and spent in the 2000 elections went
to pay for political advertisements on television. My predecessor,
Senator Bradley of New Jersey, probably said it best a few years ago:
Today's political campaigns function as collection agencies
for broadcasters. You simply transfer money from contributors
to television stations.
During the 2000 elections, the broadcast networks enjoyed record
profits. The placing of political advertisements on the networks is not
a public service. They do not do this under duress. It is a major form
of network profits. It is estimated to be at least $770 million and,
indeed, figures could be as high as $1 billion that was spent by
candidates on political advertisements--a 76-percent increase over
1996.
The chart on my left illustrates the rapid increase. President
midterm spending, in 1982, adjusted for inflation, was $200 million; in
the year 2000, now reaching $800 million. It is an exponential increase
that is unsustainable. The Alliance for Better Campaigns recently
issued its report, ``Gouging Democracy, How the TV Industry Profiteered
on Campaign 2000.''
This report illustrates how stations across the country took
advantage of candidates by increasing their pricing for advertising
just when they knew that campaigns needed the time the most.
In Philadelphia and New York City, the two media networks which serve
my State of New Jersey, the cost of some political ads increased almost
50 percent between Labor Day and election day--television stations
recognizing that unlike an automobile manufacturer or a soap
manufacturer that can advertise at any time of the year, a candidate
has no choice but to communicate with those voters between Labor Day
and election day. They have a captive market and they take full and
unconscionable advantage.
The letter on my left is a perfect example. This is a television
station which has had an ad placed by a Federal candidate. Under the
law, they are required to sell this ad at the lowest unit rate. But as
is typical of the television networks, they wrote a letter back to the
candidate saying:
Activity is a lot heavier than the station anticipated, and
your schedules are already getting bumped.
My colleagues, this is the heart of the problem. The candidate placed
the ad at $6,300, as required by law. But the television station let
the candidate know: You may have bought this ad in accord with Federal
law at $6,300, but you will never see it on television because we will
bump it. You will not get it for when you bought it. It will be shown
in the middle of the night when no one will see it.
So they politely extort another $8,000 in order to guarantee the time
slot that has been provided. An ad required to be sold at $6,000 by law
is now in excess of $14,000. This is the heart of the problem. And it
is typical.
In our surveys across the country, as in Philadelphia and New York,
these rates were going up by 50 percent. We have seen in others,
typically, 30-percent increases in these rates.
Now, by law, Members of the Senate undoubtedly think this was
addressed years ago, and they would be right in having that belief.
Nothing I am now reviewing should be allowed by law. But there is a
loophole, and the loophole, as I have illustrated, is that they will
sell you the time. They will just never guarantee it will ever be seen
on television. That, as I think anybody could assess, is not much of an
advertising campaign.
The law is actually being complied with as an exception. The rule is
the violation. The chart on my left illustrates this point
conclusively. The heavy red lines are advertisements that are placed
above the lowest unit rate--remembering that the law requires that
advertisements be sold to political candidates, as required for
communication in Federal elections, at the lowest unit rate.
WCCO in Minneapolis met its public responsibility by selling 4
percent of all of its advertisements at the lowest unit rate. And 95
percent of all the ads placed were higher than lowest rates. They are
paying commercial rates.
In New York city, an advertising market with which I am familiar,
WNBC--not some unaffiliated station, but one owned by the National
Broadcasting Company itself--15 percent of their ads were in accordance
with the law at the lowest unit rate; for 78 percent they were charging
commercial rates to Federal candidates for public office. There are
stations that are better. The chart illustrates that virtually in every
market in the country, large States and small, rural and urban, the
responsibilities are not being met.
In Los Angeles, KABC--once again, an affiliate owned by the network
itself--34 percent of all advertisements are being sold at commercial
rates. In Columbus, OH, it is 90 percent. At KYW, one of the most
popular stations in Philadelphia, it is 91 percent. At WXYZ in Detroit,
it is 88 percent sold at commercial rates.
My colleagues, the law as you intended it, to require lowest unit
rate sales of advertising, has collapsed. It is not happening.
Broadcasters are auctioning advertising time to Federal candidates in
competition with the industries of America. Any candidate is facing the
prospect of a bidding war with General Motors or Ford or IBM when they
go to place political advertising. The law is simply not functioning.
Similar patterns, as I have demonstrated, are all over the country.
To quote the Alliance for Better Campaigns, ``while this law remains on
the books, its original intent is no longer served.''
The other part of this equation is not simply that there is price
gouging of candidates by taking advantage of a loophole in the lowest
unit rate, but, almost incredibly and simultaneously, the broadcasters
are violating another responsibility. One responsibility is the lowest
unit rate to allow advertising, not to increase the cost of campaigns
and increase fundraising responsibilities and burdens; the other is to
provide news coverage. These, my colleagues, after all, are the public
airwaves, licensed by the Federal Government for the interest of the
American people to promote their debates. The Federal airwaves are not
to be used entirely for sitcoms and cartoons, or to sell soap or
automobiles. There is a public responsibility.
I am going to show the difference between what is going on in
advertising and news coverage. As you can see on this chart, those ads
sold at the unit rate are flat. The red line shows that almost all
advertising is going on to the non-unit rate or commercial rate of
advertising.
We will move on to the news coverage. Now, remembering how the
advertising was increasing at commercial costs, exponentially the chart
was rising to the top. Consider this, remembering the two
responsibilities: selling at lowest unit rate and providing news
coverage in the public interest.
In Philadelphia, during the New Jersey Senate primary--remembering
there was no incumbent--we were choosing a U.S. Senator for New Jersey,
during a Presidential election, the final 2 weeks of the campaign. In
Philadelphia, this is the amount of news coverage in the final 14 days
of the election: WPVI in Philadelphia, an average of 19 seconds per
evening; WVAU, in the public interest, on a federally licensed station,
dedicated an average of 1 second per night to informing their viewers
on the Senate campaign in its closing days. In New
[[Page 4156]]
York, the situation was not very much different. WNBC--once again, a
network-owned-and-operated affiliate, not some arm's length operating
station, but NBC's own station in New York, in the final 2 weeks of the
campaign--gave 23 seconds to covering the primary. At WCBS in New York,
an average of 10 seconds was given to covering this.
As Robert McChesney wrote in Rich Media, Poor Democracy:
Broadcasters have little incentive to cover candidates,
because it is in their interest to force them to publicize
their campaigns.
Exactly. Why would anyone provide free coverage in the public
interest in hard news when, alternatively, candidates must pay millions
of dollars to the stations themselves to get their message across?
There is a disincentive to provide news because people have to pay for
it.
The Brennan Center reports that, indeed, in the 30 days preceding the
November elections, the national broadcasters averaged about 1 minute
per night--1 minute--in substantive campaign coverage.
Rather than a discussion of substantive issues, the broadcast
networks covered the campaign 2000 primarily as a horse race. Only one
in four network news stations aired stories that were, indeed, issue
oriented.
The chart on my left makes this comparison: what is happening in
advertising in which candidates are now paying nearly a billion
dollars, and what is happening in news coverage as required by Federal
license. These are the top four rated TV stations in Philadelphia and
New York.
Overall, a viewer in the State of New Jersey is 10 times more likely
to see a paid political advertisement--10 times--than they are ever to
see a news story, excepting that most of those news stories are
scandal, and horse races, and are not news anyway.
Conceding they really are news, let's operate on the fiction they
were putting news on the air. Nevertheless, one would be 10 times more
likely to see a political advertisement.
Here are examples in Philadelphia: WPVI, 122 advertisements ran
between May 24 and June 5. The number of news stories was 11. WNBC in
New York, 99 advertisements, 16 news stories.
The fact is, news coverage has reached an all-time low. Just as the
networks are evading their responsibility for the lowest unit cost
under the law, they are also avoiding their responsibility to provide
hard news.
During last summer's political conventions for Democrats and
Republicans, ABC, CBS, and NBC reduced by two-thirds the hours they
devoted to convention coverage of 1988, the last time there was an open
seat Presidential election.
Broadcasters are in many respects public trustees. They should not be
putting the public airwaves out to bid when political candidates want
to communicate with their constituents. They receive their licenses by
meeting FCC requirements under the 1934 Communications Act in the
public interest. The law makes clear that the airwaves are public
property and that they must be used for the ``public interest,
convenience, and necessity.''
Indeed, perhaps maybe this Congress deserves some of the blame. In
1997, the Congress gave broadcasters digital TV licenses which doubled
the amount of spectrum. If sold at auction, it would have brought in
$70 billion. William Safire wrote:
A rip-off on a scale vaster than dreamed . . . by the
robber barons.
Bob Dole called it ``a giant corporate welfare scheme.''
What all this has meant is broadcasters taking advantage of this new
technology without any new responsibility, and we have allowed this
situation to deteriorate to the point of billion-dollar campaigns
putting enormous burdens of time and money on the political system.
That is, in my judgment, unsustainable.
In response to this gift of public assets, President Clinton
appointed an advisory panel to update the public interest obligation of
broadcasters. The panel advised broadcasters to voluntarily air 5
minutes a night in the 30 days before the election. During the 2000
elections, local affiliates of NBC and CBS agreed to the 5 minutes.
Although these stations should be commended, they and other stations
made similar decisions representing 70 percent of the 1,300 local
stations.
Shockingly, ABC, which was the second biggest beneficiary of
political advertisement last year, did not make any commitment at all.
The refusal of ABC to join other broadcast networks was the broadest
step toward further corporate irresponsibility.
In sum, what much of this means is that contrary to law and the
national interest, the broadcasters have now developed a dependency on
political advertising. As the chart on my left illustrates, this is now
the source of revenues of television stations and networks, gaining 25
percent of all of their revenue from the automobile companies, the
largest industry in America; 15 percent from retailers across the
country, and, unbelievably, 10 percent of all revenues of television
stations is now coming from political advertising.
If this, however, were a chart of Iowa or New Hampshire or early
primary States, we would find during the Presidential elections that it
is not third but first.
Even taking the network's greatest advantage of looking at this
nationally, it is clear television stations have developed a
dependency--indeed, an addiction--on political advertising. That is
clearly not in the national interest.
What should, however, gain the attention of the American people is
the almost unbelievable hypocrisy of the networks on this issue. They
have joined the fight for campaign finance reform by criticizing the
current finance system, and we welcome their assistance. If there is to
be genuine reform, we are glad the voices of the networks have been
part of the drumbeat of criticism to bring this Congress to a change.
They want change. They just do not want to be part of it, recognizing
there is a reason this money is being raised, and they are the
principal reason.
Outside this Chamber, today the National Association of Broadcasters
will have its lobbyists attempting to convince Members they should not
bear any responsibility and they should be able to evade the current
law and charge commercial rates for their $1 billion in political
advertising. Indeed, since 1996, the National Association of
Broadcasters has spent $19 million. While the network broadcasters are
convincing the American people to change the political system, their
lobbyists are in the hall spending millions of dollars in lobbying time
convincing people not to lower costs, do not raise money, but keep
spending it on us.
From 1996 through 1998, the National Association of Broadcasters and
five media outlets together spent $11 million to defeat 12 campaign
finance bills that would have, if implemented, reduced the cost of
broadcasting for candidates.
Time's up. You wanted campaign finance reform and you were right, the
system should be changed, but you miscalculated because you are going
to be part of that reform.
On a bipartisan basis, this Senate is going to vote today to
implement a law which we intended a long time ago. These are public
airwaves. There will not be price gouging for candidates for Federal
office. This time will be sold at the lowest unit rate as was always
our intention.
Under the Torricelli-Corzine-Durbin-Dorgan, et al., amendment, we are
going to bring the letter of the law back in line with the spirit of
the law.
Our intention is very simple: One, require broadcasters to charge
candidates and political parties the lowest rate offered throughout the
year. Therefore, the gouging that takes place because the networks know
that we must advertise between Labor Day and election day will end.
They will base these prices on the lowest rate throughout the year.
Second, ensure that candidate and party ads cannot be bumped,
displaced, by other advertisers willing to pay more for the air time.
Simply stated, to avoid the problem, as in the letter I indicated from
one television station, where a candidate for public office attempting
to communicate with their
[[Page 4157]]
constituent is told that General Motors is willing to pay more for the
same spot; therefore, either you pay what they will pay or your
advertisement will run in the dead of the night.
Three, require the FCC to conduct random checks during the
preelection period to ensure compliance with the law. In 1990, Senator
Danforth of Missouri requested a similar audit by the FCC and for the
first time revealed the extent to which broadcasters were not charging
candidates the lowest unit rate. Although the crackdown resulted in a
temporary dip in rates as broadcasters followed the law more closely,
recognizing the FCC controlled their licenses, as soon as the study was
finished, the monitoring was over, rates went up again, and the law was
violated. This time we will monitor it, but we will monitor it
permanently.
Savings that will result from this amendment are extraordinary, as is
the ability to change the national political culture of the fundraiser,
reducing costs, resulting in reduced fundraising. This is a great
opportunity. I do not know a member of this Congress who wouldn't
rather spend their time legislating than raising funds. I don't know a
Member of this Congress who wouldn't prefer to be at home on the
weekends with their family or constituents, rather than traveling
around the Nation raising funds. This isn't something that anybody
enjoys. There is an endless spiral of fundraising that is out of
control, but it will not be stopped simply by eliminating soft money or
making it more difficult to raise money of any kind. Candidates will
find money within the law under some system unless we address the
question of costs. In the modern political age, the cost of a campaign
is easily defined. It is television. This is a network-driven process.
And it can change.
My final chart illustrates the difference in running political
campaigns in three jurisdictions. If the Torricelli-Corzine-Durbin-
Dorgan amendment is adopted, the cost of running advertising in Los
Angeles, the second most expensive media market in the country, would
be a 75-percent difference by applying the lowest unit rate; in Denver,
41 percent; in Birmingham, AL, an incredible 400-percent difference.
This goes to the heart of the problem. We are simply requiring what
was asked a long time ago. We do not do this to an industry that is
struggling. The broadcast industry is making record profits by using
Federal licenses with new technology that has been given without cost.
Now, my friends, it is time to ask them to meet their responsibilities.
A new campaign finance system in America will require
responsibilities and sacrifices by many people--certainly by every
Member of Congress. This amendment will welcome the broadcasters into a
new responsibility in being part of the answer to the problem rather
than the core of the problem itself.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Who yields time?
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my esteemed
colleague, the senior Senator from New Jersey and a number of other
colleagues in offering this amendment to reduce the exploding costs of
political advertisements on the airwaves. As Senator Torricelli has
articulated and effectively demonstrated, this amendment would
guarantee that candidate advertisements are not preempted by more
favored, high-spending advertisers and that candidates are given the
lowest available rate for the reserved time.
Mr. President, campaigns do cost too much. God knows, I know. To
communicate with voters, at least in large States like New Jersey with
multiple and expensive media markets, candidates must use television
time. And television is very expensive. My campaign was charged as much
as $55,000 for one 30-second spot alone in the weeks directly preceding
the election. Others actually paid more.
When I began my run for the Senate, I was generally unknown to the
community at-large. I had enjoyed a successful business career, which I
thought would make a contribution to the Senate, the Nation, and my
community. But virtually no one in New Jersey knew who I was or, more
importantly, where I stood on the issues. Meanwhile, my opponents
included a former Governor and a former Congressman who were very well
recognized throughout our State. The Governor had run five statewide
campaigns and the latter had been in Congress 8 years and politics most
of his adult life. Certainly their experience should not have been
disqualifying, but neither should a lifetime of participation in the
private sector preclude the possibility for government service.
With that background, Mr. President, as you may know, New Jersey has
no major in-State television market. Rather, north Jersey voters are
served by New York City television stations while south Jersey voters
are served by those from Philadelphia.
The trend in television news coverage is to spend less and less time
on State and local races, and the problem is exaggerated in New Jersey
where stations from other States devote little airtime to covering New
Jersey politics.
As my senior colleague pointed out, in both the Philadelphia market
and New York market, as we ran up to the primary, there was very little
coverage. It averaged, if you looked across the two markets, 13 seconds
per day during the 60 days leading up to the election. Think about
that: 13 seconds a day for five candidates to express their points of
view and get in front of the public. That is some debate. I do hope we
can do something about it.
Compounding matters, there is also a trend away from covering
substantive issues, as Senator Torricelli remarked, in favor of
covering elections in horseraces, who is up, who is down, what the
polls say, not what the issues are. For those candidates, such as
myself, who want to engage voters on the issues, the only option is to
purchase time from the high priced, out-of-State broadcasters in our
case. The end result is the candidates, especially challengers, those
who have not previously held public office, must grapple with hugely
expensive media costs to stand a chance.
Let me be clear. Media exposure does not guarantee success. A
bankrupt message will lose, despite a well-funded media campaign. I
don't buy the argument you can buy an election. There are many examples
of candidates who have spent significant amounts of money, only to
lose. People who argue you can buy elections, in my view, underestimate
the ability and the judgment of the voters. Still, while adequate
exposure on television clearly is not sufficient to generate success,
lack of exposure for many candidates almost certainly will guarantee
failure, again, particularly for challengers and newcomers who might
bring different experiences and perspectives to issues.
Congress recognized this media cost problem in 1971 when it required
broadcasters to offer candidates the lowest price offered for a similar
timeslot. Unfortunately, that legislation included a major loophole.
Under the law, while local stations must offer a candidate the lowest
available rate, the broadcasters are allowed to preempt those
commercials and broadcast them at a later time--in the case in New
Jersey and Philadelphia markets, maybe at 3 a.m., as opposed to prime
time. To guarantee that an advertisement is shown at a particular time,
candidates are forced to pay premium rates. These premiums have
increased the price of on-air time dramatically.
Not long ago, the Alliance for Better Campaigns issued a report
entitled ``Gouging Democracy.''
I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of this report be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Executive Summary
Local television stations across the country systematically
gouged candidates in the closing months of the 2000 campaign,
jacking up the prices of their ads to levels that were
[[Page 4158]]
far above the lowest candidate rates listed on the stations'
own rate cards. They did so despite a 30-year-old federal law
designed to protect candidates from such demand-driven price
spikes. The stations apparently did not break the law;
rather, they exploited loopholes in a law that has never
worked as intended. In 2000, this so-called ``lowest unit
charge'' [LUC] safeguard for candidates was overrun by the
selling practices of stations, the buying demands of
candidates, the sharp rise in issue advocacy advertising and
the unprecedented flood of hard and soft money into political
campaigns.
As a result, political advertisers spent five times more on
broadcast television ads in 2000 than they did in 1980, even
after adjusting for inflation. The candidates made these
payments to an industry that has been granted free and
exclusive use of tens of billions of dollars worth of
publicly owned spectrum space in return for a pledge to serve
the public interest. In 2000, the broadcasters treated the
national election campaign more as a chance to profiteer than
to inform. Their industry has become the leading cause of the
high cost of modern politics.
This study is based on a comparison of political
advertising sales logs and rate cards at 10 local television
stations; an analysis of political advertising costs at all
stations in the top 75 media markets in the country; and
interviews with Democratic and Republican media buyers,
television station ad sales managers and officials at the
Federal Communications Commission. Its key findings:
Candidates Paid Prices Far Above the Lowest Published Rate.
In the final months of Campaign 2000, federal, state and
local candidates paid ad rates that, on average, were 65
percent above the candidates ``lowest unit charge'' rate
published in the stations' own rate card, according to an
audit of ad logs at 10 local stations across the country. The
10 stations are major network affiliates in large markets; in
total, they aired more than 16,000 candidate ads.
Stations Steered Candidates Toward Paying Premium Rates.
Television stations made their lowest candidate rate
unattractive to candidates by selling ads at that rate with
the proviso that they could be bumped to another time if
another advertiser came forward with an offer to pay more.
The LUC system is supposed to ensure that candidates are
treated as well as a station's most favored product
advertisers (e.g., the year-round advertiser who buys time in
bulk and receives a volume discount). But unlike most product
advertisers, candidates operate in a fast-changing tactical
environment and need assurance that their ads will run in a
specified time slot. During the height of the 2000 campaign,
station ad salesmen routinely took advantage of these special
needs and steered candidates toward paying high premiums for
``non-preemptible'' ad time.
An Explosion of Issue Advocacy Ads Caused Spikes in All Ad
Rates. The biggest change in the marketplace of political
advertising in recent years has been the explosive growth of
party and issue group advertising; in 2000, it accounted for
roughly half of all political ad spending. These ads are not
entitled to LUC protection. In markets where there were
highly competitive races, stations doubled and sometimes
tripled issue ad rates in the campaign's final weeks. This
had a tail-wags-dog effect on the pricing of candidate spots.
The intention of the LUC system is to peg candidate rates to
volume discount rates for product ads. But in 2000,
candidates paid rates driven up by the demand spike created
by the flood of soft money-funded issue advocacy ads.
Some Candidates Were Shut Out of Air Time. The heavy demand
for political ad time squeezed some would-be candidate
advertisers off the air. In some markets, television stations
either ran out of inventory or refused to sell air time to
down-ballot state and local candidates. These candidates are
entitled to lower ad rates than issue groups and parties,
but, unlike candidates for federal office, they are not
guaranteed access to paid ad time.
Political Ad Sales Were at Least $771 Million . . .
Stations in the top 75 media markets took in at least $771
million from Jan. 1 to Nov. 7, 2000 from the sale of more
than 1.2 million political ads, almost double their 1996 take
of $436 million.
. . . and May Have Hit $1 Billion. The $771 million figure
is a conservative estimate. It covers ad spending on the 484
stations in the nation's 75 largest markets, but excludes the
ad dollars spent on roughly 800 stations in the nation's 135
smaller markets. It also fails to account for the spike in ad
rates that occurred close to Election Day. Some Wall Street
analysts estimate the actual political ad revenue total was
closer to $1 billion.
While Profiteering on the Surge in Political Spending,
Stations Cut Back on Coverage. Even as it was taking in
record revenues from political advertisers, the broadcast
industry scaled back on substantive coverage of candidate
discourse. Throughout the 2000 campaign, the national
networks and local stations offered scant coverage of
debates, conventions and campaign speeches, prompting veteran
ABC newsman Sam Donaldson to remark that his network evening
news political coverage had ``forfeited the field'' to cable.
The industry also fell far short of a proposal by a White
House advisory panel, co-chaired by the president of CBS,
that stations air five minutes a night of candidate discourse
in the closing month of the campaign. In the month preceding
Nov. 7, the national networks and the typical local station
aired, on average, just a minute a night of such discourse.
This minimal coverage increased the pressure on candidates to
turn to paid ads as their only way of reaching the mass
audience that only broadcast television delivers.
Mr. CORZINE. According to this report, the cost of political
advertising last year was $771 million, more than doubling the cost
just 8 years ago in 1992. That is up from $375 million to almost $800
million. That is a conservative estimate. The fact is, media costs
simply are growing out of control.
This is a chart I would like to see for earnings of a company I
formally represented.
To avoid having campaign ads preempted, candidates are forced to pay
prices above the lowest unit cost. Some 78 percent of the political ads
on WNBC, a New York network affiliate--one of the prime spots for
placing your ads in the New York media market--were purchased at a rate
higher than the lowest published candidate rate for those timeslots in
the fall of 2000. You will see here: WNBC--78 percent.
So we compare it equally with Philadelphia, where you also have to
run in New Jersey, and 91 percent of the ads were sold at or above
those lowest unit costs.
It is critical to remember that the public owns the airwaves. They
are licensed to broadcasters but they belong to all of us. They are a
public trust, gifted to the broadcasters for commercial use.
The Television Bureau of Advertising, based on estimates supplied by
CMR MediaWatch, estimates that ad revenues for the broadcast television
stations in 1999 exceeded $36 billion. Seemingly, the public spectrum
has proved profitable for the television broadcasters: $36 billion.
Consequently, it is not unreasonable to ask the stations to make time
available so candidates can communicate with the voters.
An article by David Broder appearing in yesterday's Washington Post
drives home the underlying motivation for this amendment. I ask
unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, March 20, 2001]
Where the Money Goes . . .
(By David S. Broder)
The Sunday television talk shows were focused on campaign
finance reform, but no one was rude enough to suggest that TV
itself is at the heart of the problem. The same subject is
conspicuous by its absence in the campaign finance debate now
underway in the Senate. For a change, the lawmakers are
arguing seriously how to regulate the money coming into
politics from business, labor and wealthy individuals. But
they are ignoring where that money goes.
Voters I've interviewed seem to think this money goes into
the coffers of the political parties or into the pockets of
the politicians. In fact, the parties and the candidates are
the middlemen in this process, writing checks as fast as the
contributions arrive.
Many of the checks go to broadcasters for those 30-second
ads that, in the final weeks of a campaign, fill the screen
during the breaks in local news shows and popular prime-time
series.
A report earlier this month from the Alliance for Better
Campaigns, a bipartisan public interest group critical of the
broadcasters, said that ``stations in the top 75 media
markets took in at least $771 million . . . from the sale of
more than 1.2 million political ads'' last year. If the
figures for stations in the 135 smaller markets were added,
it's estimated that the total take probably would be counted
at $1 billion.
That reality is being ignored as senators debate rival
measures, all of which have a common feature--reducing the
flow of contributions that pay the campaign television bills.
Common sense tells you that if the TV bill remains that
exorbitant, politicians will continue the ``money chase''
under any rules that are in place.
But that fact is suppressed in Senate debate for the same
reason it was ignored on the TV talk shows: fear of
antagonizing the station owners, who control what gets on the
air.
The influence that broadcasters exercise in their home
markets is reflected in the power their lobbyists wield in
Washington. That is the main reason the major proposals
before the Senate--one sponsored by Sens. John McCain and
Russ Feingold and the other crafted by Sen. Chuck Hagel--have
no provisions aimed at reducing the TV charges. Instead, they
focus on the high-dollar ``soft
[[Page 4159]]
money'' contributions to the political parties. McCain and
Feingold would eliminate them; Hagel would limit their size.
The soft-money exemption from the contribution limits that
apply to other gifts to candidates and parties was created in
order to finance such grassroots activity as voter
registration and Election Day turnout. But now most of the
soft money is converted into TV issue ads, indistinguishable
for all practical purposes from the candidates'
electioneering messages.
The National Association of Broadcasters denies the
Alliance for Better Campaigns' charge of price ``gouging'' in
the last campaign. But there are no discounts for issue ads;
they are sold at whatever price the market will bear. And the
heavy volume of issue ads drove up the cost for all TV spots
in the weeks leading up to Election Day, including those
placed by candidates, thus fueling the money chase.
Whether the McCain-Feingold bill, or the Hagel substitute,
or some blend of the two is passed, campaign cash will
continue to flow to those television stations--and they will
continue to charge the candidates and parties what the
traffic will bear.
For years, some reform advocates have argued that no new
law will be effective unless the cost of television can be
brought down. McCain, in fact, has drafted a bill that would
require the broadcasters--in return for their use of the
public airways--to contribute perhaps one percent of their
earnings to finance vouchers that the parties and candidates
would convert into payment for TV spots. Estimates are that
it would go a long way toward eliminating the need for
private funding of the TV side of campaigns.
But McCain does not plan to offer this as an amendment
during the current debate, fearing that the broadcasters'
lobby would turn enough votes to kill the underlying bill. It
is possible that other senators may offer amendments designed
to reduce the need for billion-dollar political TV budgets,
but their prospects are poor.
The reality is that any measure that becomes law without
such a provision is likely to be no more than a Band-Aid. As
long as broadcasters can continue to treat politics as a
profit center, not a public responsibility, the money will
have to come from somewhere to pay those bills. The current
debate focuses too much on the people who write the checks.
It's time to question, as well, where the money goes.
Mr. CORZINE. He writes:
Common sense tells you that if the TV bill remains . . .
exorbitant, politicians will continue the ``money chase''
under any rules that are in place.
This amendment seeks to lower the cost of television to reduce that
money chase by lowering the amount of money necessary to run for
election.
Many would argue if we truly want to get rid of this money chase in
politics, we should guarantee free air time for public debate. I agree,
but for today we argue only for TV time at the lowest cost per unit.
That is all this amendment does. It requires broadcasters to make time
available on a nonpreemptable basis at the lowest cost offered to
anyone for that time period, and it requires the FCC to conduct
periodic audits to ensure compliance.
This does nothing more than enforce the original intent of Congress
when it first required broadcasters to make time available at the
lowest unit rate. This simple but powerful reform potentially will
bring sanity to the cost of 21st century campaigns.
I urge my colleagues, as Senator Torricelli has before me and others
will after, to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am about to yield to my colleague and
friend, Senator Dorgan, but I wish to commend both of our colleagues
from New Jersey--Senator Torricelli for being the lead sponsor of this
amendment and Senator Corzine and others for their cosponsorship of it
and to Senator Corzine for some excellent remarks on the purpose of
this amendment.
I will take some time later on this morning to address the substance
of the amendment, but I commend both of my colleagues for their
efforts. This is very well thought out. The point Senator Corzine made
that we sometimes forget is that these are public airwaves which we
license people to use for commercial purposes. Nothing is more
important than making people aware of the choices, both issues and
substantive choices as well as political choices that they make in
national, local, or State elections. We can't say anything about local
or State elections, but we can about national--Federal elections.
I think Senators Torricelli, Corzine, Dorgan, and Durbin have hit on
a very important point if this bill is to do truly what its authors
intend it to do.
I yield 15 minutes to Senator Dorgan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I say to Senator Torricelli and my other
colleagues who have cosponsored this amendment, they have done a real
service, in my judgment, in this debate. This is an amendment that can
hardly be opposed by Members of the Senate. It makes so much sense and
is so overdue.
Let me begin in a more general way talking about campaign finance
reform and then describing why this amendment is critical to the
success of this effort.
This Saturday there was a story in one of the major city newspapers
in this country. I do not think I will identify the people in the
story, but I want to use this story to make a point. It is a story
about a group which have gathered to fund certain political campaigns.
It says they met in a conference room, 40 business executives,
investors, wealthy folks gathered at a law firm conference room, and
they had some candidates come in and they would make presentations to
the gathered potential donors. Then the donors would score them, 1 to
10, and determine who was best, who were the best candidates.
It was like a beauty contest without the bathing suits or good looks,
I guess. You have the candidates come in this law office conference
room, make their presentation, and they get a score of 1 to 10.
Apparently after the candidates have made this presentation, this group
of investors would decide who they were going to support. In this case,
the story was about a Member of Congress now who went to this
conference room, made a presentation, scored in the 10s, I guess, and
then this group of 40 people said: You are our guy. What we are going
to do is, we are going to do a couple of hundred thousand dollars worth
of television advertising for you--independent issue ads--and then,
second, we are going to bundle some money and get you a couple of
hundred thousand dollars in checks.
So this little beauty contest produces $400,000 for a candidate. The
group evolved from a small core of Wall Street bigwigs led by so-and-
so. Their goal is to target large sums of money to specific kinds of
candidates who come in and survive this little beauty contest they
have.
Do we need campaign finance reform? Of course we do. That is just one
evidence of the desperate need for campaign finance reform. You bet we
need it. I support the McCain-Feingold bill. I admit it is not perfect.
I might have written some sections differently. It may need to be
changed some. But it is a piece of legislation this Congress ought to
embrace.
Fifty years ago we effectively had no rules with respect to
campaigns. There were no limits, no reporting requirements, and there
was an exchange of money in this town in paper bags or envelopes; it
could be in cash. The amount of money was donated and unreported.
Was that a system that worked? Of course not. That desperately needed
to be changed and it was in the early 1970s. We had the reforms of 1974
that tried to establish certain limits and tried to establish certain
reporting. In many ways it worked, in some areas, but in other ways it
has not worked. Money and politics are like water finding a hill. They
run downhill inevitably.
There is in this political system, rather than a competition of ideas
is, which is what democracy ought to be about, a mad rush for money in
order to pay the costs of television advertising, which has become the
mother's milk of politics. What has happened to their competition of
ideas in this blizzard of television advertising? Ideas are almost
gone, nearly obliterated. The orgy of 30-second advertisements in this
country is a slash-and-burn and hit-and-run negative attack, often by
nameless and faceless people, in many
[[Page 4160]]
cases by organizations that are not part of political parties. They are
independent organizations collecting unlimited money from donors who
are undisclosed.
Do we need campaign finance reform? Darned right, we do. This system
is out of control.
In this morning's Washington Post there is a columnist who really
makes the case about, what we need in politics is more money, that we
just need more money in this political system. I wonder, has this
person been on some kind of space flight somewhere? Did the shuttle
take him up, and have they been gone for the last 10 years? Could they
not have failed to see in September and October--and even before in
every election year, especially last year--the blizzard of
advertisements, the 30-second ads in every venue of every kind?
Our political system doesn't need more money. In fact, what has
happened--and I think that is what has prompted this amendment--is that
politicians have become collectors of money in order to transfer the
money to television stations that become the large beneficiaries of
this new system of ours.
My colleague, Senator Torricelli, has offered an amendment that says
the television stations in this country have a responsibility to do
what the law says they should do--that industry has a responsibility to
sell political time for political advertisements to candidates at the
lowest rate on the rate card. But that has not been happening. What has
happened in the communications business--especially television and
radio--is a galloping concentration and mergers. Since the 1996
Telecommunications Act, we have seen a rash of mergers and large
companies becoming larger. In virtually every State, there are fewer
television stations owned locally, and more are owned by large national
companies.
Guess what happened. The result is they make decisions now about the
ad prices and the rate cards they are going to use for politics. They
are maximizing their revenue from the political income in this country.
My colleague described what is happening in New Jersey. I think that
is important, because he describes the substantial increase in costs of
television advertising for political purposes in New Jersey.
Let me describe what happened in North Dakota. The advertisement that
cost a mere $290 in 1998 to clear an ad on four NBC stations in western
North Dakota--remember that this is a sparsely populated area, and the
rates are much different from in New Jersey and New York--but a $290 or
$300 advertisement 2 years go sold at $753 last fall, nearly tripling
the advertising rates of the television stations in a small State such
as North Dakota.
I am told that the two Federal races paid almost exactly double for
about the same time on the television stations in North Dakota in the
year 2000.
This isn't just about big markets, it is about every market, and it
is about the television industry deciding it is going to profit as a
result of being able to ignore, effectively, a provision that exists in
law requiring the sale of television advertising at the lowest rate on
the card for political advertising.
I happen to think we ought to do more in reform with respect to
advertising. I know some think this would be too intrusive. But, as I
indicated, I think political campaigns ought to be a competition about
ideas. They ought to be about competing ideas of what we need to do in
this country to make this a better place in which to live. They have
instead become this machine gunfire of 30-second advertisements.
I would like to see at some point that we require the lowest rate on
the rate card to be offered to those who purchase a 1-minute ad,
require the television industry to sell ads in 1-minute increments, and
require the candidate to appear on the ad three-fourths of the time of
the 1-minute ad. That would really require people to use television
advertising to tell the American people what they are about. If they
want to criticize their opponent, good for them. But they would have to
do it in person on the air.
I think that would really change a lot of political advertising in
this country, and I think America would be better served to have
positive debate about what the candidate stands for; one would stand
for one set of ideas, and the other would stand for another set of
ideas; and let people make a choice. But these days, that is not what
you have. You have a rush to try to destroy one candidate by the other,
and in many cases we are seeing expenditures and unlimited money coming
from undisclosed donors. That doesn't serve this political system at
all.
My colleague says let us at least solve this problem by adding to the
McCain-Feingold bill. As I indicated when I started, I support the
McCain-Feingold legislation because I think it is a significant step in
the right direction. But it will be incomplete if we do not add this
amendment because this amendment will finally tell the television
industry: You must do what the law requires. Here is exactly what
Congress says the law has required for some long while that you have
gotten away from doing. If we don't do this, we will not see an
abatement to this mad rush for money and the requirement that those who
are involved in politics collect funds in order to transfer those funds
to the television stations that are now charging double and triple for
the advertising that is required in America politics.
I really believe this is a critically important amendment.
I must say my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Torricelli, made an
outstanding presentation. He has done his homework, as I described,
with one of my colleagues. He has made a very effective presentation of
why this is necessary.
Let me make an additional point about the television industry. I
think the television industry does some awfully good things in our
country, and all of us take advantage of it almost every day. And we
appreciate the good things they do. But, as we know, the television
industry was provided a spectrum. The public airwaves were given to
broadcasters free on the condition they serve ``the public interest,
convenience, and necessity.''
According to a study by the Norman Lear Center at the University of
Southern California, during the 2000 campaign the typical local
television station in a major market aired just 45 seconds of the
candidate's second discourse per night during a month before November
7. Why? They know what sells on the news. They are chasing ambulances,
they are not covering political campaigns.
There were stories about this in the last campaign. Too often
television stations decided they weren't going to put campaign news in
the news strip, let people buy it, and at the same time on the
commercial side of the station they were jacking up the price of their
ads and preventing candidates from accessing the lowest unit cost.
I think on the issue of public interest, convenience, and necessity,
we have a ways to go in the television industry dealing with the
coverage of political campaigns.
Major broadcast networks performed only slightly better--airing just
64 seconds a night of a candidate's discourse per network, according to
an Annenberg Public Policy Center report.
The question is, How are the American people to gather information
about the competition of ideas that ought to exist in the political
race over the newscast? Hardly. The news industry, including the
networks, is not covering most of these campaigns. And local stations
have decided increasingly that there is a menu for their nightly news,
and they understand exactly what it is. It is often dealing with crime,
even while crime goes down.
Incidentally, there are wonderful studies about this which show
decreased crime rates and increased viewing of stories about violent
crime on the nightly news because that is what sells.
It is time for us to ask for something better and something different
from the television industry. In this circumstance, we are simply
asking them to do what we believe the law has required them to do but
what they have
[[Page 4161]]
been refusing to do in recent years, and that is to sell 45 days before
a primary and 60 days before a general election to candidates for
public office at the lowest unit charge of the station for the same
class and amount of time for the same period as for the commercials
that are aired on those stations. That is what the requirement is.
It is what they have not been doing, and it is what Senator
Torricelli and Senator Corzine, Senator Durbin, I, and others say it is
time to be required to do.
So I am pleased today to support this amendment. I think it is a very
important amendment, and I am especially pleased my colleague, Senator
Torricelli, has taken the lead to offer it today.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me inquire, how much time remains on the
proponents' side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventeen minutes 45 seconds.
Mr. DODD. How much time remains on the other side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ninety minutes.
Mr. DODD. May I inquire of my colleague from Kentucky--if I could
interrupt for 1 second--we are down to about 17 minutes on the
proponents' side. Will my colleague from Kentucky be willing at some
point to yield us a little time if we need it?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield some time. I
am unaware of speakers at the moment in opposition to the Torricelli
amendment. There may be some. Actually, I know of one who wants to
speak. He is not on the floor at the moment. So we will be casual about
time, and I will make sure we can accommodate all speakers.
Mr. DODD. How much time does my colleague want?
Mr. TORRICELLI. Let me inquire. We have several colleagues who want
to speak on behalf of the amendment. While I want to speak, I do not
want to take all the time that remains. So I am under the Senator's
guidance.
Mr. DODD. Why not take the time the senator's need, and I am
confident my colleague from Kentucky will yield us some time if we need
it.
Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my colleague from New Jersey, I am not
exactly swamped with speakers requesting time. I will be glad to work
with the Senator to have adequate time.
Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator very much.
At this point, I want to deal with several of the questions that have
been put before the Senate. In the absence of anyone coming to the
Senate floor to confront the overwhelming logic of our amendment, I
want to deal with the stealth arguments being presented in Senators'
offices. Even though no one will rise in defense of this indefensible
cause of the networks, nevertheless, there are silent arguments being
waged. I will debate those even if there is not someone in person to do
it.
As some of my colleagues have noted, some of the most effective
arguments were actually made yesterday in the Washington Post by David
Broder, the columnist. Let me begin by quoting those arguments. I
quote:
The reality is being ignored--
That is in dealing with McCain-Feingold--
as senators debate rival measures, all of which have a common
feature--reducing the flow of contributions that pay the
campaign television bills. Common sense tells you that if the
TV bill remains that exorbitant, politicians will continue
the ``money chase'' under any rules that are in place.
Exactly. Further:
The reality is that any measure that becomes law without
such a provision--
Parenthetically, that meaning the cost of television--
is likely to be no more than a Band-Aid. As long as
broadcasters can continue to treat politics as a profit
center, not a public responsibility, the money will have to
come from somewhere to pay those bills. The current debate
focuses too much on the people who write the checks. It's
time to question, as well, where the money goes.
That is the heart of the argument for this amendment.
Where does the money go? Mr. McCain and Mr. Feingold deal with the
demand for money. We are dealing with the supply of the advertisements.
This is an equation that inevitably must be dealt with together in the
bill.
It has been noted by my colleague, Senator Corzine, of our experience
in the New York metropolitan area, although indeed we do so simply
because we are the most familiar with it. The arguments we are making
about New York and Philadelphia could be made in any market in the
country, al though I want, parenthetically, to deal with how the
networks are approaching political campaigns today, not as a
responsibility to enhance communication but as an economic opportunity.
It should be noted that of the 10 stations that made the most money
from political advertising in the year 2000, three are in New York:
NBC, ABC and CBS; two are in Philadelphia, WPVI and WCAU. They range
from WNBC in New York, which placed $25 million of advertising, and in
Philadelphia with $11 million for WCAU. It is best described by the
sales director at the CBS affiliate in Philadelphia as ``the best year
we've had in forever.''
Why was it the best year and why all this excitement?
Let me quote from an article by Paul Taylor, former Washington Post
political reporter. Quoting the CBS affiliate in Buffalo, WIVB-TV,
Patrick Paolini, general sales manager, who said:
We're salivating. No question it will be huge as far as ad
revenue [is concerned] . . . It's like Santa Claus came. It's
a beautiful thing.
He was not talking about the quality of the debate. ``Santa Claus
coming'' was not about substantive arguments to help the people of New
York. He was talking about the prospects of Hillary Rodham Clinton
running for the Senate and the potential revenues, recognizing the
expenditures in a Clinton Senate campaign. ``We're salivating.'' ``It's
a beautiful thing.'' ``It's like Santa Claus came.''
It is not by chance that we come today making this argument. There
has been a calculation by television networks to take advantage of this
political system and this fundraising to maximize their profits.
There are arguments going on in Senators' offices as we speak. Papers
are being circulated, as I have suggested, in the absence of any
Senators coming to argue against this amendment. Stealth arguments are
being made to Senators' offices. Let me go through a few of these
arguments for a moment.
The National Association of Broadcasters is arguing, first, that we
are going down the slippery slope of free time.
My colleagues, there is no amendment before the Senate requiring free
time. Indeed, there could be an argument for it. All of our European
allies, in every other industrial democracy in the world, broadcasters
are required to provide free time to help the public debate. We are not
doing that today. It would be warranted, but it is not being argued.
We are simply requiring that the law read as many Senators believe it
already exists--lowest unit cost. We are closing a loophole in the
current law.
Second, the National Association of Broadcasters is arguing in
Members' offices that: Candidates already receive a 30 percent discount
on regular commercial ad rates. Oh, my colleagues, if only it were so.
As I think we demonstrated earlier in my arguments, that is a fiction.
Candidates are not getting 30 percent. Yes, that is the law. That is
what should be happening. But as we have demonstrated--in Minneapolis,
95 percent of advertising is now being done at commercial rates, 4
percent is at lowest unit rate; in Detroit, 8 percent is at lowest unit
rate; in Philadelphia, 9 percent; in San Francisco, 14 percent; in Las
Vegas, 38 percent; in Seattle, 9 percent.
No, National Association of Broadcasters, you are not providing a 30-
percent discount. That is the exception. The rule is, you are price
gouging. You are charging commercial rates--contrary to current law.
Third, arguing that: This has a fundamental, constitutional problem.
There is no constitutional problem. First, we have had, for more than
30
[[Page 4162]]
years, the requirement that ads must be sold at the lowest unit rate.
We are not doing anything new. We are closing a loophole in current
law. If there is a constitutional argument now, then there has been a
constitutional argument for decades; and it has never been raised
before, although, frankly, even if it had been, it would have failed.
The fifth amendment's taking challenge would fail in this provision.
There is no right to a grant of a license or property interest in the
use of a frequency. The networks have a public license to use the
public frequencies for their network business. There is no
constitutional right to it. You apply for a license, and you can get
that license subject to conditions. Public responsibility is one of
those conditions.
Selling air time for the public debate at a reasonable cost is
another condition. That has always been a condition.
Under section 304 of the Communications Act of 1934, broadcasters are
required to ``waive any claim to the use of any particular frequency or
electromagnetic spectrum as against the regulatory power of the U.S.''
There they have waived the constitutional right to claim that the
spectrum must be used for public purposes.
In Federal Communications Commission v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station,
a court decision, the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted
this provision to mean that:
No person is to have anything in the nature of a property
right as a result of granting a license.
There simply is no constitutional right impaired by asking these
reduced rates.
Finally, the broadcasters are arguing, in correspondence to our
offices, that broadcasters should not bear the burden of campaign
reform. Why not? Isn't dealing with the campaign finance problems of
the country everybody's responsibility? We are saying that candidates
for public office should no longer avail themselves of soft money,
should abide by certain rules. Why indeed should broadcasters not bear
some of the responsibilities? Do they not have public licenses? Do they
not have responsibility to air the news fairly, cover campaigns, to
inform the public? Should they be allowed to price gouge?
They make the argument: What about newspapers? Shouldn't newspapers
bear this responsibility? I don't know a newspaper in America that
deals with a Federal license, nor are newspapers under the same
circumstance of a market that will only permit so many newspapers. The
spectrum has limited the number of television stations; hence, the
FEC's requirements and Federal law.
These National Association of Broadcasters arguments are an insult.
They confirm the arrogance with which the networks are approaching
Federal campaigns, the arrogance that is leading to avoidance of
Federal responsibilities, the selling at lowest unit rate cost, or the
raising of these extraordinary arguments without merit.
That is the sum and substance of the case they are making. To the
credit of my colleagues, they are so meritless in their points that no
one will actually argue their point of view. Hence, I challenge them
alone.
We have other colleagues who have come to the floor to make their
case. I yield the floor. Senator Durbin will be available to speak to
the Senate.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from New Jersey, once
again, for raising the arguments that are being circulated around the
offices of the Senate and pointing out the fallacy of those arguments.
The facts are inarguable, when you look at the rates that are being
charged in major markets all across the country. It goes back to the
heart of the bill. As we are trying to keep down costs, for many of us
it runs somewhere around 75 or 80 cents on the dollar that is spent on
TV advertising. It varies from State to State, I am sure, but that is
not an unrealistic number in modern campaigns to spend that much of a
campaign dollar on TV advertising, considering how much the public
relies on television for its sources of information.
If we are truly trying to put the brakes on the ever-spiraling cost
of campaigns, as my colleague from Wisconsin has eloquently described,
there is no natural law that I know of which says that the costs of
campaigns ought to continue to rise at the rate they have been rising
over the last few years. Trying to do something about cost as well as
the amount of dollars that are raised is the second part of this
equation.
If we are making the case that we don't need more money in politics,
that case is more easily made if we are able to demonstrate that we can
reduce the cost of trying to speak to the American public about what
our views are, what their choices are, as we encourage people to
participate in the electoral process.
I thank our colleagues, the authors of this amendment, for offering
the amendment and making the case they have. I know our colleague from
Illinois, who is a cosponsor of the amendment, wants to be heard. I see
my colleague from Wisconsin. Maybe he would like to take a couple
minutes before Senator Durbin arrives. I yield a couple of minutes to
the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I know the Senator from Illinois is coming. I will take
a moment or two. I appreciate the Senator from Connecticut giving me
the time so I can indicate my support for this amendment. I think I can
speak for the Senator from Arizona as well. We are going to support
this amendment.
The Senator from New Jersey has laid out the substantive arguments
very persuasively. I wish to say a word or two about how this amendment
relates to our overall McCain-Feingold bill and why it is very
consistent with reform. The Senator from Connecticut has already
mentioned this, pretty much foreshadowing what I will say.
The most important point is that the amendment compliments the soft
money ban. The bottom line of our legislation is, we have to get rid of
this party soft money that is growing exponentially. The reality,
though, as the Senator from New Jersey has pointed out, is that in a
post-soft-money world, the amount of money available for a candidate in
party advertising will be significantly reduced. That is how it should
be. That is what we must do.
Reducing the cost of television time will have the very beneficial
effect of reducing the impact of the loss of soft money on the ability
of candidates to legitimately get their message out. The parties will
only have hard money to spend. For that reason, it is appropriate to
allow them to use the lowest unit rate as well.
The fact is, this amendment can help make the legislation work. This
amendment will help the parties to adjust to the new world of
fundraising for only hard money, and it will help candidates have the
sufficient resources to respond to ads that will still be run by
outside groups.
Some of the concerns about all the money that would flow to the
outside groups are overblown. I don't think all the money will flow. It
is false that all the corporations will give their money in that way.
The fact is, there still will be these ads and people will still need
to respond. The Torricelli amendment does make it possible for people
to have that ability to respond through the legitimate, controlled,
regulated, and disclosed hard money system.
Like the soft money ban in this bill, the amendment will take our
election law back to its original intent. The soft money ban
reinvigorates the century-old prohibition of corporate spending in
connection with Federal elections. Lowest unit rate, on the other hand,
was intended to give candidates a significant discount for advertising
so they could get their message out. The practice of having preemptible
and then, on the other hand, nonpreemptible classes of time was not
contemplated by the lowest unit rate statute. What this amendment does
is bring the LUR back to what the Congress intended it to be.
In my mind, it is very similar to what the soft money ban does. It
takes us back to where we were supposed to be. We are talking in both
cases about loopholes that have helped destroy an entire system that
actually was pretty
[[Page 4163]]
well thought out. But loopholes do occur, and this amendment helps us
close them.
The Senator from New Jersey already did a fine job on this. I
reiterate, this is not a slippery slope. This is not the next step to
free time. I wish it was. There ought to be free time for candidates.
There ought to be reduced television costs, but LUR is not free time.
The original McCain-Feingold bill, when Senator McCain and I first came
together to work on a bipartisan basis, was about voluntary spending
limits in return for reduced costs for television time. That is
something we were unable to get a majority of the Senate to support.
That is not what this amendment does. This amendment simply makes LUR
effective and useful in practice for candidates.
I thank the Senator and appreciate his very serious involvement in
this campaign finance debate and, in particular, for this amendment
that, as I indicated, Senator McCain and I tried for 5 years to finally
get this bill on the floor. We always said we have our ideas, but we
believe that if this bill is brought to the floor of the Senate, the
Members of the Senate will make it a better bill. Every one of us is an
expert on this issue. If we come out and have an honest, open debate as
we are having now, it will get better. The Torricelli amendment is
proof of that proposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield myself whatever time I may use.
I assure my colleagues from Connecticut and from Illinois it will be
short.
I have been very pleased by the debate so far on this subject and,
frankly, somewhat surprised. The comity in the Senate has been
excellent. There has been a total absence of unsubstantiated charges of
corruption, which we had on the floor the last time this debate came
up. That is a step in the right direction.
On that subject, in today's Washington Post, there was an interesting
article by George Will, a columnist. I ask unanimous consent that the
article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, March 20, 2001]
Drops in the Bucket
(By George F. Will)
McCainism, the McCarthyism of today's ``progressives,''
involves, as McCarthyism did, the reckless hurling of
imprecise accusations. Then, the accusation was
``communism!'' Today it is ``corruption!'' Pandemic
corruption of ``everybody'' by ``the system'' supposedly
justifies campaign finance reforms. Those reforms would
subject the rights of political speech and association to yet
further government limits and supervision, by restricting the
political contributions and expenditures that are
indispensable for communication in modern society.
The media, exempt from regulations they advocate for rival
sources of influence, are mostly John McCain's megaphones.
But consider how empirically unproved and theoretically
dubious are his charges of corruption.
What McCain and kindred spirits call corruption, or the
``appearance'' thereof, does not involve personal enrichment.
Rather, it means responding to, or seeming to respond to,
contributors, who also often are constituents. However, those
crying ``corruption!'' must show that legislative outcomes
were changed by contributions--that because of contributions,
legislators voted differently from the way they otherwise
would have done.
Abundant scholarship proves that this is difficult to
demonstrate, and that almost all legislative behavior is
explainable by the legislators' ideologies, party
affiliations or constituents' desires. So reformers hurling
charges of corruption often retreat to the charge that the
``real'' corruption is invisible--a speech not given, a
priority not adopted. That charge is impossible to refute by
disproving a negative. Consider some corruption innuendos
examined by Bradley Smith, a member of the Federal Election
Commission, in his new book ``Unfree Speech: The Folly of
Campaign Finance Reform.''
In April 1999, Common Cause, McCain's strongest
collaborator, made much of the fact that from 1989 through
1998 the National Rifle Association had contributed $8.4
million to congressional campaigns. However, that was just
two-tenths of one percent of total spending ($4 billion) by
congressional candidates during that period. How plausible is
it that NRA contributions--as distinct from the votes of 3
million NRA members--influenced legislators?
Common Cause made much of the fact that in the 10 years
ending in November 1996, broadcasting interests gave $9
million in hard dollars to federal and state candidates and
in soft dollars to parties. Gosh. Five election cycles.
Changing issues and candidates. Rival interests within the
industry (e.g., Time Warner vs. Turner). And broadcasters'
contributions were only one-tenth of one percent of the $9
billion spent by parties and candidates during that period.
Yet, as Smith says, Common Cause implies that this minuscule
portion of political money caused legislative majorities to
vote for bills they otherwise would have opposed, or to
oppose bills they otherwise would have supported, each time
opposing the wishes of the constituents that the legislators
must face again.
As Smith says, to prove corruption one must prove that
legislators are acting against their principles, or against
their best judgment, or against their constituents' wishes.
Furthermore, claims of corruption seem to presuppose that
legislators should act on some notion of the ``public good''
unrelated to the views of any particular group of voters.
Although reformers say there is ``too much money in
politics,'' if they really want to dilute the possible
influence of particular interests (the NRA, broadcasters,
whatever), they should favor increasing the size of the total
pool of political money, so that any interest's portion of
the pool will be small. And if reformers really want to see
the appearance of corruption, they should examine what their
reforms have done, have tried to do and have not tried to do.
Smith notes that incumbent reelection rates began to rise
soon after incumbents legislated the 1974 limits on
contributions, which hurt challengers more than well-known
incumbents with established financing networks. After 1974,
incumbents' fundraising advantages over challengers rose from
approximately 1.5 to 1, to more than 4 to 1.
Early 1997 versions of the McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan
reform bills would have set spending ceilings--surprise!--
just where challengers become menacing to incumbents. Shays-
Meehan set $600,000 for House races. Forty percent of
challengers who had spent more than that in the previous
cycle won; only 3 percent of those who spent less won. In
1994, 1996 and 1998, all Senate challengers lost who spent
less than the limits proposed in the 1995 and 1997 versions
of McCain-Feingold.
There are interesting limits to McCain's enthusiasm for
limits. His bill does not include something President Bush
proposes--a ban on lobbyists making contributions to
legislators while the legislature is in session. Such a limit
would abridge the freedom of incumbents. Campaign finance
reform is about abridging the freedom of everyone but
incumbents--and their media megaphones.
Mr. McCONNELL. It was on the whole subject of unsubstantiated charges
of corruption.
In my view, as I have said in the past, and repeat again today, when
people make those kinds of charges, they need to back them up. I am
quite pleased there have been no such charges made during this debate.
It produces an atmosphere that makes it more likely that we can better
legislate.
This is the second amendment offered in the last 24 hours that I
think addresses some of the real problems in today's campaign finance
reform debate. The first problem that we addressed yesterday was the
problem of the millionaire candidate. It passed 70-30. It was an
excellent amendment by Senator Domenici and Senator DeWine and Senator
Durbin that actually addresses a real problem we have in today's
campaigns.
Now we have another amendment that addresses a real problem. I
commend the Senator from New Jersey for a thoughtful, well-researched,
and, in my view, conclusive case, that the law that has been on the
books for 30 years requiring the broadcasters to sell candidates time
at the lowest unit rate ought to be complied with. None of us likes
having to raise money. But it is my view that it is better than getting
it out of the Treasury. I assume we will debate later whether or not
the taxpayers ought to pick up the tab for our campaigns. If it is
inconvenient for us, it ought to come through our efforts, not somebody
else's.
As the Senator from New Jersey pointed out, and very persuasively, no
matter how many hours there are in a day, with the declining value of
the $1,000 contribution set in the 1970s, when a Mustang cost $2,700,
and inflation in the television industry, far beyond the CPI--coupled
with an apparent unwillingness that we have all experienced in our
States of broadcast
[[Page 4164]]
stations to cover campaigns in the news--we are, in effect, blacked out
in terms of earned coverage.
The need for commercials is critical and essential. So what the
Senator from New Jersey is saying is, let's apply the law, as
originally written, correctly. Give candidates for public office an
opportunity to get their message across. I think it is an amendment,
the passage of which is necessary if we are going to address one of the
real problems in the current campaign finance system.
This is something of a historic moment. I think Senator McCain,
Senator Feingold, and I are going to be on the same side of an
amendment. Come to think of it, it is the second time.
I commend the Senator from Wisconsin, also, for his consistent
opposition to amending the first amendment for the first time in 200
years. He and I have been on the same side of that issue over the
years. This will be the second time we have been on the same side. I
think it bodes well as we move forward in this debate.
In my judgment, we are actually improving this bill. I hope we will
make other improvements as we go along. I intend to support the
Torricelli amendment. I commend the Senator from New Jersey for a
completely well-researched, documented case that addresses one of the
real problems we have in American politics in the year 2001.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I don't know if I need specific time
yielded. I ask for 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the proponents has expired.
Mr. McCONNELL. I had yielded the Senator 20 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. If my friend will yield for a moment, I wonder if the
Senator from Kentucky will give me 5 minutes at the conclusion of
Senator Durbin's time. I would appreciate it.
Mr. McCONNELL. I will be happy to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Illinois is
recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for graciously allowing
me to speak.
Back in the early 1960s, Newt Minow, of Chicago, was named Chairman
of the Federal Communications Commission by President John Kennedy. He
came up with a phrase to characterize television at that moment in our
history, which has become legendary. Newt Minow called television in
the early 1960s, ``the great wasteland.'' He took a look at what was
available on television and suggested that the American people deserved
better. It triggered a national debate for reform and creative thinking
about the role of television.
I say today, if you look at the role of television in this debate on
political campaigns and public issues, television is not just a great
wasteland, television has become a killing field because the people who
run the television stations, the networks and local broadcasters, have
forgotten the bottom line: their responsibility to the American people.
You see, they are selling a product. It is something they create; it
is programming--the types of things we like to watch on television,
such as sports, news, and entertainment. But their business is
different than any other. The way they sell their product is on
something that we as Americans all own--the airwaves. The television
stations don't own the airwaves. We tell them: You can rent the
airwaves; you can lease the airwaves, and we will license you to use
the airwaves, but we expect you to do it in a responsible way.
Today we are engaged in a debate--and all this week--on campaign
finance reform. Many people have suggested changes that are
significant. I salute Senators Feingold of Wisconsin and McCain of
Arizona. I have been a cosponsor of the bill. They are talking about
the sources of money that go into political advertising. We all know
that the sources have become scandalous in size and, frankly, in their
special interests. I think they are on the right track to clean up the
money going into political campaigns. But the important thing to
remember is that just dealing with the supply side, if you will, of
political campaigns, the sources of campaign contributions misses the
point.
Do you want to really reform political campaigns in America? You
can't even have a serious conversation about that, unless you address
the role of television. Television used to be a tiny part of political
campaigns, but it has grown almost out of control.
Take a look at these numbers--political advertising on broadcast
television. Starting in 1970, network expenditures were $260,000. Come
down to the year 2000, 30 years later, and it is $15 million-plus.
Station TV used to be about $12 million in the 1970 cycle. Now we are
up to $650 million. The total expenditure for the year 2000 was
estimated to be some $665 million. Well, the Alliance for Better
Campaigns came out and said it was going to be between $771 million and
$1 billion spent on television by political campaigns.
So what we have, in fact, are efforts by candidates of both political
parties to raise money to give to television and radio stations in an
effort to get your message out to the American people. When we created
these stations and we acknowledged that the public owned the airwaves,
we also said when it came to political advertising, candidates would be
treated differently than other advertisers--something called the lowest
unit charge. We basically said that if there was a bargain at the TV
station, the bargain should be given to the political candidate. That
is in the interest of sharing information on public issues, but also in
keeping the cost of political campaigns under control.
But, sadly, though the law required, as of 1971, that the lowest unit
charge be charged to candidates in their campaigns, the fact is that
candidates are paying more and more. Why? Because if you go to a
television station in Chicago, or in Springfield, IL, and say you want
to buy a 30-second ad right before the newscast the night before the
election, they will say: Senator, great. We will be glad to sell you
that ad. Incidentally, if we only charge you the lowest unit rate, the
bargain basement, sadly, if anybody comes and offers a dollar more for
that ad, we knock you off the air.
Well, there isn't a political candidate with any good sense that will
agree to that. If you are going to be knocked off the air right before
the news and they put you on right before the Pledge of Allegiance and
the Star-Spangled Banner at the end of the night, you have lost
everything. Your market doesn't have the benefit of all the good things
you have to say.
What candidates are doing is not paying the lowest unit charge, they
are paying the inflated charges. The television stations have become a
killing field, because they have taken the law, which said we are going
to favor candidates in public discourse of issues, and have turned it
upside down so that candidates, frankly, end up paying dramatically
more than the lowest unit rate. The cost to the campaign skyrockets,
and then candidates, incumbents and challengers alike, scramble, beg,
and plead for people to give them money so they can give it right back
to the television stations.
That is why the Torricelli amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, is
so important. It addresses the demand side of political campaigns--not
just the supply side, where the money comes from, but how the money is
spent. Sadly, as we get closer to election day and the demand for their
TV ads goes up, these stations raise their rates dramatically.
A gentleman by the name of Paul Taylor, who used to write for the
Washington Post, created a group called Alliance for Better Campaigns.
He enlisted the support of a lot of great people, such as former
President Ford; former President Carter; Walter Cronkite, the legendary
CBS news commentator; and a former Senator from Illinois, Paul Simon.
This public interest group said let's take a look at television with
regard to public information and whether it is doing its job. I was in
one of their
[[Page 4165]]
meetings in Chicago. They brought in the managers of TV stations and
said: We noticed you are not covering campaigns, unless the candidates
pay for it, on your stations. What Mr. Taylor did was to invite the
radio and TV stations to take a 5-minute segment during the last week
or two of the campaign and make it available for some public debate and
public discourse about the issues.
Sadly, after we take a look at the participation in it, very few
stations got involved in Mr. Taylor's request.
Let me tell you some of the statistics they developed. The political
coverage of these stations shows the result of an analysis of political
ad costs in all top 75 media markets.
The alliance advocates scrapping the lowest unworkable lowest unit
charge and requiring the industry to open the airwaves. When they were
asked to do it voluntarily, the stations did not comply.
These stations steer candidates toward premium rates. They pay the
highest amount. They are shut out of air time.
America is different in this regard. Many countries make this time
available to their candidates so they can have literally free access to
television and radio, but in America you have to pay for it. We do not
provide free air time. The cost, of course, is going through the roof.
Let me give an illustration of how bad it is using one market in
which I have to buy advertising, and the market is in St. Louis. St.
Louis is one of the toughest markets in which to buy advertising. There
are some radio stations there which will only sell you four or five ads
a week. They limit you. You cannot buy any more.
Listen to what we found when we went to a major network affiliate in
St. Louis and compared some of the charges they made in the last
election cycle with what they charged just a few weeks later.
The cost of nonpreemptible time--in other words, you get a set time
which is guaranteed--was four times higher than preemptible time. Take
the lowest unit charge which candidates are supposed to get, and then
if you want to make sure you get the time you asked for, at this
station you are going to pay up to four times as much for that
nonpreemptible time.
On the early morning weekday news shows, the rate that this station
charged after the political campaign was over went down 55 percent from
the political campaign time. During noon weekday news, the rate went
down 66 percent in the weeks after the election campaign.
The story goes on. Weekday evening news took 3.3 times the amount to
buy a nonpreemptible ad, and then as soon as the campaign was over,
they dropped the overall rate 38 percent. On week night news at 10
o'clock in St. Louis, they dropped it 45 percent. On the Sunday a.m.
news talk shows, as soon as the campaign was over, advertising costs
went down 66 percent; the Sunday p.m. local news, 25 percent.
The television stations and the network affiliates are gaming the
system. They understand that candidates are desperate for time. They
understand that if they tell them it is preemptible, they will pay
more, and then as soon as the campaigns are over, we see these dramatic
decreases in the cost of this television time.
That is why it has become a killing field. They run up the rate cost
for the candidates, and they refuse to cover the campaigns. They have
really forgotten their civic responsibility that the airwaves belong to
the American people. As a consequence of that, we are seeing a
phenomenon in American politics which we cannot ignore.
A lot of people are going to argue later about how much money we
should be able to raise. But keep in mind that if we are raising money
to pay for electronic media--television--the cost of that media,
according to a media buyer I contacted, goes up 15 to 20 percent every
2 years. So your campaign needs to raise 15 to 20 percent more funds to
do exactly the same thing you did on television 2 years ago. If you are
running for the Senate, in a 6-year period of time you can see a 60-
percent increase in your television cost.
Let me give an example in St. Louis again. A moderate television buy
in St. Louis runs about $186 a point. A point is the way they measure
the audience. A 1,000-point buy for a week of spots--that is about 30
or 40 30-second ads a day--will cost you $186,000.
Under the current rules of raising money, I can ask a contributor to
give me up to $1,000. So in order to run advertising in one area that
serves the State of Illinois, I have to get 186 people to give me
$1,000. Obviously, when one considers the entire State of Illinois and
the campaign everyone is facing, one can see how the cost of these
campaigns is going through the roof.
A $200,000 media buy buys a few 30-second slivers of time to get
ideas and views out on the public airwaves. It takes just a moment to
purchase it, and if a person gets up to get a sandwich in the kitchen,
they miss that 30-second ad. It requires asking 4,000 people to make a
$50 campaign contribution.
Former Senator Bill Bradley said a few years ago:
Today's political campaigns function as collection agencies
for broadcasters. You simply transfer money from contributors
to television stations.
It is interesting to me that as we spend more and more money on
television in these campaigns, as we do our best to get our message
out, our market--the voters of America--has responded by refusing to
vote.
If you ran a company and said, ``We are not selling enough of our
product, let's increase the marketing budget''; and after a quarter or
two, you brought in the marketing department and said, ``How are you
doing?'' and they said, ``We have doubled the marketing budget''; you
went to the sales department and asked, ``How are you doing?'' and they
said, ``Sales are down''--that is what is happening in political
campaigns. The marketing budget is increasing, but we are not making
the sales to the American people. They are not buying what we are
selling.
Why? Because, frankly, the whole process has been tainted. It has
been tainted by the expense, by the involvement of special interest
groups, and by the fact that so many candidates, myself included, spend
so many waking hours trying to raise money to launch an effective
campaign such as in a State as large as the State of Illinois.
This amendment is an important step forward because here is what it
does: This amendment says that we are going to eliminate class
distinctions for air time for candidates under the current statute. We
are going to make time purchases nonpreemptible, we are going to allow
political parties the benefit of the lowest unit charge, and we are
going to require random audits in designated market areas to check
compliance.
We cannot say to the TV station how much it charges, but we can say
they cannot run their ad rates up right before an election, as so many
stations have done, and then drop them precipitously as soon as the
election is over.
All of this money going to television stations from political
campaigns is, frankly, good for their business, but it is not good for
America. Let us remember our responsibility: to make sure the airwaves
are used in a manner that serves all the people in this country, not
just serving the needs to make a profit. Sadly, that is what has been
done too many times in the past.
I hope we will see an increase in voter participation, but I hope we
will also see an increase in interest in public issues by the networks
and by the local stations. It is not enough for them to say that a few
times, in what might not even be prime time before an election
campaign, they are going to make their station available so there can
be a debate among the candidates. It is not enough that they will give
us the Sunday morning opportunities to talk on the shows. As good as
that is, that just does not make it in terms of selling products--they
know that--and in terms of convincing voters as to what we have at
stake in these elections. I think it is time for these networks and
television stations to be part of campaign finance reform. The original
version of the McCain-Feingold bill included this reform, included
efforts to address the television and
[[Page 4166]]
radio costs which candidates face that was taken out of the bill for
reasons I don't know, but it should be brought forth.
If we are going to have real campaign finance reform, then we
definitely have to make sure we are getting candidates an opportunity
to purchase time at affordable rates. Otherwise, we are going to find
the cost of campaigning continuing to skyrocket and the sources of
money for candidates drying up as we cut off soft money, as we cut off
other sources. I think this amendment is critically important.
When they asked these stations how much time they would give of their
own time during the course of the campaign in a survey, it is
interesting what they found. A national study released by the
University of Southern California's Norman Lear Center, on February 5,
2001, of 74 local stations, found that the typical local television
station spent less than 1 minute of air time a night on candidate
discourse in the final month of the 2000 campaign--less than a minute.
The study found all but one local station failed to meet a voluntary
public industry standard that they air 5 minutes a night of candidate-
centered discourse in the 30 nights before the election. Stations in
the survey that indicated they would try to meet the standard, which
was just 7 percent of the Nation's 1,300 local stations, averaged 2
minutes and 17 seconds a night.
They are paying no attention whatever to elections and campaigns
unless the candidates show up with money in hand and are prepared to
pay the outrageous charges that have been leveled against them in terms
of these candidates.
National broadcast networks didn't do much better. They averaged 64
seconds a night per network of candidate discourse in the final month
of the 2000 campaign.
It is no surprise the broadcasting industry, which has profited so
much from political campaign spending, also vigorously resists any
campaign finance reform which touches them. The media industry, since
1996, has spent over $111 million lobbying Congress, partly to block
campaign finance reform bills that included any kind of discounted or
free candidate air time. The number of registered media-related
lobbyists has increased from 234 in 1996 to 284 in 1999. The amount
spent rose in 1999 to $31.4 million, up 26.4 percent from the 1996
amount. This is big business. This is big profit. They have a lot at
stake.
I hope at the end of this debate we will enact this amendment, an
amendment I have cosponsored with Senator Torricelli, Senator Corzine,
and Senator Dorgan. If we do not address the real costs of campaigns,
the demand side of the ledger, we are not going to serve the need of
real campaign finance reform.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that a vote on the pending
amendment occur at the expiration of the period of time beginning with
5 minutes of the remarks by the Senator from California, 5 minutes of
remarks by the Senator from Nevada, and 7 minutes under the control of
the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky for
yielding.
I strongly support the amendment being offered today by Senators
Torricelli, Corzine, Durbin, and Dorgan.
We learn best when involved in the middle of a situation. Anyone who
runs for office from my State of California knows it is all about
television. In its wisdom, our founders said if you come from a State
that has 500,000 people, you get 2 Senators; you come from a State that
has 34 million people, like my State, you get 2 Senators. It is very
difficult in a large State to personally meet but a very small
percentage of the people. So we must rely on television. That is the
only way.
What has happened, and the chart shows this, in California, the
broadcasters have taken tremendous advantage of this situation. To say
the costs are unreasonable is an understatement. They are confiscatory.
They are taking 80 percent or 90 percent of our budget after we pay our
overhead. TV was so expensive in my last race I couldn't even afford to
have much radio. I didn't even have any left over for radio. I raised
$20 million and huge sums went to television.
The facts are, when we approached the TV stations, we thought we were
entitled to get the lowest rate because that is, in fact, the law.
However, it is a little bit similar to airline seats. If you see
airline seats advertised, they say we have a special fare from Los
Angeles to New York; it is really cheap, $100. Call up and they say:
Sorry, those seats are sold. Therefore, you have to spend $1,000. It is
a little bit similar.
When we went to the broadcasters and asked to buy time and asked for
the lowest rate, which is required by law, they would say: Absolutely,
we will give you that rate. But be warned, if someone else comes along
and wants to pay more, you cannot retain that spot.
Again, everyone knows if you are running for the Senate you need to
reach people when they are up and about. Otherwise, it doesn't pay. If
you say, fine, bump me to another spot, you could be having your
commercial aired at 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the morning. Not that
many people will see it. So they have you in a very difficult
situation.
Los Angeles is the second most expensive media market. Senator
Torricelli's chart shows basically the average 30-second spot is almost
$35,000 in a good time slot. By the way, I once wanted to buy a couple
of slots, and I was told it was $50,000, but let's just say about
$35,000. Under the Torricelli amendment, it comes down 75 percent. That
is a very big difference.
The fact is, this is a very good amendment. I am very much for the
McCain-Feingold bill. I will be opposed to amendments that I think are
not good amendments, are not meritorious amendments, and cannot be
defended and might make this veto bait. It would be hard to imagine
that George W. Bush could look at what the broadcasters are doing to
candidates, some of whom are struggling very hard to get the money they
need, and will take the side of the broadcasters who are laughing all
the way to the bank, nodding their head, saying: We really got them
this time.
I have good relationships with the communications industry in my
State, good relations with the TV people, the radio people, but I have
asked over and over again, how can they sleep at night knowing what the
people who own airwaves in this country get so people can find out what
candidates stand for. It is almost impossible unless you are
independently wealthy or just raise huge sums of money.
So to close this statement, I say again how strongly I support the
underlying bill and how much I respect Senators McCain and Feingold. I
will be voting against most amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 20 more seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. In closing, which I would have done if I had the
opportunity, I believe there are certain amendments that strengthen
this underlying bill. This is one of those amendments. It strengthens
the underlying bill. It makes it even better. It gets at a situation
that is out of control. I will be supporting this amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, what we are talking about on this
amendment is something called the lowest unit rate. The spirit of the
law that was passed was that candidates could have the lowest unit rate
charged to them by broadcasters so campaigns would be less expensive
and candidates could get their message out to the masses.
The Senator from California just talked about how expensive it is in
her
[[Page 4167]]
State to advertise. I cannot even imagine, coming from a State like
Nevada with only 2 million people, what it is like in a State like
California with 34 million people. But I can tell you, having been
through 4 campaigns in the last 8 years, that advertising costs on
television have skyrocketed. The State of Nevada, during that same 8-
year period of time, grew by approximately 50 percent. It was the
fastest growing State in the country. So you would expect television
time to go up by a significant amount--maybe by 70 percent or 80
percent, as it has in other parts of the country. But in Nevada, even
though we have only grown by 50 percent, our advertising rates have
gone up by as much as 300 percent to 400 percent. That is at least 6
times faster than the rate the population has grown.
My first congressional campaign was the most expensive congressional
campaign ever in the State of Nevada. I spent around $700,000, and my
opponent spent around $800,000. Now a typical congressional race in the
State of Nevada will cost somewhere between $1.5 to $2 million. That is
a significant change of cost in just 8 years. And almost every dime of
that increase has come from the increase in the cost of television
advertising.
The broadcasters were just visiting me back here in Washington D.C.
and we had a discussion about the lowest unit rate and what that means
for a congressional campaign. During my first campaign we bought time
for the most part on the lowest unit rate. But in the last couple of
campaigns, candidates have not been able to use the lowest unit rate
because when you place an ad, that ad is probably going to be bumped by
a higher paying customer. There is so much competition for certain time
slots on television that those commercials always get bumped, and what
you end up with is terrible placement and you do not get your message
out to the people you are trying to reach.
My advisers in the last two campaigns have insisted we not buy the
lowest unit rate because you cannot direct your message to the people
to whom you want to direct it. So we are always forced to buy the most
expensive slot in order for our message to be effective. In addition,
at the end of a campaign cycle, the broadcasters' rates skyrocket.
The broadcasters used to dread campaigns because that was the time of
year they made the least amount of money because of this lowest unit
rate. Now it is one of their favorite times of the year because it is
actually one of their highest profit margin times of year. This
certainly was not the intent of the legislation that brought about the
lowest unit rate.
So I applaud the Senators who are bringing this amendment to the
floor. I add my support to this amendment.
Before I yield the floor I want to address one final issue.
Broadcasters have the airwaves for free, and the justification for this
is that they provide a very important public service to local
communities by providing news and local politics.
I talked to the Nevada broadcasters about this last week. While I
would say in this election their coverage improved--and more of the
campaigns were covered during this time it was still pathetic.
When you consider how much time is spent on a sensational television
story, as compared to the time spent on a message or a story that
actually affects the lives of the vast majority of people in our
States, I think you will agree that many of these local broadcasts
across the country spend a small percentage of their time actually
delivering important public service to the communities.
So I think it is the responsibility of the broadcasters to not only
accept what we are trying to do with the lowest unit rate, and the
spirit of the law of the lowest unit rate, but also we need to call on
the broadcasters to cover more of our politics, so that we get more
people involved in the political system.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5 minutes of the Senator has expired.
Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent for another 20 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ENSIGN. To close on this, even though I believe the broadcasters
have made progress in my State, we need to keep the pressure on them
because we are seeing such a low voter turnout. If we cannot get our
message as candidates to the general public, we cannot get them
inspired to come out and participate in elections.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am expecting a couple of Members who asked
to come over and be heard.
Just to conclude, it is an encouraging sign we have heard nothing but
strong support for the amendment offered by our colleague from New
Jersey. I think the argument is quite clear. The facts have been laid
out about as clearly as possible. There is clearly a loophole, to put
it mildly--maybe something more serious occurs--when the lowest unit
rate is not being recognized in major media market after major market
all across this country, thus raising the cost of campaigns.
Part of the idea was, of course, to have the lowest unit rate so
people's voices could be heard during election season to hopefully
enlighten and educate the public about the choices they would make. I
do not want to say that is necessarily what occurs in every 30-second
or 1-minute ad that the public is subjected to, but nevertheless the
idea is the unit cost would be the lowest rate so the cost of campaigns
would not get out of hand, which obviously what has occurred in the
last few years.
The charts Senator Corzine used, and Senator Torricelli, showed the
exponential growth in the cost of campaigns. While there are a lot of
reasons that has occurred, there is no reason any more clear than the
rising cost of television advertising.
I note the arrival of my colleague and friend from New York who would
like to be heard on this issue as well. I commend her for her support
of this as well and thank the authors of this amendment. This is really
an important piece of this bill.
If we are going to try to keep down costs, keep down the rising costs
of campaigns, we have to address this issue. The Senator from New
Jersey has done that with this amendment.
I am happy to yield 3 or 4 minutes to my colleague from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Connecticut.
I also thank Senators Torricelli and Corzine for bringing this
important issue to the forefront of this debate because clearly we are
not going to be able to have the kind of campaign finance reform that
many of us are hoping will come out of this process if we do not
address the most expensive aspect of modern-day campaigns.
As we all know, that is the advertising that we have to do in order
to communicate with voters about where we stand on issues. It is a
particular challenge in large States. But it is a national one that all
of my colleagues face.
The Torricelli amendment, which would amend the Communications Act of
1934, would require that the lowest unit rate be provided to committees
of political parties or candidates purchasing time. I think that is in
the best interest of our democracy. I certainly believe it is the kind
of reform that goes to the real heart of what the money chase is all
about.
I think a lot of us would like to be able to turn the clock back to
the days that some of our colleagues can remember, but for most of us,
we just read about it, where you could literally go out into a town
square or out in the countryside, set up a little platform, visit with
constituents, make a speech, keep on going, and reach most of the
people who were going to vote for you or make a decision on an
important issue. Those days are long gone. The television broadcast
networks know they are the means by which we must communicate.
I think this amendment is not only fair but long overdue. I commend
the Senator from New Jersey for bringing
[[Page 4168]]
it to the floor. I hope the television industry recognizes that there
is an effort to not just have a level playing field but fulfill what
many of us thought was the bargain; that when we use the public
airwaves for communications--and those communications are basically
controlled by the companies that have been given, in my opinion, the
privilege of having those airwaves--that there has to be some way they
give back to keep the first amendment alive, to keep democracy going. I
am just so pleased that we are going to have a chance to vote on it.
I thank my good friend from Connecticut for yielding some time so
that I could weigh in on the importance of this issue.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there was one other Member who wanted to be
heard. He is not here. I am going to yield back the time, and I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold for just a
moment, we wondered if Senator Burns wanted to speak. He may be walking
through the door momentarily.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator from Connecticut has any time
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. Are we waiting for another speaker?
Mr. McCONNELL. The Senate has been waiting for a minute. Why not ask
unanimous consent to speak for a minute or two.
Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate the usual courtesy of my good friend from
Kentucky.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New Jersey, and
the managers of the bill who I understand are supporting the amendment.
I think it takes an important step towards reducing the money chase and
leveling the playing field.
First, the money chase will be reduced somewhat because so much of
the money which has been raised goes into television. The more
reasonable these ads are and the closer they come to the lowest rate,
which is supposed to be provided for anyway under existing law, the
less demand there will be for money in order to get a minimum message
on television.
I think it does some real good in terms of reducing the case for huge
amounts of money for campaigns.
Second, it attempts to level the playing field a bit because the less
funded candidates will have a greater opportunity, as the television
rates are less, to have at least a minimum message on television that
they are able to fund.
I think leveling the playing field is also something we are trying to
do in the legislation before us.
The existing law and spirit of the law provide that the lowest unit
charge of the station is supposed to be provided in the 60 days
preceding the date of the general election and 45 days preceding the
primary.
This amendment just carries out what is clearly the spirit, purpose,
and intent of the existing law, and again I commend the Senator from
New Jersey for bringing this forward and for those who have indicated
their support for it, including, I understand, both Senators McCain and
Feingold.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma wishes to
speak for a couple of minutes. We expect him to walk in the door
momentarily. At the end of his 2 minutes, it is our intention at that
point to go to a vote.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, may I ask unanimous consent to
supplement my earlier remarks?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you very much.
Mr. President, I didn't realize it until after I spoke, but my good
friend, Senator Torricelli from New Jersey, gave me one of the articles
he read into the Record that I have yet a new title; that is, ``Modern
Day Santa Claus.''
I was given an article that was written by Paul Taylor about
broadcasters and their desire to have political advertising.
I was delighted to learn that I am a beautiful thing like Santa Claus
because the campaign I ran brought, I guess, great beauty and good
cheer to the broadcasters of my State.
I would like to add to my previous comments in support of this
amendment that I think this is a good start to ensure that the spirit
of the current law is enacted and implemented. But I think we should go
further. And later in the debate I hope we will have a chance to talk
about even going further, to perhaps legislate the 5 minutes that has
been suggested by a number of people as being free air time, and even
to have a debate on an issue I support, which is free broadcast time
across the board and some way to fulfill the political obligations of
communications that I think our society so desperately needs without
having the charges attached to it that we currently are experiencing.
I know in 1997 when the FCC doubled the amount of the spectrum it
licensed to television broadcasters, I joined with many others in
recommending that 5-minute, voluntary, candidate-centered discourse
during the 30 days leading up to the campaign. We know that is not
happening.
I think we need to do more to provide free air time for political
candidates. I hope we will not only pass this amendment but go on to
consider other ways we can make air time more readily available. If it
were in my power, as Santa Claus, to give that gift to the American
people, I would certainly do it. But I am going to try to make that
case in addition to supporting this very worthy amendment.
I thank the Senator from Kentucky for yielding me time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished
assistant majority leader have 5 minutes prior to the vote.
Mr. TORRICELLI. If the Senator would yield, could I have 1 minute,
then, before the vote, just to close on my amendment?
Mr. McCONNELL. Sure. Then the vote will occur 6 minutes from now, and
will be followed by an amendment by the Senator from Minnesota, Mr.
Wellstone.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Thank you very much. I thank my colleagues for their
cooperation. I understand my colleagues are ready to vote and that they
have held the vote off so I could make a few comments. I appreciate
that.
I am going to speak against this amendment. I heard everybody say
they are for it, so I am sure this amendment will be adopted. But my
guess is, this amendment should be classified as ``the million-dollar
gift to Senators'' and maybe for Senate candidates.
This is a big gift. This is a gift. In reading the language it says:
. . . to such office shall not exceed the lowest charge of
the station (at any time during the 365-day period preceding
the date of the use) for the same amount of time for the same
period.
What that means is, we get to buy ads at the lowest rate that the
station charged anybody anytime during the past year.
These are political ads. Some stations may have lower rates because
they want to do something to help a charity. Maybe they want to be kind
to a university and raise money, and there is a fundraising drive, such
as the University of Kentucky. So they want to have a fundraising
drive, and the station says, this is a low time of the year, so, yes,
we will give you good
[[Page 4169]]
rates. And maybe this is in April or maybe it is in January when time
is pretty cheap because the demand is not very large.
What we are saying is, we want to have that rate for politicians in
October and early November, when maybe the demand is very great. The
rates might be four times as much, three times as much. You have the
new shows on TV.
I look at this, and maybe it sounds kind of nice. Somebody says this
is really enforcing what the existing language is. I say hogwash. This
amendment is worth millions, and everybody should know it. This
amendment is worth millions to candidates.
I question the wisdom of doing it, saying we should have lower rates
than anybody else in the country. And, oh, incidentally, Mr.
Broadcaster, we politicians want to check your rates for that entire
year, and we get the lowest of anybody. Of anybody, anytime, we get the
lowest. We are special. I question the wisdom of it. I am going to
support some amendments to help this bill. I do not doubt that this
amendment is going to be adopted, but I certainly question the wisdom
of it.
Some people said: Let's just have free time. This is a gift. This may
not be free time, but this is a gift that may be greater than free
time.
Some people say: Maybe we should have free time for candidates of so
many minutes or so many hours, and so on. This is an amendment worth a
lot more than that. So our colleagues should know that. Because rates
vary significantly throughout the year, and we are saying you get the
lowest rates.
I guess if a person is going to buy a rate in August, that is one
thing; so we check the last 365 days, and then if you are going to buy
an ad in October, we have to check the last 365 days to see if there is
a lower rate.
I think this amendment is very well intended. But, in my opinion,
this amendment should not be adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the time circumstance?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute remaining for the Senator
from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. I yield the Senator from Alaska whatever time I have
remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. I rise to agree with the Senator from Oklahoma. This
amendment in my State is going to be catastrophic. We have many small
stations that survive on mass marketing throughout the year at low
rates. This will mean they will have to provide those of us who are
candidates with the same rates. It makes no sense to me at all. I think
it is an invasion of the rights of the people who operate these small
independent stations.
I agree with what the Senator from Oklahoma said. It is a benefit to
candidates. If people are meaning to kill this bill, this is one way to
do it.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to support the
amendment offered by Senators Torricelli, Corzine, and Durbin. I
believe that allowing candidates the opportunity to let their message
be known to the public, through television ads, without having to raise
an obscene amount of money to finance those advertisements is a needed
step toward truly reforming our campaign finance system. During the
2000 election broadcasters' advertising prices soared precisely when
airtime was most valuable to candidates. Due to this dramatic increase
in prices the broadcasters earned record profits from political
advertising.
David Broder of the Washington Post articulated the need for TV
advertising price relief. He writes, ``Common sense tells you that if
the TV bill remains . . . exorbitant, politicians will continue the
`money chase' under any rules that are in place.'' The rules to which
Mr. Broder refers are the rules drafted in the campaign finance reform
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for
1 minute.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the Senate is now moving beyond a
simple soft money ban to genuine campaign finance reform, ensuring that
as we reduce the amount of money in the political system, we are not
reducing the amount of political debate in the Nation.
There is nothing new or startling about this amendment. Under current
law, the broadcast industry must provide the lowest unit rate for
political broadcasting. The problem is, they have been evading their
responsibility. Stations now will have to participate in a shared
sacrifice. Candidates will not raise certain forms of money that are
undermining political confidence, and the broadcast industry must meet
its public responsibility to provide low-cost broadcasting.
I believe this is a critical component to comprehensive campaign
finance reform. It allows many of us to be part of McCain-Feingold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. TORRICELLI. I believe it is a proper addition.
I thank the Chair.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized
for just 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object,
people keep coming and getting more time. That is fine. But I think we
need to reserve another matching minute because now the opponents are
coming to the floor laying out their arguments. People are coming to
the floor. So if Senator Burns is speaking against this amendment, I
ask unanimous consent that I have 30 seconds to respond to his
comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I object. I am on the same side as the
Senator from California on this issue. It seems to me the Senator from
Montana is not unreasonable to ask for a minute to explain his
position, after which the regular order would occur.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for a minute for
Senator Burns and a minute for Senator Boxer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the assistant leader.
I have been tied up in a committee all morning trying to get over
here. We have had some pressing energy business. But I wish to make one
point.
How many other industries are we asking to lower their rates on the
services they perform for the sake of political activity? Are we asking
the automobile companies? The gasoline companies? The newspapers? The
direct mailers? The writers? Are we asking them to lower their rates on
their inventory for the sake of political activity? I think not.
And the broadcasters, once their time is gone, it is gone forever;
and
[[Page 4170]]
they cannot recover it. I don't think we have a right to ask them to do
that, especially incumbents, as we are here, who have access to the
news every night.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from California is recognized for 1 minute.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are not asking anyone to lower their
rates. That is a misstatement of the amendment. The Torricelli
amendment simply says current law should be followed. Current law says
the lowest rate should apply. May I remind my friends, the airwaves are
owned by the American people. People get a license. The airwaves should
be open to the American people.
In California, they give us 10 percent at the lowest rate, and 90
percent of it is at the highest rate. You cannot get your message out.
This amendment is a clarification of existing law. It strengthens
McCain-Feingold. If you vote against this, it is just a signal to the
broadcasters to keep on ripping us off and all the money will go to TV.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the Torricelli amendment No. 122. The
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 30, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 41 Leg.]
YEAS--70
Akaka
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bunning
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stabenow
Thompson
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--30
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Craig
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Lott
Lugar
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Warner
The amendment (No. 122) was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 123
Mr. WELLSTONE. I call up amendment numbered 123.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and
Ms. Cantwell, proposes an amendment numbered 123.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To allow a State to enact voluntary public financing
legislation regarding the election of Federal candidates in such State)
On page 37, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
SEC. 305. STATE PROVIDED VOLUNTARY PUBLIC FINANCING.
Section 403 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 453) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``The preceding sentence shall not be interpreted to prohibit
a State from enacting a voluntary public financing system
which applies to a candidate for election to Federal office,
other than the office of President or Vice-President, from
such State who agrees to limit acceptance of contributions,
use of personal funds, and the making of expenditures in
connection with the election in exchange for full or partial
public financing from a State fund with respect to the
election, except that such system shall not allow any person
to take any action in violation of the provisions of this
Act.''.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my understanding is Senator Clinton
will be coming to the floor in a moment.
Mr. DODD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from New
York be recognized for 5 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask my colleague if we may extend that to 10
minutes.
Mr. DODD. I ask for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from New York is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Wellstone pertaining
to the introduction of S. 584 are located in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before we go to the Senator from Idaho,
I ask unanimous consent that in addition to Senator Cantwell as
original cosponsor of my amendment, also Senator Corzine and Senator
Biden be included as original cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Idaho.
(The remarks of Mr. Crapo are located in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will reserve for myself just a little
bit of time now because there will be other Senators who will want to
speak on this subject. This is an amendment to the McCain-Feingold
bill, a very important piece of legislation in and of itself, which I
think is a very important step forward for all of us. I hope this
amendment will have bipartisan support. I think it just adds to the
McCain-Feingold bill.
This amendment simply allows States, any of our States, to set up
voluntary systems of full or partial public financing for Federal
congressional candidates that involve voluntary spending limits on both
personal and outside contributions, as long as these systems are not in
conflict with the Federal Election Campaign Act. So this simply allows
States, if they want, to set up a voluntary system of partial public
financing.
This is entirely a voluntary system, and we leave it up to our State.
Historically, the States have been a ``laboratory of reform''--the
term was coined by Supreme Court Justice William Brandeis--where
innovative policies have been created.
This States rights amendment allows these laboratories to do their
work in a safe way--I want Senators to listen to this--because the
electoral regulation that Congress has written into Federal law remains
the floor. That is the law.
In other words, while States will be given wide latitude to set up
voluntary systems of public financing, they will not be able to enact
laws that will allow candidates, whether covered by public financing or
not, to engage in conduct that will otherwise be in violation of
Federal election laws.
While the Federal law is the floor, I think it is a low floor,
indeed, although McCain-Feingold makes it better. Many believe our
system is awash in special interest money. I agree with them. It is not
a matter of individual corruption. I almost wish it was. It goes way
beyond I don't wish it was, but I think it is a more serious problem.
I don't think we are talking about the wrongdoing of individual
officeholders. But we are talking about a
[[Page 4171]]
huge imbalance of power where some people, by virtue of their economic
resources, have way too much wealth access and too many people are left
out.
Please remember that 80 percent of the money spent in the year 2000
was hard money. Please remember as these campaigns--we just had an
amendment that was an effort to deal with part of the problem--become
more capital intensive, more television expensive, as communication
technology becomes the main weapon in every electoral conflict, the big
money matters even more.
This amendment says: Look, if our States want to--we leave it up to
them--set up a voluntary system of partial or public financing to apply
to our races, they should be able to do so.
This debate in the Senate about big money and politics and the ways
in which too often our elections have become auctions and the ways in
which all too often Senators have to be concerned about cash
constituencies as well as real constituencies couldn't have come at a
more perfect time.
Let me give a few examples. Several weeks ago we had an effort that
took 10 hours to overturn 10 years of work. The National Academy of
Sciences said repetitive stress injury is the most serious injury in
the workplace. It endorsed taking action, did the research, did the
study, endorsed a standard that was promulgated by OSHA, but big
business said jump. So we jumped, and we turned our back on reasonable
standards. We turned our back on science, and we turned our back on a
lot of workers and their pain. We made them expendable.
Then we had the bankruptcy bill. I gave enough speeches about the
bankruptcy bill to deafen all the gods. I will not repeat any of it,
just to say ultimately what we got with this bill was a wish list for
the credit card industry which is not held accountable at all for their
reckless and sometimes predatory lending practices but very harsh for a
whole lot of people who find themselves having to declare bankruptcy--
not because they are trying to game any system but because of a major
medical bill, because they have lost their job, or because there has
been a divorce in the family.
Then we have the news today that the arsenic standard that EPA had
promulgated to make sure we had safe drinking water has been overturned
by the Administrator of EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency.
Then we have a tax cut--I am not going to spend a lot of time on
this. It will be in the budget debate in about 2 weeks. If I am proven
wrong, I will be glad to be proven wrong. I believe my colleagues will
find that ultimately a rigorous sort of measurement, if you will, of
what the surplus really is--and then alongside of that what the tax cut
really amounts to--will mean two or three things.
It will mean there won't be a dime for any of the investments to
which we say we are committed. There are going to be some harsh
discretionary domestic spending cuts. What that means is anything from
energy assistance, to housing, to programs that try crimes against
women who have been battered--you name it. In addition, you have tax
cuts that represent a Robin- Hood-in-reverse philosophy so that over 40
percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent.
What I said before I will say again. The President talks about
leaving no child behind. One-third of all the children in America live
in families who will not receive one dime from this tax cut, and 50
percent of African Americans live in families who will not receive one
dime, and 57 percent of Hispanic children live in families who will not
receive one dime, but over 40 percent goes to the top 1 percent of the
population.
So forget any commitment to making sure that every child in America
has a good education. The vast majority of people believe in that goal.
Forget any commitment to making sure that elderly people--I argue there
are a lot of families as well who are hurt by this--can afford the
prescription drugs they need for their health. And forget any
commitment to expanding health care coverage for the 43 or 44 million
people who have no coverage at all. For that matter, forget any
commitment to beginning to get serious about home health care so that a
lot of elderly people aren't institutionalized, aren't forced into
nursing homes but can still live in home in as near normal
circumstances as possible with dignity, or people with disabilities.
From where is the money going to come?
How about the veterans? I will tell you about the veterans budget.
There is a $1 billion increase, but $900 million of it is medical
inflation.
Then we have all of these commitments which we say we are going to
make for the millennium program--elderly, home-based care, in addition
to mental health services; in addition a bill I have with Evan Bayh to
finally deal with the distress about the fact that 30 percent of the
adults in the homeless population are veterans--many of them Vietnam
veterans--and we need to reach out and help them. I tell you, I don't
think any of this is by accident because for the sake of the top 1
percent of the population making sure they get the tax cuts--by the
way, these are the same people who are the heavy hitters. They are the
big givers who give the contributions, whether it is soft money or hard
money.
We are at the same time not going to live up to our commitment of
leaving no child behind. We are not, if this administration has its
way, going to do much about prescription drug costs, or expanding
health care coverage, or making sure there is a good education for
every child. Obviously, we have an all-out assault on basic workplace
protections and environmental protections.
I think a lot of people in Minnesota and a lot of people in the
country have reached the conclusion that the Congressional agenda is
not their agenda; that the Congressional agenda is the agenda of the
powerful; that the Congressional agenda is the agenda of the heavy
hitters; and that the Congressional agenda is the agenda of the
investors in both political parties.
For so many people, when it comes to their concerns for themselves,
their families, and their communities, their concerns are of little
concern in the corridors of power in this Congress.
Who could fault them for this belief? Many people believe there is a
connection between big special interest money and the outcomes in
American politics.
People believe what is on the table and what is off the table is
based upon who has the money and power. People believe who gets to run
and who does not get to run and who wins and who loses is quite often
determined by the mix of money in politics. People believe that some
people march on Washington every day, and they have the lobbyists, and
they have the lobbying coalitions, but that when it comes to their
concerns, they are not well represented. People believe that if you
pay, you play, and if you don't pay, you don't play.
So people have lost faith in this system. I do not know what I think
is worse: That so many citizens have this disillusionment and
disengagement toward Government and public affairs. I hate that. I
state that as the son of a Jewish immigrant born in the Ukraine who
fled persecution in Russia. I love this country. I hate it when people
feel that way about public affairs. Sometimes I think it is even worse
when I talk to people who are so excited about public affairs, and they
tell me they will never run for office. They say they do not want to
spend all their time raising the money. They cannot bear the thought of
it.
Frankly, I think it gets to the point where we have this horrible
self-selection process where a lot of the very best people never will
run for office, for a Senate seat or a House seat. I think that is a
tragedy for the country.
I know the sponsors of the new McCain-Feingold bill hope this bill
will have the votes to pass. I hope it does. But this bill is scaled
down. It is a step toward comprehensive reform, but I do think this is
an ideal time to let States take the lead. While we should not allow
States to undermine Federal election law, the law should not be an
artificial ceiling that prevents States from setting up systems of
public financing that allow them to address
[[Page 4172]]
this money chase, to address voter apathy, to address corruption,
actual and perceived.
Mr. President, by way of background to this amendment, my own State
of Minnesota attempted to set up a public financing system for Federal
candidates 9 years ago, when the State legislature passed a law
offering partial public financing to candidates for Congress from
Minnesota.
Unfortunately, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
struck down Minnesota's law in 1993 in Weber v. Heaney. The court ruled
that because the Federal Election Campaign Act, FECA, did not
specifically allow States to create this kind of voluntary public
financing program, then FECA prohibited it. I think what the court was
saying was: If you want to do it, fine, but we want to see the
authority.
The amendment I am offering would correct that by adding one simple
sentence to FECA which specifically allows States to set up voluntary
public financing programs for the election of their own Members of the
Senate and House, as long as no such program violates any provision of
the current FECA law. That is all this amendment does.
In other words, if a State--Minnesota, Montana, Connecticut; I will
talk about States that have already done this --wants to create a
public financing fund and give its congressional candidates the
option--a voluntary option; it is not required--of financing their
campaigns partially or wholly with public money rather than private
contributions, that State will be able to do so--again, provided there
is no violation of any of the current FECA provisions.
I want to stress to colleagues, because I do not want there to be any
misinformation about this amendment, that these programs must be
strictly voluntary, just as the public financing for Presidential
elections is voluntary. Candidates who would rather finance their
campaigns with private dollars, adhering to the existing campaign
finance rules, would be free to do so. However, the courts have made it
clear, in some cases, by upholding the very public financing systems
for election of State officeholders, which are models for this
legislation, that a State may offer public financing or other
enticements to make contribution limits and spending limits attractive.
This amendment, giving States the option of creating their own
voluntary alternatives to the current system, is perfectly
constitutional.
Some States have already moved in this direction. Twelve States
already offer partial public financing to candidates for State offices.
In fact, one of the most advanced of these programs is in my colleague,
Senator McConnell's own State of Kentucky. In Kentucky, there is a
system of partial public financing for gubernatorial candidates.
In my own State of Minnesota, there is a voluntary public financing
system for statewide candidates as well as candidates for the
legislature. Candidates agree--it is voluntary--to spending limits, and
in return they receive public funds.
The State of Minnesota provides a tax credit for contributions to
State candidates of up to $50.
In addition, four States have gone even further and have recently
passed full or nearly full public financing systems for their
elections--it is inspiring--in Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, and in
Senator McCain's own State of Arizona. They have passed legislation
similar to the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act.
Senator Kerry and I have introduced this as national legislation.
Eventually, I would like to get there. Basically, that is what they are
saying in these States to the citizens. And the citizens said: Yes,
let's do it.
I want to talk about these inspiring examples. They have said:
Listen, if each citizen will contribute a small amount into a clean
money, clean election fund--maybe $5--and then candidates draw from
that fund--candidates who have passed a threshold to show that they are
viable candidates--then these candidates do not have to be involved in
the money chase. They do not have to be dependent on these private
dollars. You, the people of Maine, you, the people of Vermont, you, the
people of Arizona, you, the people of Massachusetts, you own the
elections. You own your own State government. You own the political
process.
In Maine it is just incredible. There was broad participation in the
Clean Elections program during this last election, with 116 out of 352
general election candidates--both Republicans and Democrats--
participating.
What these clean money, clean election States have done is
dramatically reduced the influence of special interest money by
providing a level playing field, by offering candidates a limited and
equal amount of public funds.
I am saying to colleagues today, at the very minimum, we ought to
allow our States to move forward with these voluntary systems if they
want to do so. That is the only proposition you vote on. Will you or
will you not at least be willing to allow your States to provide for a
system of voluntary full or partial public financing for our races,
understanding full well that everything else about Federal election law
stays as is.
I want to offer some comments about Maine, giving some indication of
what happened in Maine, because I think it inspires a lot of hope.
These comments tell us something about what they have done and why it
is so important to allow States to do so.
Here are some of the comments of people who ran.
Shlomit Auciello, a Democrat challenger:
Without Clean Elections, I couldn't even think about
running for office. I just couldn't afford it.
Chester Chapman, a Republican challenger:
The main reason I did it was that this is what people want.
Glenn Cummings, a Democrat challenger:
I spent a lot of kitchen table time explaining the system
to people. Once they knew what it was they really liked it.
They liked that it means no soft money and no PAC money will
be used. I want to work for the people of Maine and I don't
want to be beholden to anyone else.
Gabrielle Carbonear:
It will definitely change some things. For one thing I will
have about half the amount of money I raised last time but
much more time to talk with people which is a good thing.
Just one more:
We have an obligation to put into practice the system that
was approved by voters in 1996. Maine is in the lead in this
area. It will only work if it is used, and it is important
for incumbents to embrace it. Also, the Clean Election Act is
making it easier to recruit candidates to run for office.
That was said by Rick Bennet, Republican incumbent, assistant senate
minority leader, and candidate for reelection.
I simply say to my colleagues, I am all for McCain-Feingold, as long
as it does not get too weakened. I think the amendment we just
adopted--the Torricelli amendment--was a step in the right direction.
But, honest to goodness, 80 percent of the money is hard money. You
still have this huge problem of the system being so wired for
incumbents. It is so hard for challengers to raise the money and for
there to be a level playing field. I can remember what happened when I
ran in 1990; I can remember in 1996. I am now in a reelection.
At a very minimum, there ought to be a vote on public financing in
the Senate, but this amendment doesn't say we vote on public financing
directly. We don't vote on this at the Federal level, and we don't
really vote on it saying that Montana or Minnesota has to do it. Given
the experience of some of the States, such as Maine, Vermont,
Massachusetts, Arizona, and other States that have moved forward, let
us at least allow States, on a voluntary basis, to have a system of
partial public financing that they could apply to Federal races.
If they want us to have the opportunity to volunteer to be involved
in clean money and clean elections as opposed to all this big
interested money that will continue to dominate the process, even with
McCain-Feingold passing--there is still so much of that money; we are
still so awash in that
[[Page 4173]]
money--at the very minimum we ought to allow States to light a candle
and lead the way.
I know there are other Senators who are going to be coming to the
floor. I can speak a much longer time about this and will, but if my
colleague from Connecticut is going to speak, I will yield the floor
for now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The Senator from
Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Minnesota. I commend
him for this amendment.
This is a very creative amendment because it doesn't go to the heart
of what many of us have felt for a long time, and that is that as we
have done with Presidential elections--I don't know if my colleague
from Minnesota spent time on this point--we have had public financing
of Presidential races. Ronald Reagan, George Bush, this President Bush,
and President Clinton have all used public moneys in Presidential
elections going back to the late 1970s. I believe President Reagan was
the first--maybe President Carter was the one--to use public moneys and
public financing of a Presidential election.
All would agree that as a result of that, the costs of Presidential
elections, while they are expensive, have been reduced by having a
public financing scheme where, as a result of accepting public dollars,
candidates agree to certain caps, certain limitations on how much money
will be spent by a Presidential candidate.
This country is not without precedent in dealing with public
financing. My colleague has talked about some of the States that have
done things. We have done it at the national level and with some
success. This amendment doesn't call for Federal public financing, as I
understand it. It merely says to the States, if they would like to
establish a public financing mechanism for candidates running for the
House of Representatives or the Senate, the two Federal offices for
which there are elections in each State, then the States would be
allowed to construct such a mechanism that then-candidates who would
agree to accept public moneys in those States would also accept certain
limitations, principally financial ones, as one way of trying to get a
better handle on this ever spiraling cost of campaigns.
I don't have the charts with me that some of our other colleagues
have used which point to the exponential increase in the cost of
running for Federal office. There is not a person in this Chamber who
holds a seat who can't bear witness to that fact. We wouldn't be here
if we hadn't gone through the excruciating gauntlet of having to raise
the money and spend the dollars in order to be on television and run
all the various elements of a successful campaign. We are all familiar,
every one of us, with how vastly these campaigns have increased in
cost.
I have often cited the statistic that when I first ran for Congress,
some 24 years ago, Ella Grasso was running for Governor of the State of
Connecticut, the first woman to be elected in her own right as a
Governor in the United States. Ella Grasso spent about $500,000, an
unprecedented amount of money, in the State of Connecticut to win a
statewide race. I think she even bought New York television time, which
always adds considerably to the cost of a campaign in Connecticut. And
$500,000 was an outrageous sum of money 24 years ago.
My colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and I--I can't
recall the exact amount, but I will pretty much be in the ballpark to
tell the Senate that a contested race in Connecticut is now somewhere
between $4 and $6 million. I promise you, if you went back 24 years,
prior to 1974, you would have found an increase in the cost of
campaigns but nothing like we have seen in the last 25 years, with no
indication this trend line is going anywhere but up in the coming
years.
The issue before us is whether or not we can come up with some
mechanism which reduces the money chase, brings down the cost of these
campaigns, which is what the Torricelli amendment tries to do by
insisting the lowest unit rate be charged for campaign costs for
advertising, and now what our colleague from Minnesota has proposed--
that is, the creative idea of saying to the 50 States that if you
decide you would like to have this kind of a mechanism for your
candidates for Federal office, we should not necessarily stand in the
way.
If this were a mandate, then I think it would run into immediate
constitutional problems. There may be some with this anyway. I know
States in the past have tried to pass legislation which would put
limitations on us, such as term limits. In every one of those cases,
the courts have overruled State statutes which would limit the ability
of people to serve here. We ourselves could put limitations in the
Constitution on our service, but States don't have the right, according
to the Supreme Court or the Federal courts, to do that.
I do not think this amendment falls into that category. This is not
some limitation on a Member's right to run or to serve. It merely
offers the option of a different mechanism for financing the campaign.
While I am not a constitutional scholar, I am sure there will be those
who make the case that this may suffer from a constitutional flaw. I am
sure there will be others who will argue that this does not.
In my view, because this does go in a direction that contributes
significantly to the underlying bill Senator McCain and Senator
Feingold have submitted to us, it is worthy of support.
I commend my colleague from Minnesota for offering this creative
idea. We are constantly hearing from our colleagues how we need to give
our States more flexibility. It is a call we hear quite frequently in
one piece of legislation after another. My colleague from Minnesota and
I serve on the Education Committee of the Senate. We have just spent a
number of days--marking up, as we call it--writing up the education
bill for elementary and secondary education.
One of the important debates was how much flexibility we would give
our local communities and our States in using Federal dollars. It is a
worthy debate because most of us embrace the idea that local
communities ought to have a great deal of latitude in deciding how the
education system ought to work in those communities.
I will be interested to know if those who are most vociferous in
arguing for greater flexibility at the State level in the education of
our children would not similarly be inclined to support this amendment
which would offer greater flexibility to our States that may decide
that the cost of campaigns in their States has gotten out of control;
that they would like to do something about it; that they would like to
offer Federal candidates an option that would reduce those costs.
I am attracted to this amendment. I think it has value. I urge my
colleagues to read it carefully, to raise questions to my colleague
from Minnesota, if they have them, and then vote for this amendment. I
think it deserves our support. I know others will come to the floor to
address this matter. I don't know if my colleague care to take a few
more minutes or not. I am prepared to stay with him and engage in some
debate. If not, we could suggest the absence of a quorum and urge
Members to come to the floor to discuss the amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my colleague from
Connecticut. There are three or four Senators who want to speak, and I
have more to say. Frankly, I don't want to use up all of our time
without hearing from the opposition. I will take a few more minutes. If
nobody is here, I will suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the
time be charged to the opponents of this amendment. I would like to
hear from them rather than burning off all my time.
Mr. DODD. Well, I suggest that the time be charged to both sides
equally. That is normally how we proceed. Why not go ahead, and I am
sure others will come to the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. All right. Mr. President, there are 65 organizations
that support this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that this list be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
[[Page 4174]]
Sixty State and National Organizations Supporting ``States' Rights''
Amendment
ACORN--Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
Alliance for Democracy
American Friends Service Committee of Northeast Ohio
Arizona Clean Elections Institute
California Clean Money Campaign
Campaigns for People, Texas
Citizen Action of New York
Citizen Action of Illinois
Colorado Progressive Coalition
Connecticut Citizen Action Group
Democracy South
Equality State Policy Center, Wyoming
Fannie Lou Hamer Project
Florida Consumer Action Network
Florida League of Conservation Voters
Georgia Rural-Urban Summit
Global Exchange
Gray Panthers
Hawaii Elections Project
Indiana Alliance for Democracy
Iowa Citizen Action Network
League of United Latin American Citizens
Louisiana Democracy Project
Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs--
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Maine Citizen Leadership Fund
Maryland Campaign for Clean Elections
Massachusetts Voters for Clean Elections
Michigan Campaign Finance Network
Midwest States Center
Minnesota Alliance for Progressive Action
Missouri Voters for Clean Elections
Money in Politics Research Action Project, Oregon
National Voting Rights Institute
NETWORK: A Catholic Society Justice Lobby
New Hampshire Citizen Alliance for Action
New Jersey Citizen Action
New Mexico Alliance for Community Empowerment
New Mexico Progressive Alliance
North Carolina Alliance for Democracy
Northeast Action
Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada
Progressive Maryland
Public Campaign
Rainforest Action Network
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Rural Organizing Project, Oregon
San Fernando Valley Alliance for Democracy
Sierra Club
South Carolina Progressive Network
United Methodist Church--
General Board of Church and Society
United for a Fair Economy
United Vision for Idaho
USAction
USPirg
Utah Progressive Action Network
Vermont Pirg
West Virginia Citizen Action
West Virginia Peoples' Election Reform Coalition
Western States Center
Wisconsin Citizen Action
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, these different organizations range
from the national AFL-CIO to AFSCME and SEIU. Also, at the State level,
there are a lot of different State organizations, including the
California Clean Money Campaign, Arizona Clean Elections Institute, the
Maine Citizen Leadership Fund, Maryland Campaign For Clean Elections,
Massachusetts Voters Information Clean Elections, Public Campaign,
Missouri Voters For Clean Elections, the Catholic Social Justice Lobby,
New Hampshire Citizen Alliance For Action, Florida Consumer Action
Network, and it goes on.
Then there is one organization I mention, which is the Fannie Lou
Hamer Project. I mention that project because I think in a lot of
ways--and I hope I say this the right way because I have such deep love
and respect for the memory of Fannie Lou Hamer. For colleagues who
don't know about her, Fannie Lou Hamer was the daughter of a
sharecropper in Mississippi. There were 14 children in her family, and
she grew up poor. She was one of the great leaders of the civil rights
movement.
The reason I mention the Fannie Lou Hamer Project is that Fannie Lou
Hamer uttered the immortal words, ``I am so sick and tired of being
sick and tired.'' She was talking about economic justice issues. I
think the reason the Fannie Lou Hamer Project is one of the
organizations that is most behind this amendment is that a whole lot of
people in the country--and I think this whole issue of campaign finance
reform--when you say it that way, it doesn't have passion. It is about
civil rights. I hear colleagues talking about freedom of speech and
that more money is freedom of speech--the more money, the more speech,
and then some people who have all of this money use a megaphone to
drown everybody else out.
I am all for freedom of speech. I think the Supreme Court is right,
although I didn't agree with the decision in Buckley v. Valeo. If there
was a problem of corruption, that is the time for reform, they said. If
you think the standard of a representative democracy is that each
person should count as one, and no more, we have violated that
standard.
I will put this in a civil rights context for a moment. A lot of
people believe they don't have the freedom to be at the table, the
freedom to participate in the political process, or the freedom to run
for office; and they don't have the freedom to be people who can affect
who runs for office because they don't have the big dollars.
Honest to goodness, I believe that ultimately this debate is all
about--I wish I had brought the brilliant speech that Bill Moyers gave
called ``The Soul of Democracy.'' This is about the soul of democracy.
If my father Leon was alive today--the Jewish immigrant I mentioned
earlier--he would say this is all about this wonderful, bold, beautiful
experiment we have had in self-rule in the United States of America. We
don't want to lose that. We don't want to have a minidemocracy or a
psuedodemocracy, when only certain people can run for office, when some
people matter a whole lot more than other people, in terms of who can
affect our tenure and who can't. This becomes a justice issue.
I say to my colleagues--and I will be very frank about it--the reason
for this is absolutely constitutional. Not in one court case--and I
mentioned the Minnesota court of appeals case--has any judge raised a
constitutional question. We make it crystal clear that we are simply
saying that--it is almost like consumer law, where we make it clear,
hey, there is a Federal standard that no State can go below it. But if
the State of Florida or Minnesota want to do better, they can do so.
Colleagues, we can do a lot better when it comes to financing
campaigns. Justice Brandeis was right; the States are laboratories of
reform, and I challenge Senators to come to the floor and vote for the
proposition that if your State wants to apply a full or partial public
financing on a voluntary basis to congressional races so that the
people of Florida, or Connecticut, or Arizona, or Wisconsin, or
Minnesota, or you name it, can feel like, by God, we have put together
a model program for the Nation--we are leading the way--then let them
do so.
I am for McCain-Feingold unless it gets too weakened. We had this
debate yesterday where Senators came to the floor and said we were
presenting the millionaires amendment. Their answer to the problem of
people who have their own wealth and can finance their own campaigns
was to dramatically raise the spending limits. So now somebody can go
from $1,000 to $6,000 a year. I recited the figure yesterday that one-
quarter of 1 percent of the population contributes $200 or more, and
one-ninth of 1 percent of the population contributes $1,000 or more.
Now we are raising it to $6,000.
Well, if you are worried about the great advantage the wealthy
candidates have, then what you want to do is move toward a system of
clean money, clean elections. I wish we could pass it at the Federal
level. That is what makes it a more level playing field. But if we
can't pass it at the Federal level, at the very minimum--and if we
can't pass it at the Federal level because some of the folks who have
such power can basically block that, so we have to move along with
McCain-Feingold as a first step, fine; but would it not make McCain-
Feingold stronger to allow States to move forward if they want to do
so?
I met with some of the legislators and some of the candidates, both
Democrats and Republicans, from the State of Minnesota, and it was one
of the most inspiring meetings I have had. Oh, God, how I yearned that
this could be our elections. They were telling me: Paul, I was an
incumbent and I had the money and I could have beat a challenger, but
it wasn't the right thing to do any longer. So I agreed to participate
in a clean money, clean election campaign. I felt so much better about
it. I did the right thing. That was a Republican.
[[Page 4175]]
Then you had challengers saying: If we didn't have this clean money,
clean election system, there would be no way, as a challenger, I could
have raised the money. This created, more or less, a level playing
field.
Everybody was saying: We had to spend less time at these big-dollar
fundraisers and less time with cash constituencies and a lot more time
with real constituencies. We could be at the coffee shops, we could be
not chasing the big dollars but focusing on the big issues.
Well, Senators, vote for this amendment and at least let your State
lead the way. If they want to pass it in the legislature, or by
initiative, or referendum, however it is done, a law that would apply a
voluntary partial, or some form of public financing, to the Senate and
House races from States, let them do so. Let them become the laboratory
of reform. See how the people like it. You know something. You will be
striking a blow not only for clean money, clean elections, but you will
also, as my colleague from Connecticut pointed out, be consistent about
being a decentralist and letting States lead the way if they have a
model program.
The third thing you are going to do, and I do not know if I should
make this argument because it may be a reason people vote against it,
but the third is you are going to be nurturing and promoting a lot of
grassroots politics at the State level because once people realize at
the State level they might be able to achieve this--since it looks like
we are not there yet, though we are going to take a good step forward,
I hope, with McCain-Feingold--there is going to be a wave of grassroots
involvement where people in the States are going to try to win this.
And that is great.
I am looking to win this vote. I am looking for a vote for every
reformer. Every Senator who says he or she is a reformer should vote
for this amendment. I am looking for a vote from Democrats. I am
looking for a vote from those Senators who voted against the so-called
millionaire amendment because they did not think it was much of a
reform to get to the point where you have a contest with someone who
has a lot of resources versus someone who is dependent on the top 1
percent for their economic resources. I am looking for their vote for
this. I am looking for support from Democrats and Republicans.
Some of my Republican colleagues come from States that have passed
clean money, clean election legislation, a voluntary system at the
State level. They are doing it, and they are doing it well. Can we not
vote for the proposition that we ought to at least let the people in
our States decide? That is all this amendment says.
If there are colleagues who want to speak, that is fine. I have been
told other Senators are on their way. I will suggest the absence of a
quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to
both sides. But I ask those opponents to come to the floor--we do not
want to use up all of our time, unless the opponents want to throw in
the towel right now and vote for this amendment. That would be OK, too.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time
to be charged equally to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reid). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
distinguished Senator from Florida be recognized to speak for 5 minutes
as in morning business and that the time not be charged to the present
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Florida.
(The remarks of Mr. Nelson of Florida are located in today's Record
under ``Morning Business.'')
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on the subject of the Wellstone
amendment, if my understanding is correct, I believe the Senator from
Minnesota allows each State legislature to determine whether or not
there could be a system of taxpayer funding and spending limits imposed
on Federal elections from that State.
There are a lot of issues we don't know much about in terms of public
opinion. But we do have a pretty good sense of how people feel about
having their tax dollars used to elect public officials. In a research
project in September of 1999, the question was asked: Should public
funding be provided for all candidates running for Congress? It was
very simply put. The public responded yes, 25 percent; no, 56 percent;
not sure, 18 percent.
The use of the term ``public funding'' produces a better result for
the proponents of taxpayer funding of elections because ``public'' is
presumed to be sort of a benign thing producing a positive response. I
am unaware of what the answer would have been had the words ``taxpayer
funding'' of elections been inserted, but we do know when Americans
know it is their tax money that is being used, it produces a response
sometimes ranking right up there with anger.
We have an opportunity every April 15 to have the biggest poll on
this subject ever taken in America. It is the check off on our tax
returns which doesn't add anything to our tax bill. It simply diverts
$3 of taxes we already owe to the Presidential election campaign funds.
It doesn't add to our tax bill. Last year, only about 12 percent of
Americans checked off indicating they wanted to divert $3 of their tax
bill away from children's nutrition or defense of the Nation or any
other worthwhile cause the Government funds into a fund to pay for
buttons and balloons at the national conventions which get some of the
tax money, and the Presidential campaigns, which get some of that tax
money.
Interestingly enough, this has continued to drop over the years. It
was originally $1 when it was set up back in the mid-1970s. The high
water mark of taxpayer participation was 29 percent in 1980. It has
gone consistently down since then. Ten years ago, in order to make up
for the lack of interest, when the other party was in charge of both
Houses and the White House, the $1 check was upped to $3 so that fewer
and fewer people could designate more and more money to make up for the
lack of public interest in having their dollars pay for political
campaigns.
In short, with all due respect to the Senator from Minnesota, who has
been very straightforward about the fact he would like to have taxpayer
funding of all elections in America, this is not an idea widely
applauded by the American people. In fact, they hate it. Almost any way
you ask the question, there is a negative response.
I hope this amendment will be defeated. It certainly takes us in
exactly the wrong direction if the idea is to produce a campaign
finance reform bill out of the Senate which might subsequently at some
point be signed by the President of the United States. I think it is
further noteworthy that the Presidential system is collapsing anyway.
President Bush was able to raise more money because of his broad
support across America and chose not to accept the public's subsidy and
the speech restrictions on his campaigns that go along with that on a
State-by-State basis.
Another candidate, Steve Forbes, obviously because of his own
personal wealth, chose not to take public funding. I think that is a
trend. I think you are going to see more and more candidates for
President on both sides of the aisle deciding they do not want to use
taxpayer funds for their elections because a number of bad things
happen to you once you do that.
We know that once you opt into the system, you are stuck then with
all the auditors and all the restrictions. We know one out of four of
the dollars spent in Presidential elections has been spent on lawyers
and accountants trying to help the candidates comply with all the rules
that come along with it and of course also telling them how they can
get around those rules.
So it is a pretty thoroughly discredited system that I think most
Members
[[Page 4176]]
of the Senate are not going to want carried over to congressional races
as well. It is bad enough the Presidential elections are stuck with it.
And of course they are ignoring it.
Issue advocacy was huge in the Presidential election. One of the
reasons both sides have gone to using issue ads is the scarcity of hard
dollars, even when supplemented with tax dollars in the Presidential
race, a genuine scarcity in terms of the enormous audience you have to
reach in America.
This is a system that simply does not allow the candidates for
President to get out their own message. To give State legislatures the
opportunity to impose that on us without our will, without acting at
the Federal level, seems to me a particularly bad idea. I hope this
amendment will not only be defeated but be soundly defeated.
I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there are two colleagues on the floor,
and I will just take 1 quick minute to respond. How much time do we
have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Just under 24 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Just under 24 minutes. I say to all Senators--or
staffs, because quite often staffs follow this debate as well--it all
depends upon how you frame the question. Actually, when you talk to
people and say, do you want to try to get some of the private money out
and big dollars out and you want to have clean money, clean elections
where they are your elections and your government, people are all for
it. It depends on how you frame the question.
But all the arguments my colleague from Kentucky made do not apply to
this amendment. Mr. President, 24 States including the State of
Kentucky have a system of public financing or partial public financing.
They must like it. But the point is, we give people in our States the
right to decide. That is all this amendment says.
I made the argument for clean money, clean elections. But that is
beside the point. What we are saying is let the States be the
laboratories of reform and let the people decide--what they did in
Maine, or what they have done in Massachusetts, or what they have done
in Arizona, or what they have done in Vermont, or, for that matter,
what they have done in a lot of other States with partial public
financing. Let them decide whether, on a voluntary basis, they want to
apply that to congressional races. That is the point. We do not get to
make that decision for them. You are just voting on the proposition of
whether or not you want to let the people in your States make the
decision.
Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield just for a unanimous consent
request?
Ms. CANTWELL. Yes.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, after consultation with the assistant
Democratic leader, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the
Wellstone amendment occur at 2:15.
Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I would like
to ascertain how much time remains and how much time might be
available.
Mr. McCONNELL. If I may finish, I say to my friend from
Massachusetts, the thought we had was 20 minutes of the time between
now and then would be for your side and 10 for our side.
Mr. REID. I think that is about all the time we have anyway, isn't
it, on Senator Wellstone's time.
Mr. KERRY. How much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 21 minutes 52 seconds.
Mr. KERRY. Could I ask for 12 minutes?
Mr. REID. Senator Cantwell, I think, indicated she would like 8
minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I would like to reserve. There are others coming.
Unfortunately, when we went into a quorum call, the time was equally
divided because we didn't have people down here. I would like to
reserve the last 3 minutes for myself.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Minnesota, we have 21 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Let's do 10 and 8.
Mr. McCONNELL. I will be glad to accommodate your side. Senator
Wellstone wants to speak again, Senator Cantwell, Senator Kerry--are
there others?
Mr. REID. Senator Corzine wanted 5 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. You tell me how to do that.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, after the
Senator from Washington, I be permitted to speak for 10 minutes and we
have the vote at the conclusion of that amount of time, and allowing
for the time for the use of the Senator from Kentucky as the manager on
his side.
Mr. McCONNELL. What I would like to do is set a time for the vote in
consultation with the Senators on the floor, and we will divide the
time after that.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, could I suggest perhaps we allow the
Senator from Washington to begin speaking and arrange the time?
Mr. REID. How much time does the Senator need?
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, 12 minutes.
Mr. REID. Corzine 5 minutes; Wellstone, 5 minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. Cantwell?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, 10 minutes. Vote at 2:30.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a vote occur on
the Wellstone amendment--on or in relation to the Wellstone amendment
at 2:30.
Mr. REID. And the time be allocated----
Mr. McCONNELL. The time be allocated in the following manner: 12
minutes for Senator Kerry, 5 minutes for Senator Corzine, 5 minutes for
Senator Wellstone at the end, 5 minutes for Senator Cantwell--10
minutes for Senator Cantwell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. And 2 minutes before the vote for the Senator from
Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the McCain-
Feingold campaign finance reform legislation and the Wellstone
amendment. I ran for the U.S. Senate because I believe it is time for
us to reform our political system and bring it into the 21st century.
At a time where citizens are more empowered than ever with information,
where access to technology and communications tools makes it possible
for citizens to track and understand on a daily basis our legislative
progress, and where citizens understand exactly the tug and pull of the
legislative process, that is, who is getting tugged and who is getting
pulled. It is time to respond with a political system that is more
inclusive in the decision process. That meets the best long term needs
of our citizens, instead of a political system of financing campaigns
that rewards short-term expedient decisionmaking.
But before I go on about the Wellstone amendment that I rise to
support, I want to thank the authors of the bill, Senators John McCain
and Russ Feingold, for the commitment, determination, courage and
perseverance that they have demonstrated on this issue. Campaign
finance reform has few friends. It has many enemies. It suffers from a
public that simply believes that we can not reform ourselves or this
system. John McCain and Russ Feingold, at great personal expense, have
championed this cause for many years and I am proud to join them in the
heat of this battle.
I rise today in support of the Wellstone amendment that I am
cosponsoring along with Senators Corzine and Kerry because I believe it
will truly start us down the road of progress. Progress in allowing
clean money and clean money efforts to finance campaigns. There is
almost a grassroots effort popping up in many States such as Maine,
Vermont, Arizona, and Massachusetts, and hopefully with this amendment,
in many more States across our country.
[[Page 4177]]
The clean money effort allows us to put our political system where it
belongs--back in the hands of the public, making it more accountable
for the people we represent. This is the political reform that our
country so badly needs.
The money we raise from special interests plays a role in politics.
It plays a role in setting the terms of the debate. It plays a role in
what issues get placed at the top of the legislative agenda. And, most
importantly, it keeps the focus in the wrong place.
Elizabeth Drew, wrote a book called ``Whatever It Takes,'' that
chronicled some of the way business and the Congress operate.
Paraphrasing her remarks, some of the interest groups oppose
legislation because it is the camel's nose under the tent. It is
something they can stop, and so they do.
We need a political decision making process in Congress in an
information age where people are brought together, and not just met
with because we agree with them. Our failure to act to reduce the
amount of money in politics is feeding the skepticism and cynicism
about politics and government among our citizens, and particularly our
youth.
At a time when we are not far from Internet voting, we ought to have
a system of financing campaigns that encourages our citizens to be more
involved. Our citizens believe the current campaign finance system
prevents us from acting in their interest.
We have been through a technology revolution in this country, and we
have to have a governing system, and a campaign system that will keep
pace with it.
I was reminded in this last cycle--going around the State of
Washington, I met a constituent who wanted to tell me about a piece of
legislation. They turned around to their desktop and printed off the
bill that was being considered, circled the sections of the bill they
were most interested in, and said: Now tell me why we can't get this
passed by the U.S. Senate.
I didn't have to answer this person. They knew very well why it was
not getting addressed in the Senate. And that is why we need to change
our system.
I welcome Senator Wellstone's amendment and his recognition that
States can be leaders in this area. I hope my colleagues embrace the
spirit of this amendment and recognize it for what it is--a great
opportunity to watch, to see, and to learn from those experiments that
are happening at the State level.
As Senator Wellstone said, States are great laboratories. By letting
States that are interested in doing so set up public funding systems
for their Federal candidates, we will be providing ourselves with
valuable research on how we can level the playing field and get the
money out of politics.
Think about that: The time that Members spend raising money instead
spent listening to the voters in their States.
We have already learned from the clean money election systems in
Maine that candidates taking part in that voluntary system have had the
following things say:
It was easier to recruit candidates to run for office.
It is what the people want.
I will only have about half the money I raised last time but much
more time to talk to the people.
We have learned that voluntary limits can work. In his Senate race in
1996, Senator John Kerry and his opponent, then-Governor Bill Weld,
agreed to a voluntary spending limit, and the result was a campaign
waged largely on the issues. Senator Kerry proved there are incentives
for both sides to improve the political discourse.
In Arizona, 16 candidates were elected under the clean money system,
including an upset victory over the former speaker of the State senate.
And the challenger spent only one-quarter of the money that his
opponent took.
In Maine, 49 percent of the State senate candidates won their seats
while participating in the clean money program.
Overall, States implementing public financing have seen more
candidates run, more contested primaries, more women running for
office, and, most importantly, it is proving that good candidates can
run winning campaigns and participate in a system that limits spending.
The only way we have to truly level the playing field, both between
candidates and parties of opposing ideologies, and more importantly,
between new candidates and incumbents, is to commit the resources to
the process of getting people elected.
Not until we create a campaign system with a shorter and more
intensive campaign period--something I think the public would truly
applaud--funded with finite and equal resources available to all
candidates, will we be able to really listen carefully to what the
people want.
Not until then will we be able to free candidates from the time, and
the energy drain that is needed for dialing for dollars. Not until then
will we be able to improve the quality of political discourse, to play
down the dominance of polls, to render tax-driven negative ads
ineffective, and to remove the appearance that political decisionmaking
is not based on principle but on the dependence on funds.
We can't in an information age and a technology age be smart enough
to figure out how to make prescription drugs and new therapies improve
the quality of life and health care and yet not even have the debate to
make prescription drugs more affordable.
Why is that? Because it, too, has gotten clogged in this debate and
campaign finance reform. Senator Wellstone's amendment removes the
roadblock to exploring new options for getting people elected in a new
information age. I support the right of States to experiment with new
ideas to help level the playing field and to improve our election
process and our campaign system.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cantwell but remind her
that actually we worked together on this amendment. It is really our
amendment--the Wellstone-Cantwell-Kerry amendment.
I thank the Senator for her help on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, let me begin my comments by making it as clear as I
can that I am a strong supporter of the McCain-Feingold legislation. I
have had the pleasure of working with both of them through the years on
campaign finance reform. I want McCain-Feingold to pass the Senate and
ultimately be signed into law.
But let me also make it equally as clear to my colleagues and all
Americans who are focused on and care about this issue that what we
might achieve, if we pass McCain-Feingold, is only a small step towards
what we ought to be trying to do in this Congress. The fact is that
even if we pass McCain-Feingold, all that we would have achieved is a
reduction--it is not all, but it is significant and it is important--in
the soft money flow to our campaigns through either corporate
contributions or private contributions.
Nothing in McCain-Feingold is going to restrain the arms race of
fundraising in the United States. Nothing in McCain-Feingold is going
to restrain ultimately the dependency of people in Congress to have to
go out and ask people for significant amounts of money in total--
because of amounts of money that you can give Federally--hard money up
to the $25,000, which may well be lifted in the course of this debate--
people who have $20,000, $25,000, or $15,000 to make in a contribution
will have far more capacity to be able to affect Federal campaigns than
the average American citizen.
I do not know if my colleagues are aware of this, but almost all of
the soft money that was contributed in the last election cycle for both
parties came from about 800 people. Obviously, those 800 people have
the capacity to be able to put up larger Federal contributions or match
Federal dollar contributions.
What the Congress ought to be doing and what we ought to be focused
on is how to put the greatest distance between each of us in the
fundraising and create the greatest proximity between
[[Page 4178]]
each of us and the people who vote for us or who are asked to vote for
us.
The Senator from Kentucky said earlier in this debate that this
amendment by Senator Wellstone, myself, and Senator Cantwell is a bad
idea because it would tell the States how to run a Federal election, or
it would take our campaigns--I think was the language--and prevent the
States from somehow living by the rules that the Federal Government has
set up or espouses. Nothing, again, could be further from the truth.
First of all, it is not our campaign. It is the voters' campaign.
This election belongs to the voters of each of our States. How
presumptuous of us to stand here and say we should deny the voters of
our States the right to elect us the way they might like to elect us.
Moreover, this amendment is purely voluntary. No Member of Congress
is compelled to go with the system even if a State requires it. So it
is really only a half preemption. It is a way of saying to those 24
States--almost half the States in the Union; among them the State of
the Senator from Kentucky. They have already adopted some form of
public financing. Every one of those States has decided they do not
want special interests governing the elections. They want to reduce the
election process to the simplest connection between candidate and
voter.
I am pleased to say that ever since I ran in 1984--the first time for
the Senate--I have been able, thus far, to run without taking the
larger conglomerate funds, the PAC money funds. I think I am the only
Member of the Senate who has been elected three times without taking
PAC money. I am proud of that. That is not because PACs are inherently
evil or a bad part of the process. I think it is fine under the
Constitution for people to come together and give money jointly through
a PAC. The problem is, when it is conglomerated the way it is, in the
amounts that it is, it leaves our fellow citizens with the perception
that the system is up for grabs; that the money is what controls the
elections of our country.
Senator John McCain, in the course of his Presidential campaign,
elicited from his countrymen and women a great sympathy for that
notion. Part of what propelled that campaign was people's conviction
they do not get to control what happens in the Senate and the House of
Representatives, but the large money has more control over what happens
here than their conglomerate votes they express on election day.
What the Wellstone-Kerry-Cantwell amendment seeks to do is simply
give a choice to States. If you are a conservative and you believe in
States rights, here is the ultimate States rights amendment because
what we are saying is that a State has the right to offer to its
candidates a different way of getting elected. And if the candidate for
Federal office wants to take advantage of that, they may. It does not
require you, there is no mandate, any person in the Senate who wants to
go out and rely on their amounts of money they can raise can do so. But
it gives to the State the right to put that as an offering to those who
run.
Why is it that we should stand here and take ownership of the
campaign away from the people who elect us, and deny them the right to
say they would like to see the races for the House and the Senate run
by the same standard that we run our race for Governor and for our
local legislature?
As I said earlier, nothing in McCain-Feingold will ultimately resolve
the terrible problem of Senators having to raise extraordinary sums of
money. The reason for that is we are still going to have to go out and
raise tens of millions of dollars, except it will be without soft
money; it will be so-called hard money.
Let me say to my colleagues, they will still--each of them--be
completely subject to the same kinds of questions that exist today
about the linkage of money and politics. The only way we will
ultimately divorce ourselves from that perception which leads most
Americans to believe that this whole thing is somehow out of their
reach and out of their control, and that it is gamed and they cannot
really make a difference--the only way you will affect that,
ultimately, is to adopt some form of public financing.
I know the votes are not here today. I know too many of my colleagues
are comfortable with the status quo. I know we cannot win that vote in
the Senate today. But that does not mean we should not put it in the
debate. And it does not mean we should not require a vote because the
real test of whether or not people want our democracy to work is
whether or not we are going to do the most we can, in a most reasonable
way, to separate ourselves from the fundraising that is so suspect and
that taints the entire system.
I respectfully suggest to my colleagues that a voluntary system--once
again, purely voluntary; no challenge to the first amendment at all; no
mandate whatsoever; no constitutional issue --simply a voluntary system
that would allow a candidate to go for matching money, in the same way
that we do in the Presidential race, and have done for years--and, I
might add, contrary to what the Senator from Kentucky said, with great
success--even President George W. Bush in the general election took the
public funding. He ran for President of the United States with public
money. Bob Dole ran for President of the United States with public
money. President George Bush first ran with public money. President
Ronald Reagan ran with public money. Why is it that if it is good
enough to elect a President of the United States, it should not at
least be voluntarily available to those who run for the Senate?
The reason is too many of my colleagues know that might put the
opposition on an equal footing with them. Too many of my colleagues are
comfortable with the system where they can use the incumbency to raise
the large amounts of money and not allow for a fair playing field that
enhances the democracy of this country.
That is why the Senate has more than 50-percent membership of
millionaires--because most people in this country cannot afford to run
for the Senate. That is how our democracy in this country is, in fact,
distorted. We do not have a true representation in the so-called upper
body of America because too many people cannot even begin to think
about running for office in this country.
Last time I ran in the State of Massachusetts, the Governor of the
State, a Republican, joined with me in putting a limit on what we would
spend. We voluntarily agreed to no independent expenditures. We
voluntarily agreed to no soft money. We voluntarily agreed on a total
limit of how much we would spend in our campaign on the ground and in
the media.
The result of that was, we had nine 1-hour televised debates. And in
the course of those nine 1-hour televised debates--in the course of all
the free media--the people in the State were able to hear a debate
about Social Security, a debate about Medicare, a debate about health
care, a debate about the economy; and they ultimately made a decision.
I say to my colleagues, I warrant that 95 percent or 100 percent of
the dollars we spent on paid advertising--which were equal amounts--was
a complete wash, a mishmash that ultimately did not affect the outcome.
We are hocking the Congress of the United States to our fundraising
efforts in order to be able to run paid advertisements that result,
generally speaking, in a clouding of the issues, not a shedding of
light to people about what these issues are really about.
The only way to stop having Americans ask about the influence of
money is to adopt the greatest division between us and the influence of
the money. And that will come through some form of public financing.
I will be speaking more about this in the next few days. I will be
offering an amendment to this bill that tries to go further than what
we currently have on the table. I know the reason Senators McCain and
Feingold have settled where they are is because this is the best chance
we have for the votes we have today. But that does not mean the
[[Page 4179]]
Senate should not be called on to debate and vote on an issue that
ultimately will be the only way out of this morass that we find
ourselves in.
I think my time has expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair and hope my colleagues will support this
voluntary opportunity that the Senator from Minnesota offers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, do we have, all together, 10 minutes
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a total of 20 minutes preceding the
vote. The Senator from Minnesota has 5 minutes remaining, and the
Senator from New Jersey has 5 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Massachusetts, if he would
like, I will yield an additional 5 minutes to him. I will reserve the
final 5 minutes. We are in complete agreement. He is making a very
strong statement for clean money, clean elections.
Mr. REID. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, the Senator
from New Jersey is on his way. He has 5 minutes. The Senator from
Minnesota has 5 minutes. The rest is under the control of the Senator
from Kentucky. That was the understanding we had.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry, I was under the impression that the
Senator from New Jersey would not be able to make it at all.
Mr. REID. He is on his way.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will take my time now. This is a joint effort. There
are a number of different Senators who are part of this: Senator
Cantwell worked very hard on this, Senator Kerry; Senator Biden is an
original cosponsor; Senator Corzine is an original cosponsor; Senator
Clinton is an original cosponsor. There are other Senators as well.
My colleague from Kentucky has made the argument before--in fact, I
remember debating him on MacNeil, Lehrer that public financing, a clean
money, clean election bill, which Senator Kerry and I have written,
would amount to ``food stamps for politicians.'' The problem with that
argument is that it presupposes that the election belongs to the
politicians. The election belongs to the people we represent.
I argue that McCain-Feingold is a step in the right direction, but if
we want to have a system that gets out a lot of the big money, brings
people back in, is not so wired for incumbents, and assures that we
have a functioning representative democracy where we do live up to the
goal of each person counting as one, and no more than one, frankly,
clean money, clean elections is the direction in which to go, as has
already been accomplished by a number of States. Maine, Vermont,
Massachusetts, and Arizona have led the way, but there are about 24
States in the country that have some system of public or partial
financing.
We are not voting today for clean money, clean elections. We are just
voting on the following proposition: Will we vote to allow our States,
the people in our States and their elected representatives, the right
to decide whether or not a system of voluntary partial or full public
financing should be applied to U.S. House and Senate races. Why don't
we allow the people in our States the chance to make that decision?
This is a Brandeis amendment. States are the laboratories of reform.
For Senators who say they want States to decide on the most fundamental
core issue of all, which has to do with representation, let them
decide. If they don't want to adopt such a system, they won't, but let
them decide.
Secondly, by doing that, we will nurture and provoke a wave of
grassroots citizen involvement because people will realize that at
their State level not only can they adopt clean money, clean elections
that affect State races, but they can do it so that it will affect our
races.
This is simply an amendment that says: Let the States, our States,
make the decision whether they want to adopt such a voluntary system of
partial or full public financing or clean money, clean elections.
Senator Corzine and Senator Biden are on the floor. I yield the final
6 or 7 minutes equally divided between the two of them. I yield 3
minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has used his 5
minutes.
The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota,
Senator Wellstone, for bringing this amendment to the Senate, and I am
pleased to join him in this effort to finally break the ice on getting
rid of special interest money in our campaigns--once and for all.
He and I have been at this for a long time, a very long time. And
while I support the McCain-Feingold bill, we have to remember that it
only addresses a portion of the problems we have.
Indeed, the effort to secure real reform of the way we finance
political campaigns has been a central concern of my entire Senate
career, almost three decades. In fact, the first Committee testimony I
ever gave as a U.S. Senator, back in 1973, was to speak in favor of
public financing and spending limits for campaigns.
And if you think campaign finance reform is a tough issue today, let
me tell you, as some of my colleagues well remember, it was truly
unpopular then.
As I continued to push for public funding of campaigns in 1974, my
goal was to get rid of special interest money--money that pollutes the
system and drowns out the voices of ordinary persons. Special interest
money has a tendency to influence anyone running for public office, or
at a minimum, casts that impression that elected officials are beholden
to someone other than the American people.
Public financing also helps to level the financial playing field for
challengers taking on well established incumbents who had virtually all
of the fund-raising muscle.
But again, I encountered a lot of opposition, from colleagues on both
sides of the aisle. A story I know I have told before: One senior
Senator pulled me aside in the cloakroom, and told me that he had
worked hard and earned his seniority, and he was not going to open the
door for some challenger to be able to raise as much money as he could.
He basically asked me--I expect when he would tell the story, he didn't
ask me, he told me--to stop what I was doing.
In that same year, 1974, I wrote an article for the Northwestern
University Law Review, outlining the three principal reasons that I was
pursuing campaign finance reform. First, a political process that
relied totally on private contributions allowed for, at the very least,
the potential of wealthy individuals and special interest groups
exercising a disproportionate influence over the system.
Second, such a process meant that wealthy candidates had an almost
insurmountable advantage. And third, incumbents had an equally daunting
advantage; the system virtually locked them into office.
We did make some progress in 1974, largely because of documented
abuses in the 1972 presidential campaign, with the passage of
Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, known as the
FECA. The 1974 amendments, which I supported, established the Federal
Election Commission to help ensure proper enforcement of campaign laws,
and also set the now familiar federal campaign contribution limits of
$1,000 for individuals and $5,000 for political action committees.
The amendments further established campaign spending limits and
expanded public financing for presidential campaigns.
Not unexpectedly, the constitutionality of the 1974 amendments was
challenged almost immediately, and the Supreme Court decided the issue
in its 1976 landmark ruling, Buckley v. Valeo.
The Court upheld the law's contribution limits, but overturned the
limits on expenditures as a too severe restriction of political speech.
The Court did leave open, however, the possibility of spending limits
for publicly financed campaigns--which, so far, despite my
[[Page 4180]]
best efforts, has been limited to presidential campaigns--because the
candidates could disregard the limits if they rejected the public
funds.
There were additional issues in the case, not directly related to
campaign financing, including a separation of powers question regarding
how Commissioners to the FEC were appointed.
In response to the Court's decision, Congress enacted additional
amendments to the FECA in 1976, which again, I supported. One amendment
repealed the spending limits except for publicly financed campaigns;
another addressed the FEC appointment procedures; and another
restricted and regulated PAC fund-raising. I also supported a third
round of refining FECA amendments, which passed in 1979.
In addition to those successes in the 1970s, there were also
frustrations. In 1977, I introduced legislation to prohibit the
personal use of excess campaign funds by defeated candidates, by
retired or resigned Federal office holders, or by the survivors of a
deceased office holder. The bill was debated on the floor, but
ultimately failed.
The greater frustrations of the late 1970s and early 1980s were,
first, that partisan stalemate kept us from making additional progress,
and second, that despite our efforts with the FECA amendments,
individual campaigns and political parties were bypassing the laws by
taking advantage of loopholes in the regulatory language and system.
We finally broke the stalemate on reform legislation in the Senate,
and on narrowing one of the biggest loopholes, by delineating more
specific guidelines for the use of political action committees, or
PACs, when we passed the Boren-Goldwater amendment in 1986, legislation
I was proud to cosponsor. This would have reduced PAC contributions and
put a total limit on the amount of PAC money a candidate could accept.
But the celebration was short-lived, and progress on campaign finance
reform stalled again, despite our continuing efforts to give it a
legislative jump start.
With my colleagues, Senator Kerry from Massachusetts and then-Senator
Bradley from New Jersey, I offered public campaign financing bills in
the 101st, the 102nd and the 103rd Congresses.
Others among our colleagues were equally persistent during this era,
perhaps most notably, Senators Boren and Mitchell, Senator Danforth and
Senator Hollings, who has proposed a constitutional amendment to allow
Congress to pass legislation setting mandatory limits on contributions
and expenditures for federal campaigns. I have supported that proposal
in the past, as well as other reforms suggested by the distinguished
Senator from South Carolina and other colleagues.
We did manage to pass several significant pieces of legislation
through the Senate, only to have the process stalled again in the
conference process. And as I know many of my colleagues will remember,
we even managed to get a pretty good bill out of conference and through
both Houses, in 1992--a bill that included voluntary spending limits in
congressional campaigns, in exchange for certain public funding
benefits, as well as restrictions on PAC receipts and soft money.
But the legislation was vetoed by President George H.W. Bush, and our
Senate override vote failed by 57-42.
When we resubmitted the legislation the following year, with Senator
Boren again as the lead sponsor and with President Clinton's support
and, indeed, some additional provisions proposed by the White House,
the Congressional Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act again
got pretty far.
Just as I had done 20 years before, I testified before the Senate
Rules Committee, arguing for public financing as the only road to true
campaign finance reform. The bill, with one major compromise amendment,
passed the Senate 60-38, but a compromise with the House proved more
difficult, and our debate ended with a filibuster against appointing
conferees.
The 104th Congress saw a famous handshake between President Clinton
and the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, signaling their ``agreement
in principle'' to pursue campaign finance reform. And the two major
sweeping reform bills, which continue to dominate our debates today,
were born McCain-Feingold in the Senate, and Smith-Meehan-Shays, now
known as Shays-Meehan, in the House.
Then in 1997, I again partnered with Senator Kerry, as well as
Senators Wellstone, Glenn and Leahy, to introduce the Clean Money,
Clean Elections Act.
That proposal would have wiped private money out of the campaign
system almost entirely, by greatly reducing the limit on individual
contributions and imposing an additional limit for each state.
Candidates would have received public funds and free media time,
calculated by State size.
Unfortunately, as with so many other proposals directed toward public
financing for congressional campaigns, we got no further than a
referral to committee.
In recounting this history, I do not mean to sound downtrodden or
discouraged.
We have made progress through congressional action--with the FECA
amendments and since 1979, the elimination of honoraria and the
``grandfather clause'' on the personal use of excess campaign funds,
the National Voter Registration Act and the increase in the tax return
checkoff for the Presidential Election Campaign Fund from $1 to $3.
The 106th Congress saw no fewer than 85 campaign finance reform bills
introduced, 24 of them in the Senate, including the McCain-Feingold
bill that we are debating today, as well as the Hagel-Kerrey bill on
which hearings were held last spring.
While none of the sweeping reform proposals made it through the last
Congress, we did take a small but important step, enacting a proposal
initially offered by Senator Lieberman and later incorporated into an
amendment he sponsored with Senators McCain and Feingold.
The legislation, which in virtually identical form to McCain-
Feingold-Lieberman was signed into law by President Clinton last July,
addressed the problem of so-called ``stealth PACs,'' operating under
section 527 of the tax code.
Such organizations claimed tax exempt status, but at the same time
also claimed exemption from regulation under the FECA. That meant these
stealth PACs could try to influence political campaigns with
undisclosed and unregulated contributions, all tax free. The new law
closes that loophole, requiring 527 organizations to adhere to
appropriate regulatory and disclosure requirements. Again, an important
step.
And I hope it is a step that gives us momentum to make further
progress in the 107th Congress. My own legislative initiatives,
throughout my career, have focused on public financing of federal
campaigns, and I continue to believe that it is truest course to
reform.
But I have been in the past, and will be in our deliberations now,
willing and eager to support other brands of reform that offer
responsible regulation and close what can, at times, seem like an
endless chain of newly exploited loopholes in existing law.
Our goal, whatever proposal is at issue, must be to uphold the public
trust and to secure public confidence in the integrity of our election
process. We are not entitled to that confidence; we have to earn it.
That is no small task, especially having just emerged from an
election that was not only contentious but expensive--the total amount
raised just by the two national parties was close to $1.2 billion, a
$300 million increase from the 1996 election cycle.
And half of that $1.2 billion was so-called ``soft money,'' raised
and spent beyond the reach of federal regulation, although certainly
with the intent of influencing some Federal elections. As the amounts
and creative uses of soft money have grown, we must give the issue the
serious consideration it merits, as, I might add, McCain-Feingold does,
with its outright ban on soft money raising and spending in Federal
races.
[[Page 4181]]
In the past, as I've attempted to summarize today, we have made some
progress, but time and time again, we have stopped short of how far we
need to go on campaign finance reform.
The amendment offered by Senator Wellstone today gives us at least a
chance, for Senate races in some States, to discard the influences of
special interests.
Public financing allows candidates to compete on an equal footing
where the merits of their ideas outweigh the size of their pocketbook.
It frees members from the corroding dependence on personal or family
fortune or the gifts of special interest backers. It ends the need for
perpetual fundraising by elected officials.
But above all else, it helps restore the American people's faith in
our democracy.
The truth is that campaigns are financed by people, and when they are
financed by all the people--not just a small percentage--they will
create much better government and will do the one thing that most needs
to be done at this time, and that is to begin to restore public
confidence in the system. Either all of America decides who runs for
office, or only a few people. It's as simple as that.
And if we cannot pass this at the Federal level, let's at least give
the States the chance to do it, as Senator Wellstone is proposing. The
fact is, the States have been leading the way when it comes to public
financing.
My home State is now considering such a proposal. If candidates can
agree to spending limits, and choose public financing over special
interest money, we should not stand in the way of allowing a state to
pursue an avenue of reform that we are reluctant to take here in
Washington.
Public financing is the true, comprehensive way to reform. While I
would prefer to enact public financing at the federal level, I
nevertheless support my colleague's effort to restore faith in our
electoral process by giving States the go ahead.
Madam President, I don't understand what my friend from Kentucky gets
so worried about. I know he disagrees with guys like me and the Senator
from Massachusetts about public financing of elections, which I think
is the only way we ever clean this up.
This is a simple yet important amendment. All we are saying is, if
your State decides it wants to put in a financing system and if both
candidates running for office or three candidates running for that
office agree to abide by it, then what is the big deal? I find it so
fascinating that by and large my Republican friends talk about States
rights so much. They are such great champions of States rights. They
would love the Environmental Protection Agency to be subservient to the
States. They think the 11th amendment means something the Supreme
Court, unfortunately, has decided it means. The States are the
repository of wisdom to my friends on the other side of the aisle, by
and large.
We are not going to even allow the States, if they choose, to set up
a financing system for elections if all the candidates voluntarily
agree. If they don't voluntarily agree, they can't do it
constitutionally, in my view. Here we are with even this modest
attempt.
What we are afraid of on this floor is the public one day waking up
and saying: Hey, the emperor has no clothes; this has been a big sham.
Gosh, look at this, I didn't realize this.
All they know now is generically they don't like the way we do
business. All they know now is generically there is too much money
involved in politics. In their home States, if they like the idea of
too much money continuing to be involved in politics, so be it; they
can decide that. But if they decide that there is a way to get the big
money out and a way to make sure every single voter in the State has
the same say as any wealthy person, then they might do this.
This is so modest, it is almost embarrassing to have to argue for its
passage. It is the single most insightful way to understand why what we
are doing doesn't mean much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the
Wellstone-Cantwell States' Rights amendment. I am proud to be a
cosponsor of this amendment which will allow States to attempt
innovative approaches to campaign finance reform on their own
initiative.
The McCain-Feingold reform bill goes a long way towards reforming the
campaign system. This amendment allows States to go even further. It
would allow States to use money from their own treasuries, to ensure
that campaigns are funded with clean money. Money that is free from the
taint of special interest.
As you well know, States have historically acted as engines of
reform. Some States, including New Jersey, have adopted strong public
financing systems allowing candidates a level playing field when
seeking statewide office. However, when it comes to campaigns for
Federal office, these States hands are tied. According to the Federal
Election Campaign Act, Federal candidates are not allowed to take part
in those financing systems.
This amendment is remarkably simple. It allows States to extend to
Federal candidates public funding solutions already available to
candidates seeking State office.
The fundamental reason McCain-Feingold is important is that it holds
the promise to reduce the amount of dirty money in the campaign
process, to reduce any appearance of impropriety on the part of
representatives elected to do the people's work. Some States have
already realized that public financing is the necessary next step in
the equation, that public money is clean money. However, states find
themselves restrained in enacting a solution.
This amendment will not cost the U.S. Government a penny. It does not
mandate public financing in any way. In fact, the United States already
provides public support for candidates seeking the presidency. And this
amendment does not propose to extend the same financing to all Federal
candidates. Rather it allows States the freedom to offer public
financing and a more level playing field for candidates seeking Federal
office. Do we allow States the freedom to determine the format of their
own campaign finance systems? Or do we allow reform to end with McCain-
Feingold, to end with the Congress?
New Jersey has an excellent public financing system for gubernatorial
candidates. Allowing the State to extend this system to include Federal
candidates holds a great deal of promise. In New Jersey, candidates
seeking public financing agree to a funding cap that keeps pace with
inflation. Then, for every dollar raised by the candidate, the State
matches him with two. When all is said and done, the candidate has to
do one-third of the fundraising. Imagine all the additional time you
could spend engaging with voters about the issues that affect their
lives as opposed to overburdened with fundraising responsibilities.
Politicians can spend less time on the fundraising circuit and more
time on the campaign trail. The Democratic candidate for governor,
Mayor James McGreevey, stopped fundraising for the June primary in
January.
This amendment will allow States like New Jersey to pick up where
McCain-Feingold leaves off. It allows State governments to create a
truly level playing field in the States and serve as examples to the
Nation of realistic and forward-looking approaches to campaign finance
reform. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, about the only thing more unpopular
than taxpayer funding of elections would be a congressional pay raise.
The American people hate, detest, and despise the notion that their tax
dollars would be used to fund political campaigns. We have the biggest
survey in the history of America on this very subject taken every April
15 when Americans have an opportunity on their income tax returns to
check off $3 of taxes they already owe to divert into
[[Page 4182]]
the Presidential election campaign fund.
This is not an add-on to their tax burden. This is $3 in taxes they
already owe. They have an option to divert that away from children's
nutrition programs, or the national defense, or whatever might be
considered worthwhile, into a fund that has been maintained since 1976,
to pay for the campaigns for President of the United States and to buy
buttons and balloons for the national conventions.
So we have this massive survey every April 15 in which Americans get
to vote on this very issue. The high water mark of American
participation in the Presidential checkoff was 28.7 percent. That was
in 1980--about 20 years ago. At that time, the high water mark, 28.7
percent, of Americans were willing to divert $1 of the taxes they
already owed into this fund. It has been consistently tracking down
over the years to a point where about 10 years ago the Congress changed
the dollar checkoff to $3, so fewer and fewer people could divert
greater and greater amounts of money to try to make up for the
shortfall that was occurring because of lack of participation, lack of
interest, and opposition to the Presidential publicly funded elections.
In the 2000 campaign just completed, the 2000 Presidential primary,
candidates were only able to receive a percentage of the matching funds
they were due that year, even with three of the Republican candidates--
Governor Bush, Steve Forbes, and Senator Hatch--not accepting taxpayer
funds. So they have had a problem, even with the $3 checkoff, dealing
with keeping this fund adequately up to snuff.
Now the other thing worthy of notice is, even if a State were to set
up taxpayer funding of the election system, they could not
constitutionally deny this money to fringe and crackpot candidates. It
is worth noting that over the history of the taxpayer-funded system for
Presidential elections that began a quarter century ago, taxpayers
ponied up more than $1 billion overall, and $40 million of it has gone
to candidates such as Lyndon LaRouche and Lenora Fulani. Larouche got
taxpayer money while he was still in jail.
It is important for my colleagues to understand that even if a State,
with concurrence of the candidates for Congress, decided to set up a
taxpayer-funded scheme for the election for the Senate in that
particular State, there would be no way, constitutionally, to restrict
those funds to just the candidates of the Republican Party and the
Democratic Party. So you would have an opportunity all across America
to replicate the system we have had in the Presidential system, where
fringe and crackpot candidates get money from the Treasury to pay for
their campaigns for office.
I think this is really an issue that greatly separates many Senators
philosophically, as to whether or not reaching into the Treasury--
whether the Federal or State treasury--and providing subsidies for
political candidates is a good idea. We used to call it food stamps for
politicians. In the early nineties, it was called vouchers. Candidates
were going to get taxpayer-paid vouchers for campaigns--food stamps for
politicians, for goodness' sake. Can you imagine how the American
people would feel about such an absurd idea?
So I certainly hope the Senate will not go on record as giving to the
States the option to squander tax dollars in such an absurd way. I have
some optimism about the bill we are currently debating, the McCain-
Feingold bill, and I am authorized by Senator McCain to indicate that
he intends to oppose this amendment. He doesn't think it would add to
the underlying bill and go in the direction he would like.
So this is one of those rare occasions upon which Senator McCain and
I will agree on an amendment, and we hope the overwhelming majority of
the Senate will agree that authorizing the use of tax dollars for
political campaigns is a uniquely bad idea--and already tried. We have
had a 25-year experiment that has wasted over a billion dollars of
taxpayer dollars and funded fringe candidates, including those in jail,
and to replicate that in any of our States, it seems to me, is a very
bad idea.
I hope Members of the Senate will oppose this amendment which will be
voted upon shortly.
Are there any other Members who wish to speak?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, do we have any time left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed all of his time.
Mr. WELLSTONE. All right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2\1/2\ minutes before the vote.
Mr. McCONNELL. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.
Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
Minnesota.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 64, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 42 Leg.]
YEAS--36
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Durbin
Edwards
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--64
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Carnahan
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The amendment (No. 123) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Amendment No. 134
Mr. McCONNELL. The next amendment is now the Hatch amendment, and I
see the Senator from Utah is on the floor. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. HATCH] proposes an amendment
numbered 134.
Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To strike section 304 and add a provision to require
disclosure to and consent by shareholders and members regarding use of
funds for political activities)
Beginning on page 35, strike line 8 and all that follows
through page 37, line 14, and insert the following:
SEC. 304. DISCLOSURE OF AND CONSENT FOR DISBURSEMENTS OF
UNION DUES, FEES, AND ASSESSMENTS OR CORPORATE
FUNDS FOR POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.
Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 304
the following:
[[Page 4183]]
``SEC. 304A. DISCLOSURE OF DISBURSEMENTS OF UNION DUES, FEES,
AND ASSESSMENTS OR CORPORATE FUNDS FOR
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.
``(a) Disclosure.--Any corporation or labor organization
(including a separate segregated fund established and
maintained by such entity) that makes a disbursement for
political activity or a contribution or expenditure during an
election cycle shall submit a written report for such cycle--
``(1) in the case of a corporation, to each of its
shareholders; and
``(2) in the case of a labor organization, to each employee
within the labor organization's bargaining unit or units;
disclosing the portion of the labor organization's income
from dues, fees, and assessments or the corporation's funds
that was expended directly or indirectly for political
activities, contributions, and expenditures during such
election cycle.
``(b) Consent.--
``(1) Prohibition.--Except with the separate, prior,
written, voluntary authorization of a stockholder, in the
case of a corporation, or an employee within the labor
organization's bargaining unit or units in the case of a
labor organization, it shall be unlawful--
``(A) for any corporation described in this section to use
funds from its general treasury for the purpose of political
activities; or
``(B) for any labor organization described in this section
to collect from or assess such employee any dues, initiation
fee, or other payment if any part of such dues, fee, or
payment will be used for political activities.
``(2) Effect of authorization.--An authorization described
in paragraph (1) shall remain in effect until revoked and may
be revoked at any time.
``(c) Contents.--
``(1) In general.--The report submitted under subsection
(a) shall disclose information regarding the dues, fees, and
assessments spent at each level of the labor organization and
by each international, national, State, and local component
or council, and each affiliate of the labor organization and
information on funds of a corporation spent by each
subsidiary of such corporation showing the amount of dues,
fees, and assessments or corporate funds disbursed in the
following categories:
``(A) Direct activities, such as cash contributions to
candidates and committees of political parties.
``(B) Internal and external communications relating to
specific candidates, political causes, and committees of
political parties.
``(C) Internal disbursements by the labor organization or
corporation to maintain, operate, and solicit contributions
for a separate segregated fund.
``(D) Voter registration drives, State and precinct
organizing on behalf of candidates and committees of
political parties, and get-out-the-vote campaigns.
``(2) Identify candidate or cause.--For each of the
categories of information described in a subparagraph of
paragraph (1), the report shall identify the candidate for
public office on whose behalf disbursements were made or the
political cause or purpose for which the disbursements were
made.
``(3) Contributions and expenditures.--The report under
subsection (a) shall also list all contributions or
expenditures made by separated segregated funds established
and maintained by each labor organization or corporation.
``(d) Time to Make Reports.--A report required under
subsection (a) shall be submitted not later than January 30
of the year beginning after the end of the election cycle
that is the subject of the report.
``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Election cycle.--The term `election cycle' means,
with respect to an election, the period beginning on the day
after the date of the previous general election for Federal
office and ending on the date of the next general election
for Federal office.
``(2) Political activity.--The term `political activity'
means--
``(A) voter registration activity;
``(B) voter identification or get-out-the-vote activity;
``(C) a public communication that refers to a clearly
identified candidate for Federal office and that expressly
advocates support for or opposition to a candidate for
Federal office; and
``(D) disbursements for television or radio broadcast time,
print advertising, or polling for political activities.''
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to say a few words on the
task at hand, namely reforming our campaign finance laws and doing it
within the contours of the First Amendment of our Constitution. I fully
appreciate that the issue of campaign finance is of growing concern to
the American electorate and has already played an important role in the
recent election. And I commend my colleagues, Senators McCain and
Feingold for their bold leadership in an effort to address the public
perception that our political system may be corrupt. At this time, I
will simply explain the limitations we all face in this endeavor.
Limitations imposed by the cherished First Amendment of our
constitution. During the course of the coming days, I will more
specifically address the underlying legislation, and where in my
analysis of the law it falls short of meeting minimal constitutional
requirements. There are some bright lines drawn by the Supreme Court on
this issue and I will get to that.
The Founders of our country certainly understood the link between
free elections and liberty. Representative government--with the consent
of the people registered in periodic elections--was--to these prescient
leaders of the new nation--the primary protection of natural or
fundamental rights. As Thomas Jefferson put it in the Declaration of
Independence, to secure rights ``Governments are instituted among Men''
and must derive ``their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.''
That freedom of speech and press was considered by Madison to be
vital in assuring that the electorate receives accurate information
about political candidates was demonstrated by his vehement arguments
against the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1800. The Sedition Act, of
course, in effect, made it a crime to criticize government or
government officials. Its passage was a black mark on our history.
Although the exact meaning or parameters of the First Amendment are
not clear, a thorough reading of Supreme Court jurisprudence provides
constructive guides for us in Congress.
Political speech is necessarily intertwined with electoral speech,
particularly the right of the people in election cycles to criticize or
support their government. Indeed, the form of government established by
the Constitution is uniquely intertwined with freedom of speech. The
very structure of the Constitution itself establishes a representative
democracy, which many observers, including myself, find to be a form of
government that would be meaningless without freedom to discuss
government and its policies.
To get to the heart of the matter being discussed today, I want to
turn to the seminal Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo.
In short, Buckley and its progeny stand for the following
propositions: (1) money is speech; that is, electoral contributions and
expenditures are entitled to First Amendment protection; (2)
contributions are entitled to less protection than expenditures because
they create the appearance of corruption or quid pro quos; (3) express
advocacy is entitled to less deference than issue advocacy; (4)
corporate donations and corporate express advocacy expenditures may be
restricted; (5) political party independent expenditures may not be
restricted at least if not connected to a campaign; and (6)
restrictions on soft money are probably unconstitutional because soft
money does not create the same problem of corruption from quid pro quos
that contributions bring. I will explain these further.
To understand why certain recent campaign finance reform measures,
such as the well-intentioned McCain-Feingold bill, infringe on free
speech and free elections, it is necessary to survey the Supreme
Court's decisions on campaign finance reform and the problems it brings
to free speech. The granddaddy of these cases is Buckley v. Valeo, 424
U.S. 1 (1976). Buckley established the free speech paradigm in which to
weigh the competing campaign reform proposals.
As my colleagues know well, two decades ago, in the wake of the
Watergate scandal, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act,
or FECA. The Act imposed a comprehensive scheme of limitations on the
amount of money that can be given and spent in political campaigns.
FECA capped contributions made to candidates and their campaigns, as
well as expenditures made to effect public issues, including those that
arise in a campaign. The Act also required public disclosure of money
raised and spent in federal elections.
The Supreme Court in Buckley upheld against a First Amendment
challenge the limitation on contributions but not the limitations on
expenditures. The Court reasoned that contributions implicated only
limited
[[Page 4184]]
free speech interests because contributions merely facilitated the
speech of others, i.e., candidates. Crucial to the Court's analysis was
its belief that limiting contributions was a legitimate governmental
interest in preventing ``corruption'' or the ``appearance of
corruption'' because such limitations would help prevent any single
donor from gaining a disproportionate influence with the elected
official--the so-called ``quid pro quo'' effect. A similar interest
justified mandatory public disclosure of political contributions above
minimal amounts.
But Buckley reasoned that expenditures of money by the candidate or
others outside the campaign did not implicate the same governmental
interests because expenditures relate directly to free speech and are
less likely to exert a quid pro quo. Therefore, to the Court,
limitations on expenditures could not be justified on any anti-
corruption rationale. Nor could they be justified by a theory--popular
in radical circles--that limitations on expenditures, particularly on
the wealthy or powerful, equalize relative speaking power and ensure
that the voices of the masses will be heard.
The Court viewed such governmental attempts at balance as an
abomination to free speech and held that this justification for
restraints on expenditures was ``wholly foreign to the First
Amendment.'' It seems to me that such ``balance'' is, in reality, a
form of suppression of certain viewpoints, a position that flies in the
face of Justice Holmes' notion that the First Amendment prohibits
suppression of ideas because truth can only be determined in the
``marketplace'' of competing ideas.
Significantly, the Supreme Court in Buckley held that any campaign
finance limitations apply only to ``communications that in express
terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate
for federal office.'' As we have heard before, a footnote to the
opinion elaborated on what has later been termed ``express advocacy.''
To the Court, communications that fall under FECA's purview must
contain ``magic words'' like ``vote for'' or ``elect'' or ``support''
or ``Smith for Congress'' or ``vote against'' or ``defeat'' or
``reject.'' Communications without these electoral advocacy terms have
subsequently almost always been classified by courts as ``issue
advocacy'' entitled to full First Amendment strict scrutiny protection.
One important underpinning of the Buckley Court's view of the
relationship between the freedom of speech and elections is that money
equates with speech. The Court in a fit of pragmatism recognized that
effective speech requires money in the market place to compete.
But beyond looking at the purpose of campaign finance laws, it is
clear that restrictions on political spending have the result of
limiting the amount and effectiveness of speech. Let me borrow
Professor Sullivan's example of a law restricting the retail price of a
book to no more than twenty dollars. To Justice Steven such a law is
about money and not about a particular book. But does not such a law
limit the amount and effectiveness of speech because it creates a
disincentive to write and publish such books. The Supreme Court has, as
Professor Sullivan pointed out, repeatedly held that financial
disincentives to specific content-based speech, just as much as direct
prohibitions on such speech, trigger strict First Amendment review.
And I must emphasize that restrictions on campaign contributions and
expenditures cannot be justified as content neutral regulation. The
Buckley Court rejected the example given by defenders of the
regulations at hand that spending and contribution limits are similar
to limiting the decibel level on a sound truck and do not stop the
truck from broadcasting. The Court rejected that analogy because, to
the Court, decibel limits aim at protecting the eardrums of the closest
listener, not at preventing the sound truck from reaching a larger
audience. To the Court, unlike decibel limits, limits on campaign
expenditures and contributions do restrict the communicative
effectiveness of speech. The Court was right.
Buckley's other key underpinning is its ``strict scrutiny"
justification of the restrictions on direct contributions to campaigns
as needed to combat ``corruption'' and the ``appearance of
corruption''--in other words ``quid pro quo'' exchanges. This has been
criticized by the congressional reformers not as over-inclusive, but
ironically as under-inclusive. I believe the underlying bill goes much
further than Buckley.
If Buckley v. Valeo established the skeleton of First Amendment
protection of the electoral process from onerous regulation, Buckley's
progeny filled in the flesh. Let me mention a few of the main cases.
In First National Bank v. Bellotti, decided in 1978, the Supreme
Court reaffirmed its view in Buckley that expenditures for issues are
directly related to expression of political ideas and are, thus, on a
higher plane of constitutional values requiring the strictest of
scrutiny. Bellotti found a Massachusetts law that prohibited
``corporations from making contributions or expenditures for the
purpose of . . . influencing or affecting the vote on any question
submitted to the voters'' unconstitutional because it infringed both
(1) the First Amendment right of the corporations to engage in issue
advocacy and, (2) the First Amendment right of citizens to ``public
access to discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and
ideas.''
Bellotti did not involve restrictions on corporate donations to
candidates. The Court distinguished between portions of the law
``prohibiting or limiting corporate contributions to political
candidates or committees, or other means of influencing candidate
elections''--which were not challenged-- and provisions ``prohibiting
contributions and expenditures for the purpose of influencing . . .
questions submitted to voters,'' i.e., issue advocacy. The Court
explained that the concern that justified the former ``was the problem
of corruption of elected representatives through creation of political
debts'' and that the latter ``presents no comparable problem'' because
it involved contributions and expenditures that would be used for issue
advocacy rather than communication that expressly advocate the election
or defeat of a candidate.
In Citizens Against Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing v.
Berkeley, the Court once again gave full panoply of protection to
expenditures linked to communication of ideas. In this case the Court
invalidated a city ordinance that limited to $250 contributions to
committees formed solely to support or oppose ballot measures submitted
to popular vote. The Court held that it is an impairment of freedom of
expression to place limits on contributions which in turn directly
limit expenditures used to communicate political ideas, without a
showing of the ``corruption'' element laid out in Buckley.
In Federal Election Commission v. National Conservative Political
Action Committee, the Court once again relied on Buckley's distinction
between expenditures and contributions, with the former receiving full
first amendment protection. The Court invalidated a section of the
Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act which made it a criminal
offense for an independent political committee or PAC to spend more
than $1000 to further the election of a Presidential candidate who
elects to receive public funding. The Court held that the PAC's
independent expenditures were constitutionally protected because they
``produce speech at the core of the first amendment.''
One year later, in Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts
Citizens for Life, Inc., decided in 1986, the Supreme Court clarified
the distinction between issue and express advocacy, holding that an
expenditure must constitute express advocacy in order to be subject to
FECA's prohibition against the use of corporate treasury funds to make
an expenditure ``in connection with'' any Federal election. In this
case, the Court held that a publication urging voters to vote for
``pro-life'' candidates, that the publication identified, fell into the
category of express advocacy. But the Court refused to apply FECA's
prohibition in this case to MCFL--Massachusetts Citizens for
[[Page 4185]]
Life, Inc.--because the organization was not a business organization.
The Court noted that ``[g]roups such as MCFL . . . do not pose . . .
danger of corruption. MCFL was formed to disseminate political ideas,
not to amass capital.''
Just 5 years ago, the Supreme Court, in Colorado Republican Federal
Campaign Committee v. FEC addressed the issue of whether party ``hard
money'' used to purchase an advertising campaign attacking the other
party's likely candidate, but uncoordinated with its own party's
nominee's campaign, fell within FECA's restrictions on party
expenditures. A fractured Court agreed that applying FECA's restriction
to the expenditures in question violated the first amendment.
A plurality of the Court--Justices Breyer, O'Connor, and Souter--
based their holding on the theory that the expenditure at hand had to
be treated as an independent expenditure entitled to first amendment
protection, not as a ``coordinated'' expenditure or express advocacy,
which may be restricted. It is significant to note that Justice Thomas,
joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia, concurred in the
judgment, but would abolish Buckley's distinction between protected
expenditures and unprotected contributions, believing that both
implicated core expression central to the first amendment.
As a plurality of the Court noted, because any soft money used to
fund a Federal campaign must comport with the contribution limits
already in place, soft money does not result in the actuality or the
appearance of quid pro quo ``corruption'' warranting intrusions on core
free speech protected by the first amendment. In any event, it is my
view that such soft money activities such as voter registration drives,
voter identification, and get-out-the-vote drives, as well as
communication with voters that do not fall within express advocacy, are
protected by the first amendment's freedom of association--the right to
freely associate with a party, union, or association--as well as by
free speech.
Finally, there is the very recent case of Nixon, just last year. I
remember that when this case was decided, proponents of so-called
campaign finance reform gloated that this case supported their
positions. In my view, all the case did was extend Buckley's
restrictions on contributions to State campaign finance laws. The Court
rejected a challenge to Missouri's contribution restriction as too
limited because it did not take into account inflation. The Court held
that Buckley demonstrated the dangers of corruption stemming from
contributions and that there was sufficient evidence in the record to
support the conclusion that Missouri's campaign contribution limit
addressed the appearance of corruption. The case did not address the
issues of independent expenditures, issue advocacy, or soft money
expenditures.
As I noted at the outset, Buckley and its progeny stand for the
following propositions: No. 1, money is speech; that is, electoral
contributions and expenditures are entitled to first amendment
protection; No. 2, contributions are entitled to less protection than
expenditures because they create the appearance of corruption or quid
pro quos; No. 3, express advocacy is entitled to less deference than
issue advocacy; No. 4, corporate donations and corporate express
advocacy expenditures may be restricted; No. 5, political party
independent expenditures may not be restricted at least if not
connected to a campaign; and, No. 6, restrictions on soft money are
probably unconstitutional because soft money does not create the same
problem of corruption from quid pro quos that contributions bring.
I am concerned that the practical result of the limitation on
contributions is that candidates must seek contributions from a larger
set of donors. This means that candidates are spending a greater amount
of time raising money than would otherwise be the case. This is
aggravated by the need for a lot of money in general to compete in
American elections, given our large electoral districts, statewide
elections, and weak political parties, which require candidates to fund
direct communications to the electorate. The rising costs of elections
are further aggravated by the rising importance of expensive television
advertising and the use of political consultants, with their reliance
on polling and focus groups. Elections have become a money chase.
Ironically, this is the major complaint of the reformers. Their
initial FECA reforms have caused the problems they are now complaining
about. First, PAC money, and now soft money, are the result of
limitations on contributions. Let's not kid ourselves. Like pressurized
gas, money will always find a crevice of escape. In other words, money
will always find a loophole. All that the FECA and courts have
accomplished is to encourage the substitution of contributions to
candidates for contributions and expenditures made to and by
organizations such as political parties or advocacy groups. These
organizations are less accountable to the voter. The net result is the
growth of yet another huge government bureaucracy to police an
inherently unworkable scheme.
Furthermore, if one believes, as I do, the efficacy of Justice
Holmes' free speech model of a ``marketplace of competing ideas,'' it
is impermissible to drown out or even ban corporate speech or the
speech of the wealthy, as some advocate. If the remedy for ``bad''
speech is not censorship, but ``more'' speech, then the remedy for
corporate speech is likewise not censorship, but more noncorporate
speech.
It should be obvious that in the electoral sphere the wealthy and
powerful have no monopoly over speech. This is not analogous to Turner
Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, where the Court in part upheld the
congressional requirement that cable operators carry a certain
percentage of local broadcasting of local programs on their lines
because cables' monopoly power choked the broadcast competitors. Unlike
the open access rule in that case, limitations on contributions offer
no guarantee that the market power of speech will be redistributed from
the wealthy to the poor. Such spending limits will not stop wealthy
candidates like Ross Perot from spending personal wealth or the rich
from influencing mass media through direct ownership or through the
purchase of advertisements. Surely, no one would advocate that we
attach an income test to the first amendment.
The wealthy will always have substitutes for electoral speech.
Moreover, the success of the labor unions and voluntary associations as
competitors in the market place of ideas demonstrate that limitations
on contributions from the wealthy and on corporate speech are
unnecessary.
In my view, a far better, though, admittedly not perfect, solution--
one that I believe is both workable and is consistent with the dictates
of the first amendment--is a campaign system that requires complete
disclosure of funds contributed to candidates or used to finance
express advocacy by independent associations, political parties,
corporations, unions, or individual in connection with an election.
A system of complete disclosure would bring the disinfectant of
sunshine to the system. The Democrats will audit the Republicans and
the Republicans will scrutinize the Democrats. And outside public
interest groups and the media will police both. The winner will be the
public. They will be able to make their own assessments. As I have said
before, one man's greedy special interest is another man's organization
fighting for truth and justice.
To the extent that our campaign finance laws require updating, we
need to find a constitutionally sound manner of doing so. We need to
proceed with care and caution when acting on legislation that would
have the impact of regulating freedom or of placing government at the
center of determining what is acceptable election speech and what is
not. And, we need to pass legislation that, above all, keeps the power
of American elections where it rightfully belongs--in the hands of the
voters themselves.
Let me again commend my friends, Senators McCain and Feingold, for
their leadership on this issue. Without
[[Page 4186]]
their efforts and tenacity and pushing this issue, we probably would
not be discussing this important matter. They deserve a lot of credit.
Even though I disagree and have done so very publicly, I still have a
lot of respect for my two colleagues.
It is important to publicly air these issues, especially given the
unfortunate perception of the problems in Washington.
We can achieve needed reform here. Such reform lies in expanded
disclosures. With free and open disclosure of contributions, the public
will be fully able to decide for itself what is legitimate. I look
forward to helping my colleagues in achieving reforms that will be
constitutional and effective.
Today, I rise to introduce an amendment as a substitute to section
304 of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform bill of 2001.
Thomas Jefferson, in 1779, wrote that ``to compel a man to furnish
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he
disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.'' That was true then,
and it remains true today.
As I will discuss later, section 304 of the McCain-Feingold bill that
purports to be a ``Beck'' fix is wholly inadequate. Thus, I rise today
to protect the rights of working men and women in this country to be
able to decide for themselves which political causes they wish to
support.
Some will choose to make this a complicated issue by arguing the
intricacies of the Supreme Court Case, Communications Workers of
America v. Beck, but it is really quite straight forward--it's about
fairness. In certain states, as a condition of employment, there are
requirements to join or pay dues to a labor organization. Let me make
clear at the outset that I am a strong supporter of collective
bargaining when employees voluntarily choose to be represented by a
labor organization.
But I seriously doubt that even one of my colleagues would suggest
that the Government should force any American to speak in favor of
causes in which he or she does not believe. Yet, we as Members of the
U.S. Senate, currently stand by and allow our friends and constituents
to be forced into speech because of their compulsory financial
relationship with a union.
I would like to know which of my colleagues would support any
provision of law that would mandate an individual's financial
involvement in a practice that was fundamentally at variance with their
own beliefs. I dare say that there would not be many Members from
either side of the aisle who would advocate the arbitrary usurpation of
fundamental freedoms like that of speech. But this is exactly what
happens to our union members and dues paying non-members.
Individuals who belong to or are represented by labor unions
financially commit themselves to causes and candidates that may be
completely against their own. We force individuals to subvert their
rights of political expression to those of the unions.
My amendment is quite simple and straightforward. It has two parts:
Part one requires a labor organization to obtain ``separate, prior,
written, voluntary authorization'' before assessing ``any dues
initiation fee, or other payment if any part of such dues, fee, or
other payment will be used for political activities''. Part two
requires that a labor organization disclose to its membership how it
has allocated and spent the portion of a members or nonmembers dues and
fees that went to political activity.
Nothing can be more fair than to inform working men and women which
causes they are supporting. It is just that simple.
Let me also point out to my colleagues that this amendment also
covers individuals who are shareholders in a corporation. It requires
that a corporation gain prior consent from its shareholders before
spending resources from the corporation's general treasury on political
activity. It also requires that a corporation disclose to its
shareholders which political activity it contributes to. This amendment
places corporations and labor organizations on equal ground and levels
the playing field.
I feel that it is important to note that there is a fundamental
difference between the compulsory way that a labor organization
assesses its dues and fees from members and nonmembers and the
completely voluntary manner a shareholder opts into purchasing stock.
But in past debates, my colleagues from the other side of the aisle
have cried foul and claimed that treating labor and corporations
differently wasn't fair. Well we now have an amendment that takes care
of that particular concern.
It is simply imperative and pretty basic that union should obtain
consent to use the funds they receive prior to any use other than for
collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance
adjustment. After all, if consent is to mean anything, then it must be
received before the money is spent. After the fact is simply too late
and means no consent was given for the ``activity.'' Let me state it
again because I think this fact is vital to creating a fair and
meaningful fix to this problem--effective consent must be given before
the funds are used.
My amendment is a commonsense solution to an important problem
pertinent to the lives of many Americans. The solution--consent before
spending.
I said that real consent is prior consent. Let me give you an
example. The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act
of 1999--better known as the Digital Signature Act--legalized digital
electronic contracts. The act allows an individual to enter into a
binding contract without ever having to leave the comfort of his home
through the use of a so-called digital signature.
When the Digital Signature Act was first introduced, many of my
Democratic colleagues had serious reservations about it. They argued
that the bill lacked basic, but extremely important, consumer
protection provisions. They argued that the bill must include effective
consumer consent provisions. Critics of the bill worried that an
unsuspecting consumer might receive an unsolicited e-mail with the
inclusion of an electronic signature therefore making the contract
legally enforceable. To prevent this sort of unwanted solicitation of
business, many of my Democratic colleagues advocated that a consumer
must first consent to receive the contract electronically.
My amendment seeks to extend similar rights to workers that the
Digital Signature Act granted consumers. We should allow workers the
same fundamental rights that my Democratic colleagues demanded be
granted to individuals who enter in a contact over the Internet.
We must allow America's working men and women these very fundamental
rights. American workers should have the right to have meaningful and
informed consent over the expenditure of their dues, fees, or payment
made to their union. Without these rights we are in essence creating
different classes of society--those who are free to determine which
political groups they will support and those who are not.
I hope that my colleagues will agree with me that the standards for
meaningful and informed consent we extended to consumers under the
Digital Signature Act must also be provided to workers and
shareholders. We must allow workers to consent to the use of their
union dues on any expenditures other than collective bargaining,
contract administration, or grievance. This consent must be provided in
a manner that verifies the workers or shareholder's capacity to access
clear and conspicuous information of their rights, receive regular
disclosures of these expenditures, and maintain the right to revoke
their consent at any time.
Let me pause to ask a couple of questions. If your friend wants to
borrow your car, shouldn't he ask beforehand? If he doesn't, then it's
a crime. Wouldn't it be odd to have a system in place that requires you
to lend the car and then file a form for its return? Why should the
unions be allowed to take from the people who pay dues without getting
their consent first? By adopting this amendment, we can help all
[[Page 4187]]
Americans. It is fairer and more equitable to obtain consent before the
dues are spent. That is the right way of doing things.
Unions have the right, like any other organization, to spend the dues
and fees it collects for purposes such as campaigns, issue ads, and a
host of additional political and other activities. I support their
right. What is disconcerting about the current situation is that many
employees who are effectively forced to pay dues and fees may disagree
with the positions taken and not wish to support them.
Now some have suggested that section 304 takes care of the so called
Beck problems and codifies Beck.
Unfortunately, the proposed section 304 of the McCain-Feingold bill
does not require prior consent. Nor does it codify the Beck decision,
as it purports to do. Section 304 is far narrower than the holding in
Beck. The Supreme Court clearly held in Beck that any expenditures
outside of collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance
adjustment must be returned to the non-union employee upon request of
the objecting employee. However, section 304 only prohibits unions from
using non-union employee dues for ``political activities unrelated to
collective bargaining''--an ambiguous phrase that is not defined in
that section.
Because section 304 is so narrowly drafted, it would allow unions to
use non-union dues for soft money non-collective bargaining
expenditures, such as get-out-the-vote campaigns and other political
activities, by simply avoiding the label ``political.'' By masquerading
the activity as one for ``educational purposes,'' a union could use
dues for blatantly political activities such as informing union members
on what pro-union stand political candidates take.
Again, I recognize the unions' right to engage in any political
activity that they find appropriate. The more political speech the
better as far as I'm concerned. But, we need to protect the fundamental
right of the workers to know that activities and what type of issues
their money is being used for, and the ability for them to decide if
they wish to support the activity.
Mr. President, the American worker faces a hidden tax at just the
moment the worker cannot afford it. And the American worker has less
say in where his money goes to than just about any group. In fact, an
argument can be made that section 304 of the McCain-Feingold bill
actually does the exact opposite of what its intentions are.
Under current law, dues paying non members may object to the use of
portion of their dues that is spent for purposes other than or non-
essential to collective bargaining. If the McCain-Feingold bill were to
pass, those same dues-paying-non-members would only be permitted to
object to use of the portion of their dues spent only for ``political
purposes unrelated to collective bargaining.'' This difference might
sound subtle but is anything but.
Mr. President, my amendment is a modest measure of fundamental
fairness. It embodies a very simple concept--fairness. American's men
and women work hard every day. They have earned the right to know how
their money is being spent for certain political purposes, causes, and
activities. The disclosure and second part of this amendment does
nothing more than require a report by labor organizations to be filed
with the Federal Election Commission and given to workers represented
by unions, showing how much of their union dues and fees are being
spent on the political process.
I have to say that this amendment does not impose overly burdensome
or onerous requirements on the unions. This is basic information, and
it should be freely provided. I cannot believe that the union
leadership have a legitimate interest in keeping secret what political
causes and activities employee dues and fees are being spent to
support. If employees learn how their money is being spent in the
political process, unions will enjoy an even greater confidence level
in their decision making.
With the addition of this amendment to the McCain-Feingold bill we
will ensure that every American is treated equally under the law and
extended the rights and freedoms that are fundamental under the
Constitution. I urge my colleagues to thoughtfully consider this
amendment and vote for its passage.
I reserve the remainder of any time I may have remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Who yields time?
Mr. DODD. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North
Carolina, Mr. Edwards.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support
for the McCain-Feingold bill, to add my encouragement and praise for
all the hard work done by Senators McCain and Feingold, and to say how
important this issue is to our democracy, to our Government, and to the
American people.
I would not presume to suggest to my colleagues who serve with me in
the Senate that I have any more knowledge about the way the political
financing system in this country works than they do. They are all
experts at it. What I say is that this debate is not about us. Instead,
it is about the people we were sent here to represent.
I have heard, both in the media and in the course of the debate, lots
of discussion about some strategic advantage that may flow to one
party, or one Senator or another, as a result of this bill. What I say
about that argument is that thirty years from now, the American people
will not judge what we do in these 2 weeks based upon some transitory,
strategic advantage that one party or another may gain as a result of
the McCain-Feingold bill. Instead, they are going to judge us based on
what we did for our Government, for our democracy, and what we did to
allow voters, ordinary Americans, to once again believe they have some
ownership in this democracy. That ultimately is what it is all about.
I say to colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, that whatever in
the long term is good for our democracy is good for either the
Democratic or the Republican Party. I think that is the test we should
use in making judgments about what ought to be done.
During the course of my time in the Senate, I have held many townhall
meetings around North Carolina, and over and over I hear the same
refrain--folks believe that they no longer have a voice in their own
democracy and, as a result, they don't feel any ownership in this
Government. So Washington is some faraway place, and they don't think
they do anything to help them. They think it is just some bureaucratic
institution that has nothing to do with their day-to-day lives. More
important, they feel impotent to do anything about it.
The folks I grew up with in smalltown North Carolina, oddly enough,
think if somebody writes a $300,000 or $500,000 check to a political
party, or for a particular election, when they go to the polls and
vote, their voices will not be equally heard. I think that is just good
common sense, and there is a reason people think that way. This is an
issue we need to do something about. A lot of it is perception but
perception matters. It really matters when people believe this isn't
their Government. It is their democracy; it belongs to them, not to
some special interest group, and not to the people who are up here
representing them. In fact, it belongs to the American people.
A couple of examples, Mr. President: We are in the process right now
of trying to pass an HMO reform bill. Senator McCain, Senator Kennedy,
and I, and Congressmen Norwood, Dingell, and Ganske on the House side
have introduced the same bill. Our legislation, which provides basic
patient protection rights to every single American who is covered by
insurance or HMOs, is supported by every health insurance group that
has been fighting for patient protection for the last 5 years. The only
people we have been able to identify on the other side are the big HMOs
and insurance companies.
Unfortunately, the big HMOs and insurance companies are very well
represented in Washington, and their
[[Page 4188]]
voice is heard loudly and clearly. It is really important for the voice
of the American people to be heard on issues such as basic patient
rights. Then I read in the newspaper today that at least it appears
there is going to be some pulling back of the regulation of arsenic in
drinking water. These are the kinds of things that, when folks around
the country see them, cause them concern, and they particularly cause
concern--even though they may not see a direct relationship--they
particularly cause them to be worried when they know the way political
campaigns are financed in this country, and they know that lots of
huge, unregulated soft money contributions are being made to political
campaigns in every election cycle.
So the question is, What do we do to return power in this democracy
to where it started and made our country so great and where it belongs
today?
We are trying to do two basic things in this bill. One is to ban soft
money--we talked about it at length--these unregulated, totally
uncontrolled contributions made by special interests, corporations,
many different groups, and individuals.
The simple answer is, it ought to be banned, and it ought to be
banned today. We will talk at length later about constitutional issues,
but it is black and white to anyone who has read Buckley v. Valeo and
specifically applies the analysis of that case to a soft money ban.
There is absolutely no question that a ban on soft money is
constitutional under Buckley v. Valeo. We will talk about that at
length at a later time.
The second issue is these bogus sham issue ads. In addition to the
fact folks see all this money flowing into the system, they feel
cynical, they feel they do not own their Government anymore, and that
they have no voice in democracy.
In addition to that, they turn on their televisions in the last 2
months before an election and see mostly hateful, negative, personal
attack ads posing as issue ads. Any normal American with any common
sense knows these are pure campaign ads. Those are the ads we are
trying to stop.
Senator Snowe actually said it very well when she said these ads are
a masquerade. In fact, they are more than a masquerade, they are a
sham, they are a fraud on the American people, and they are nothing but
a means to avoid the legitimate election laws of this country.
We are trying to put an end to these so-called issue ads that are
nothing but campaign ads. It is another issue that needs to be
addressed. All this--these issue ads that are nothing but sham ads,
really campaign ads, unregulated flow of soft money into campaigns--all
this is about a very simple thing. It is not about us. It is not about
the people in Washington. It is not about the people in this Congress.
It is about the people we were sent to represent. We need to be able to
say 20, 30 years from now when we are not around anymore--at least some
of us will not be around anymore--we need to be able to say to our
children and our families that we did the right thing; we did what was
best for the country, and we did what was best for the democracy.
We will talk about this issue later, but it is also clear that Snowe-
Jeffords, under the constitutional test established in Buckley v.
Valeo, is constitutional. There are only two requirements that have to
be met: One, that there be compelling State interest under Buckley. The
Court has already held that what we are doing in these sham issue ads
and with soft money is a compelling State interest because of the need
to avoid corruption or, more importantly, in this case, the appearance
of corruption.
Second, the legislation has to be narrowly tailored. That has been
interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to mean it is not too broad, not
substantially overbroad. Snowe-Jeffords does exactly that. It is very
narrowly tailored. Two months before the general election, it requires
the likeness of the candidate or the name of the candidate to be used
and only applies to broadcast ads.
The empirical evidence shows very clearly that something around 1
percent of the ads are not covered by that, actually issue ads that
fall within that category. Ninety-nine percent of the ads in the last
election cycle, in fact, were campaign ads.
What that empirical evidence supports is the notion that not only
does it appear that Snowe-Jeffords is narrowly tailored, in fact, the
overwhelming evidence is that it is narrowly tailored, which is exactly
what the Buckley U.S. Supreme Court decision required. We will talk
about this later as we discuss these various provisions.
The bottom line is, both the soft money ban and Snowe-Jeffords are
constitutional and meet the constitutional requirements of Buckley v.
Valeo.
In conclusion, I thank the Senators who have worked so hard on this
issue for so long. I say to my colleagues, I hope that instead of
focusing on some strategic advantage that a particular campaign may
have, or a particular political party may have, that instead we will
focus on what is best for democracy and what is best for the American
people.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains on the opponents'
side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opponents have 80 minutes.
Mr. DODD. I yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Arizona, the
author of the underlying bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hatch for a valiant
attempt at trying to balance this problem about so-called paycheck
protection and corporations. Unfortunately, he is not having any more
success than we did when we attempted to try to strike that balance as
well.
The bill, very briefly, strikes our codification of the Beck
provision. It has no regulatory mechanism, and it has no methodology
for who would enforce it and how.
It says in his amendment that ``expressly advocate support for
opposition to a candidate.'' What does that mean?
It talks about as far as corporations are concerned, ``use funds from
its general treasury for the purpose of political activity.'' What is
the general treasury? The stock market value? The cash on hand? The
money that is being disbursed?
This, unfortunately, is an amendment which clearly cannot adequately
define what a stockholder's involvement is. Again, suppose a
stockholder said his or her stock money could not be used and then, of
course, the stock is split or the stock is sold or there is a reduction
in the amount of the budget. Who gets what money? Who regulates it?
Very frankly, I am in sympathy with the Senator from Utah because we
tried to address this issue. It is just well nigh impossible and
certainly is not addressed in any kind of parity or specificity in this
amendment.
Mr. President, I will be moving to table this amendment at the
appropriate time. I would like to work with the Senator from Utah to
see how we can obtain some kind of parity, although I point out, as I
said before, the paycheck protection in this permission or
nonpermission really is not what this campaign finance reform is all
about because if you ban the soft money; you ban the corporate check;
you ban the union check; you ban the union leader from giving a
million-dollar check; you ban the corporate leader from giving the
check. When you ban soft money, then all they can do is give a $1,000
check for themselves or $1,000 from their friends.
Later on, I am sure there will be some specific questions about the
language in this bill. It is nonspecific, it is unenforceable, and it
is in such an amorphous state, very frankly, it is meaningless. I
believe my time has expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. I intend to speak about this
amendment at some future point in the debate. In the meantime, I
recognize my friend and colleague from Massachusetts. How much time
does he need? Fifteen minutes?
[[Page 4189]]
Mr. KENNEDY. If I can start with 15 minutes.
Mr. DODD. I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to ask my friend and colleague
from Utah some questions, if he will be good enough to answer some
questions.
Since 99.7 percent of American for-profit corporations are privately
held, how does this amendment apply to them?
Mr. HATCH. It applies to every corporation.
Mr. KENNEDY. It cannot because you refer to those that have
stockholders, page 2. Since 99 percent of the corporations do not have
them, then they are not covered.
Mr. HATCH. I do not know a corporation that does not have
stockholders, whether they be private or public.
Mr. KENNEDY. I am telling you they do not, so effectively your
amendment does not apply to the 99.7 percent under your definition.
We always get these amendments maybe a half an hour beforehand.
In our review, the Senator's amendment excludes 99.7 percent of all
corporations.
Another question I have----
Mr. HATCH. Can I answer the Senator, since he asked the question?
Mr. KENNEDY. These are of the businesses----
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield so I can answer his question?
Mr. KENNEDY. OK.
Mr. HATCH. My amendment covers every corporation. There are a lot of
private corporations, but they are still corporations.
Let's face it. The major thrust of my amendment is towards public
corporations which has been complained of from time to time by Senators
on both sides of the aisle. I am trying to cover both unions and
corporations so we have an equal protection program.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator may be attempting, but that is not what the
language says.
On page 2, it says under ``Prohibition.--Except with the separate,
prior, written, voluntary authorization of a stockholder, in case of a
corporation''--and once we have 99 percent of the businesses, according
to Dun & Bradstreet, not covered by the stockholders, they are even, by
mere definition, excluded.
Last week more than 6.7 billion shares were traded in the New York
Stock Exchange. How were those covered? Would the Senator's amendment
apply to just the stockholders included last week?
Mr. HATCH. My amendment would cover the stockholders who existed on
the day the request for the expenditures was made.
Mr. KENNEDY. In your amendment, you talk about cycle; you don't talk
about day. A cycle is generally referred, under the Federal Election
Commission, to be the whole 2-year-period. We are talking about these
transitions in terms of stockholders just from 1 day. I am wondering
how the permission for stockholders would be met in those
circumstances.
Mr. HATCH. We are talking about violations of the Federal Election
Campaign Act. The FEC would have the job of determining the regulations
applicable under the circumstances. The amendment is quite clear what
we are trying to get after; that is, trying to give stockholders and
union members a right to have some say in the way unions spend, in the
case of unions, and corporations, in the way corporations spend on
behalf of shareholders.
Mr. KENNEDY. It is the position of Senators McCain and Feingold that
is done under the codification of the Beck decision in the first place.
You talk about the parity between corporations and unions. Yet on
page 3 you say ``for any corporation described in this section to use
funds from its general treasury.'' So you are talking about the use of
funds by corporations.
But on the other hand, if it is a labor organization, you are talking
about collecting or assessing such employees' dues or initiation fees
or other payments. On the one hand, you require one criteria for
corporations for expenditures, and on the other hand, for the unions,
you have an entirely different definition.
Can you explain why you favor corporations in your language to the
disadvantage of unions? Why do we have such a disparity in this when
you tried to represent to the Senate that you are trying to be
evenhanded?
Mr. HATCH. What are we talking about?
Mr. KENNEDY. Would you look at this language and tell me if I am
wrong? I think it is very important. You are representing this is
evenhanded. This is not evenhanded. We want to understand why it isn't
evenhanded or the Senator should admit it isn't, if you are trying
effectively to gut the representatives of working families.
Mr. HATCH. I don't think the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts
is wrong in what he is saying. I don't think you are wrong in your
interpretation of the language, but the bill treats the union members
and their dues in the separate context of shareholders and their value
in a corporation.
The regulations will have to be set by the Federal Election
Commission pursuant to this amendment. It is equal in treatment because
what we are trying to do is give the shareholders in the case of
corporations a right to have some say in how the assets of a
corporation are used, in proportion to their shares in a corporation.
Naturally, these situations are not analogous, and for the union
member, how the dues of the union member are spent by the unions.
The Senator's characterization of the McCain-Feingold language is
inaccurate, and I think I more than indicated that in my opening
remarks with regard to the Beck case. Actually, the McCain-Feingold
language narrows the Beck case.
Mr. KENNEDY. If I could reclaim my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what we are seeing very clearly is not
what is being stated by the Senator from Utah but what is included in
the language. That is what we are voting on. In the language of the
amendment, it is very clear on page 2 that in the case of a
corporation, to each of its shareholders, it is less than 2 percent of
all businesses that have shareholders.
For the shareholders, we see how the velocity of the transitions of
shareholders--we find there is a different criteria that is used for
unions, different from corporations.
On the first page, it talks about any corporation or labor
organization. Taking the case of a labor organization, it must submit a
written report for such cycle--that is 2 years; in the case of a labor
organization, to each employee. Now, that is to each employee. There
are 13 million members of the trade union movement. Those who are
members, of course, bargain. Several million more are covered,
generally, by political activity.
Listen to what they have to have for every individual. They will have
to receive a report from the organization. On page 4, what will be
included: ``Internal and external communications relating to''--it will
be interesting to hear the definition of what is related--``specific
candidates, political causes,''--this is a new word.
What in the world is a ``political cause''? Generally, a political
cause is in the eye of the beholder. What do they mean by political
cause?
They have to send to every employee--that is what this says--the
internal and external communications relating to specific candidates.
Who are specific candidates? What do we think are the specific
candidates? According to the Federal Election Commission, every Member
of Congress is defined as a candidate, 435 House Members, 100 Senators.
Any communication that is internal or external relating to--whatever
that means--political candidates, political causes and committees of
political parties.
If you don't, you have the criminal penalties included under the
Federal Elections Commission where people
[[Page 4190]]
can go to jail for failing to file these reports which are so
voluminous.
This amendment is poorly drafted. It doesn't even do what the
proponents of this amendment are attempting to do. It is one sided. It
is targeted. The aim of this proposal is very clear. It doesn't apply
to any of the other independent groups. It doesn't apply to the
National Rifle Association. They don't have to conform with it. The
Sierra Club doesn't have to; Right to Life doesn't have to. It is just
to corporations. But only less than 2 percent of the corporations have
to apply, and every union.
In terms of every activity or potential activity and every
expenditure for every member, not only at the national level, the State
level and local level have to get the reports. Every member has to get
the report. It is absolutely nonworkable.
Finally, what are these activities? On page 5, the term ``political
activity'' means voter registration activity. Many of us have tried to
encourage voter registration. In fact, labor unions are involved in
that. Not many companies or corporations are. I wish they would be.
Some of them have been, but they won't be any longer if this passes.
They won't be contributing to any local group, to the League of Women
Voters or other groups involved in voter registration activity because
if they do, they trigger all of these other kinds of participation.
The proponents of this understand who does the voter registration.
Who does it? It is labor unions. And they are included. Voter
identification or get-out-the-vote activity, who does that? Maybe the
Senator from Utah can list the number of corporations that are
involved. We know who does it. We might as well state it is directed
against union activity. They are the ones. I don't mean companies or
corporations. Even the ones that have shareholders--again, it is
targeted to who?--corporations? No, it is targeted to the labor union
and then public communication that refers to a clearly identified
candidate for Federal office and that expressly advocates support for
or opposition to a candidate.
Maybe there are some corporations, but primarily those are for
unions, again.
This is very clear, what is being stated here. Under the existing
Feingold-McCain bill, there is restatement of what the constitutional
holdings are at this time. It is effectively a restatement. There are
some who would like to change or alter those. But this is a very poor
attempt at trying to gain parity. We could take additional time to go
through the various provisions. I hope the Members will take that time.
We just received this at the time the Senator rose to speak. It is
poorly drafted, poorly constructed, and it does not do the job the
proponents want it to do.
Finally, I do think workers and those who represent workers and
unions should have a right to have their voices heard, to speak out on
these issues. The fact remains, we still have not had an opportunity to
vote on a minimum wage. I know there are many in this Chamber who hope
we never will have that opportunity; but we will, and we will have it
done pretty soon.
Then there is the Patients' Bill of Rights that workers support, and
we are having difficulty, given the fact that today the President of
the United States issued a message that if any of the proposals
currently before the Congress pass, he would veto each one of them.
We have seen what has happened in recent times with arsenic standards
being pulled back at the request of industry. We find out that the
CO2 standards are being pulled back at the request of
industry. We have other examples that are current on this score. We are
finding out the influence of the HMOs on the administration is
overpowering. It is not the voices of the workers or the families that
are tripping up this country, it is the special interests, the large,
powerful groups that are expending untold millions. By a ratio of
virtually 10 to 1 and 12 to 1, corporations are involved in outspending
the unions of this country. Nonetheless, we are faced at this time with
an attempt to try to emasculate that opportunity for their voices to be
heard. They are the voices for education. They are the voices for
health care. They are the voices for child care.
Those are the voices that I think we need to hear a lot more of, not
less.
To reiterate, I rise in opposition to this amendment, misleadingly
called the Paycheck Protection Act. It is nothing of the sort. Instead,
it is a blatant attempt to silence the voices of working families on
the most important issues our Nation faces today. It is an effort to
muzzle effective debate on critical legislation affecting the workers
of this country. It is not reform. It is revenge for the
extraordinarily successful efforts made by the unions to get out the
vote in the last election. The amendment is wrong and unfair. It is
undemocratic. It is most likely unconstitutional. I urge my colleagues
to vote against it.
Make no mistake about it. A vote for this amendment is a vote against
America's workers.
Supporters of this amendment claim that they are concerned about
union members' rights to choose whether and how to participate in the
political process. We know better. It is crystal clear that the real
agenda of those who support the pending amendment is not to protect
dissenting workers but to scuttle union participation in the political
process.
My friends across the aisle know that unions and their members are
among the most effective voices on issues of concern to workers,
including raising the minimum wage; ensuring the availability of health
insurance; protecting the balance between work and families; preserving
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; improving education; and
ensuring safety and health on the job. And unions help their members to
become active in the political process. As a result of union activity,
over two million union members registered to vote in just the last 4
years. In the last election, there were 4.8 million more union
household voters than in 1992. In fact, 26 percent of the voters in the
last election came from union households. This should surely be a
welcome development in a country that prides itself on fostering and
promoting a healthy democracy.
But my friends across the aisle do not welcome this development. They
want to do everything they can to keep workers from voting and from
participating in the political process. That is because they fear that
workers and those who represent workers' interests will defeat their
anti-labor agenda. Silencing the voices of working families will make
it easier for Republicans and their big-business friends to achieve
their anti-worker goals. Supporters of this amendment want to cut
workers' overtime pay and deny millions of workers an increase in the
minimum wage. They would end the 40-hour work week and permit sham,
company-dominated unions. They voted for this body's shameful repeal of
the Department of Labor's ergonomics rule, leaving workers unprotected
against the number one threat to health and safety in the workplace.
They oppose the Family and Medical Leave Act. They support privatizing
Social Security. They favor private school vouchers that take funds
away from our efforts to improve the public schools. They are not
trying to help working Americans. To the contrary, they want to gag
workers so that they can implement an aggressive agenda that workers
strongly oppose.
This is not paycheck protection. This is paycheck deception. And if
we adopt it, we will achieve our opponents' goals of disenfranchising
working families. This amendment would silence working families by
barring a union from collecting any dues or fees that are not related
to collective bargaining unless the union obtained a written permission
slip from each employee each year. It would require unions to create an
unnecessary, burdensome and expensive bureaucratic process. Unions
would have to create recordkeeping and filing systems for responses,
solicit approval from each covered employee every year, and constantly
recalculate the amounts they could spend on political activity--
activity that frequently requires immediate action. The AFL-CIO has
estimated that implementing a
[[Page 4191]]
paycheck deception provision would cost unions and their members
approximately $90 million in the first year and $27 million each year
thereafter. That is money taken away from workers' hard-earned benefits
and their pension plans.
This will, of course, hamper unions' ability to participate fully in
political and legislative battles. That is the primary purpose of this
bill. Handicapping unions in this way will also further skew the
drastic existing imbalances in our political system. A report issued
last fall by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics showed
that special business interests spent more than $1.2 billion in
political contributions in the last election cycle. These payments
swamped the contributions of working families through their unions,
which amounted to a total of only $90.3 million. That means big
business outspent labor unions by a ratio of 14 to 1.
The same report found that business outspent unions in ``soft money''
contributions by an even larger margin--17 to 1. The situation has
gotten worse over time, moreover. In the 1998 election cycle, according
to a previous report by the center, businesses outspent unions on
politics by only 11 to 1. In 1996, the gap was 10 to 1. In 1992, it was
9 to 1.
These ever-widening disparities are not good news for our democracy.
But this paycheck deception amendment would only tip the electoral and
legislative playing field ever more decisively in favor of big
corporations and the wealthy.
In only the last 2 weeks, the power of these special interests has
become ever more apparent. Just 2 weeks ago, the Congress voted--with
less than 10 hours of debate in the Senate and a mere hour of
discussion in the House--to revoke worker protections against ergonomic
injuries on which the Department of Labor had worked for 10 years. No
employer is now required to do anything to prevent these painful and
debilitating worker injuries.
Following up on their ergonomics victory, business and special
interests scored another coup when this body passed the bankruptcy bill
last week. This is a bill that caters to the credit card industry, at
the expense of working Americans who will now face more business-
created hurdles to getting back on their feet financially after
setbacks.
This amendment is also a ``poison pill'' for campaign finance reform.
It is being championed by those who believe that the inequities in the
system are just fine--who would like to have no changes to address the
corrupting influence that money has on our national elections. They
know that no supporter of campaign finance reform--including my good
friend Senator McCain--can vote for a bill that contains these
outrageous provisions. They propose this amendment with the full
knowledge that it could bring down these reforms and further the power
of corporate and wealthy special interests. We should not allow
ourselves to be made parties to this ploy.
For these reasons, paycheck deception bills have been rejected every
time they have been raised. In 1998, a large, bipartisan majority of
the House of Representatives voted down a national paycheck deception
scheme by a vote of 246 to 166. Twice now--in 1997 and 1998--bipartisan
majorities in the Senate have blocked paycheck deception bills. Thirty-
five States have refused to enact paycheck deception bills since that
time. And California voters in 1998 and Oregon voters just last year
soundly defeated ballot initiatives that would have imposed paycheck
deception.
The cynicism behind this amendment is made more obvious because the
amendment is completely unnecessary. For almost 13 years, the law has
offered ample protections for any workers who disagree with a union's
political activities. Under the landmark Beck decision, no worker,
anywhere in the country, may be forced to support union political
activities. In addition, in 21 States, workers cannot be required to
support any union activities--even collective bargaining.
Since the Beck decision, every union, as the law requires, has
created a procedure to ensure that dues-paying workers can opt out of a
union's political expenditures. These procedures universally involve
notice to workers of the opt-out rights provided under Beck;
establishment of a means for workers to notify the union of their
decision to exercise these rights; an accounting by the union of its
spending so that it can calculate the appropriate fee reduction; and
the right of access to an impartial decisionmaker if the worker who
opts out disagrees with the union's accounting or calculations.
Moreover, the President has recently issued an Executive Order that
goes to great lengths to ensure that all workers know their rights
under Beck. This Executive Order, issued on February 17, requires every
Government contractor to post a clear notice that alerts employees of
their right to withhold their payments to unions for any purposes other
than costs related to collective bargaining. Individuals may file
complaints with the Secretary of Labor if they believe that a
contractor has failed to meet this requirement. And the Secretary may
investigate any contractor suspected of a violation, and may order a
range of sanctions for noncompliance, including debarment of the
contractor. I opposed this Executive Order because it does not inform
workers of any of their other rights under our Nation's labor laws. But
in this context, it removes any doubt whatsoever that workers will be
informed of their Beck rights and provided remedies if they are not.
Remedies for violation of Beck rights are also available under the
National Labor Relations Act. Under that act, non-union members who
believe that they are being required to support a union's political
activities, or who believe that the union's procedures do not afford an
adequate opportunity for the individual to object, may file a complaint
with the National Labor Relations Board or go directly to Federal
court. In such cases, the board or the courts decide whether the
particular union has developed procedures that are adequate to meet
Beck requirements.
To erase any further doubts, the McCain-Feingold bill explicitly
codifies the Beck requirements as a matter of law. Section 304 of
McCain-Feingold requires all unions to establish objection procedures
for real paycheck protection.
The bill requires unions to provide personal, annual notice to all
affected employees informing them of their rights.
It requires that union procedures lay out the steps for employees to
make objections to paying dues that would go toward political activity.
It requires unions to reduce the fees paid by any employee who has
made an objection so that the employee will not be charged for any
activities unrelated to collective bargaining.
It requires unions to provide explanations of their calculations.
Forty years ago, in a case called Machinists v. Street, the Supreme
Court recognized that the majority of union voters have ``an interest
in stating [their] views without being silenced by the dissenters,''
and that it was necessary to establish a rule that ``protect[s] both
interests to the maximum extent possible, without undue impingement of
one on the other.'' Beck was the Supreme Court's formulation of this
rule, and it represents a sound and reasonable way to achieve this
goal. And McCain-Feingold respects this rule laid out so well by the
Court.
The proposed amendment would upset this careful balance between
majority and dissenting interests. Where the Court has stated that
``dissent is not to be presumed--it must be affirmatively made known to
the union by the dissenting employee,'' the bill creates precisely the
opposite regime: dissent will be presumed absent explicit consent.
Under this ill-advised amendment--and unlike in every other democratic
institution in our country, including the Congress itself--a minority
would be able to thwart the will of the majority by fiat. Not by
debate. Not by discussion. Not by a reasoned exchange of competing
ideas. Just by silence.
I believe this paycheck deception amendment is also unconstitutional.
[[Page 4192]]
The amendment would interfere with union members' freedom to associate
in their unions according to membership rules of their own choice.
Under current law, unions may make payment of normal dues the
precondition for membership and participation in the union. Unions
may--and do--provide that only those individuals who have paid their
full dues may vote on issues before the union or run for union elective
office. It is entirely appropriate for those workers who do not wish to
support the union's political activities to resign from membership.
They cannot be required to fund political activities, and their dues
will be reduced accordingly. These workers will receive the full
benefits of union representation on issues related to the union's
bargaining obligations. But they will not be members of the union who
can participate in making fundamental decisions about union business--
including the election of officers, the use of organizational
resources, or the union's political positions.
But this amendment states that those who do not pay full dues still
have a full voice in the affairs of the union. They would have the same
rights and benefits as those who pay full dues. That is not only
unconstitutional, it is just plain wrong.
Some of my colleagues claim that the egregious unfairness in this
amendment can be cured if corporations are bound by ``shareholder
protection'' requirements. But comparing unions and corporations and
workers and shareholders is like comparing apples and oranges. They
simply are not the same.
First, no corporation requires payments for political purposes as a
condition of employment. Shareholders are not employees. It is
laughable to think that bills that regulate payments that are
``conditions of employment'' create parity between unions and
corporations.
Second, 99.7 percent of American for-profit corporations are
privately held and have no shareholders to protect.
Third, shares in public corporations are typically held by
institutions such as mutual or pension funds not by individuals. Any
bill that purported to create parity between unions and corporations
would have to reach individuals, and would have to apply to the
political and legislative spending of intermediate entities, not simply
to expenditures by the companies at the end of the ownership chain.
None of my colleagues is rushing to do that.
Finally, were corporations to be required to meet the standards that
would be imposed on unions, they would have to account for political
and legislative spending and budgets; disclose such spending and
budgets to shareholders; constantly track new shareholders and
recalculate ownership shares based on daily activities in the stock
market; constantly solicit consent from this ever-changing group; and
pay extra dividends or other financial benefits to shareholders who did
not authorize political expenditures.
The pending amendment does not do this. No bill purporting to create
parity has ever done this. No bill would ever do so. Such a bill would
likely bring commerce to its knees, as corporations spent their time
creating immense administrative bureaucracies to implement these
requirements.
We would never hamstring corporations in this way and we should not
do it to labor unions, either. We should not impose these unreasonable,
unfair, and likely unconstitutional burdens on our country's unions,
which represent the most effective voice for our working families.
Since its founding, our nation has respected and nurtured the
fundamental principle that democracy thrives best when there is robust
debate over issues of public concern. This amendment would subvert that
bedrock proposition. I urge my colleagues to reject this attack on our
working families, our unions, and our country's core values.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I can't stay here and let the Senator from Massachusetts
get away with this. Here we go again. I acknowledge he represents a
State that is highly unionized. I don't know if he ever worked for a
union or belonged to a union, but I have. I spent 10 years in the
building construction trade unions. I have a lot of respect for the
union movement. I would fight for the right of collective bargaining.
But, unlike my colleague from Massachusetts, I do not believe I have
to champion everything that one cause wants over everybody else. I
should not say everybody else, but over anybody who is not one of the
most liberal special interest groups in our country.
I do not need a lecture from the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts on how to write legislation. Nor do I need a lecture from
the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts on what the Beck decision
means.
The Senator and many on the other side of the aisle will spend every
ounce of their beings to make sure that union members have no say with
regard to how their moneys are spent in political activities.
By the way, with all due respect to my friend from Massachusetts--and
everybody knows he is my friend; that is why I think my words may have
a little more impact than some others' --the idea to include
corporations and treat them in a manner comparable to labor
organizations, as I recall, came from the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts himself. That was in the early 1990s when I offered
amendments requiring disclosure of the money spent by labor
organizations, money of hard-working American men and women.
As I recall, one of the principal arguments of my friend from
Massachusetts was that corporations were not treated similarly--those
big, massive, powerful corporations compared to these little, tiny,
``difficult to maintain freedom for the union members'' unions.
We all know what is going on here. There are people on that side who
will fight to the death because, although 40 percent of all union
members are Republicans, virtually 100 percent of all union political
money is used to elect Democrats. I can recall many years when some of
the most liberal Republicans who always supported labor, and when a
Democrat who supported labor ran against them, that Democrat got labor
support. If I have to cite anybody, I will cite Jacob Javits of New
York.
I know what is going on here. They will fight to the death to make
sure that those 40 percent of Republicans who work in the unions, who
believe in Republican principles, will never have any say on how the
totality of the money is spent in the political arena.
Oddly enough, I respect my friend from Massachusetts because he has
been the No. 1 champion of these unpowerful trade union organizations.
Mr. DODD. Oddly enough.
Mr. HATCH. These poor little picked-on people who basically have no
say in their lives, unless they have the protection of the
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, among others.
But to come here today and tell me I have to write every detail of
regulation into a statute that I know the FEC can do is almost an
insult. It comes close.
Mr. KENNEDY. Almost.
Mr. HATCH. He is fighting for his special interests, and I don't
blame him. He gets 100 percent support from union activity and union
money. It has kept him in office for years.
I have to say it is not just the liberal side of the union movement.
My goodness, it is almost every liberal special interest group in this
country. We all know when the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts
speaks, he speaks for every liberal special interest group in this
country, and you had better pay attention if you are on the Democratic
side of the aisle, because if you don't, you are going to have a
primary in the next election.
I respect that kind of power. And I love my colleague as very few in
this body do.
(Laughter.)
Mr. McCAIN. I don't.
Mr. HATCH. Senator McCain said he doesn't. He is naturally being
humorous, as he always is.
Let me just say this. I acknowledge that it is difficult to devise a
manner in which this should be done, but I think we should work
together and do what the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts said
in the early 1990s ought to be done. We ought to get
[[Page 4193]]
those big special interests in the corporate world to have to conform
to certain disclosures.
This is an important matter for hard-working Americans. If my
colleague thinks stockholders should be treated similarly, that is what
I am trying to do in good faith. I think I am doing it pretty well.
Just so we get rid of this argument that every detail has to be
written into legislation--heck, everybody around here knows that isn't
the case ever. I myself think sometimes we ought to be a little more
specific and not just let the bureaucracy run wild, but that is not the
way things work in this Federal Government. Just think about it.
I think the argument of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts
is very insufficient in the details with regard to what legislation is
all about. Let me give an illustration. The Federal Communications Act
simply tells regulators to regulate the airwaves in the public trust.
I am sure the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts would love to
have three or four thousand pages defining what that means--or maybe
150,000 pages defining what that means. But it works. It works as long
as we have honest people in the bureaucracy.
Think of this one. There is a level of detail in all legislation that
is left to administrators and regulators.
The McCain-Feingold bill that is so magnificent, triumphed by the
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, requires State parties to use
hard money to pay the salary of a State party worker if they spend more
than 25 percent of their time on Federal election activities.
That is pretty broad to me. Nowhere does McCain-Feingold state how
State parties are to track these people's time--nowhere. We will leave
that to the regulators.
I could go down each paragraph in the McCain-Feingold bill and shred
it alive, if the argument of the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts has any merit, which, of course, it does not. But that
doesn't stop bombastic argument, nor should it. I love them myself. I
love to see the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts get up there,
and everybody is almost positive he is going to blow a fuse before he
is through. But the fact is, he has a right to do that. I admire him
for doing it. I admire the way he supports his special interests. I do
not know of anybody who does it better. We don't have anybody on our
side who can do that as well.
(Applause in the Galleries.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). There will be order in the
gallery.
Mr. HATCH. That brought tears to my eyes.
Mr. President, McCain-Feingold does not say if the contract workers
are employees of the State party, or regular, full-time employees.
Those details are left to regulators.
The amendment amends the FECA act so that the FEC would administer
this and all existing FEC enforcement laws and regulations, as well as
penalties that would apply.
I know what is going on. It is wonderful to argue for what helps your
side. McCain-Feingold, to their credit, is trying to get a more honest
system that is equal both ways. But if you read the provision on the
Beck decision, it basically obliterates it. It basically narrows it so
much that it has no meaning.
I have to say there are those on the other side of the floor who will
never allow the Beck Supreme Court decision, the ultimate law of the
land, to be enforced, or to be applied, because it would even things
up, and it would allow 40 percent of the union membership in this
country to have some say on how their dues are being spent in the
political activity.
That is all I am trying to do. I think it is a reasonable thing. I
think it is the right thing. I think it is the intelligent thing. If we
don't do this, then are we really trying to have a bill that is going
to correct some of the ills of our society?
I have no illusion. I suspect that many, if not all, on the other
side will vote against this amendment because it does basically even
things up. It does what the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts
said we ought to do back in the early 1990s, but today is indicating,
if we do it, that it has to be done in such specificity that it would
be the most specified language in the history of legislative
achievement.
Amendment No. 134, As Modified
Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HATCH. It is a technical correction.
Mr. DODD. I would like to see the amendment.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, my modification is at the desk. I ask
unanimous consent that my amendment be so modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object--I am not going to object--
Members should have the right to modify their amendments.
For the purposes of clarification, I wonder if my colleague from Utah
might take a minute to explain the modification.
Mr. HATCH. It basically corrects language in the amendment. It
basically allows proportionate share with regard to the unions, and
also with regard to corporations. I think it applies both ways. But I
wanted to make sure.
Mr. DODD. I am sure the President understood that.
I have no objection.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment (No. 134), as modified, is as follows:
Beginning on page 35, strike line 8 and all that follows
through page 37, line 14, and insert the following:
SEC. 304. DISCLOSURE OF AND CONSENT FOR DISBURSEMENTS OF
UNION DUES, FEES, AND ASSESSMENTS OR CORPORATE
FUNDS FOR POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.
Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 304
the following:
``SEC. 304A. DISCLOSURE OF DISBURSEMENTS OF UNION DUES, FEES,
AND ASSESSMENTS OR CORPORATE FUNDS FOR
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.
``(a) Disclosure.--Any corporation or labor organization
(including a separate segregated fund established and
maintained by such entity) that makes a disbursement for
political activity or a contribution or expenditure during an
election cycle shall submit a written report for such cycle--
``(1) in the case of a corporation, to each of its
shareholders; and
``(2) in the case of a labor organization, to each employee
within the labor organization's bargaining unit or units;
disclosing the portion of the labor organization's income
from dues, fees, and assessments or the corporation's funds
that was expended directly or indirectly for political
activities, contributions, and expenditures during such
election cycle.
``(b) Consent.--
``(1) Prohibition.--Except with the separate, prior,
written, voluntary authorization of a stockholder, in the
case of a corporation, or an employee within the labor
organization's bargaining unit or units in the case of a
labor organization, it shall be unlawful--
``(A) for any corporation described in this section to use
portions, commensurate to the share of such stocks of funds
from its general treasury for the purpose of political
activities; or
``(B) for any labor organization described in this section
to collect or use any dues, initiation fee, or other payment
if any part of such dues, fee, or payment will be used for
political activities.
``(2) Effect of authorization.--An authorization described
in paragraph (1) shall remain in effect until revoked and may
be revoked at any time.
``(c) Contents.--
``(1) In general.--The report submitted under subsection
(a) shall disclose information regarding the dues, fees, and
assessments spent at each level of the labor organization and
by each international, national, State, and local component
or council, and each affiliate of the labor organization and
[[Page 4194]]
information on funds of a corporation spent by each
subsidiary of such corporation showing the amount of dues,
fees, and assessments or corporate funds disbursed in the
following categories:
``(A) Direct activities, such as cash contributions to
candidates and committees of political parties.
``(B) Internal and external communications relating to
specific candidates, political causes, and committees of
political parties.
``(C) Internal disbursements by the labor organization or
corporation to maintain, operate, and solicit contributions
for a separate segregated fund.
``(D) Voter registration drives, State and precinct
organizing on behalf of candidates and committees of
political parties, and get-out-the-vote campaigns.
``(2) Identify candidate or cause.--For each of the
categories of information described in a subparagraph of
paragraph (1), the report shall identify the candidate for
public office on whose behalf disbursements were made or the
political cause or purpose for which the disbursements were
made.
``(3) Contributions and expenditures.--The report under
subsection (a) shall also list all contributions or
expenditures made by separated segregated funds established
and maintained by each labor organization or corporation.
``(d) Time to Make Reports.--A report required under
subsection (a) shall be submitted not later than January 30
of the year beginning after the end of the election cycle
that is the subject of the report.
``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Election cycle.--The term `election cycle' means,
with respect to an election, the period beginning on the day
after the date of the previous general election for Federal
office and ending on the date of the next general election
for Federal office.
``(2) Political activity.--The term `political activity'
means--
``(A) voter registration activity;
``(B) voter identification or get-out-the-vote activity;
``(C) a public communication that refers to a clearly
identified candidate for Federal office and that expressly
advocates support for or opposition to a candidate for
Federal office; and
``(D) disbursements for television or radio broadcast time,
print advertising, or polling for political activities.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this amendment, there are 37 minutes. The
opponents have 62 minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank Senator Dodd and others for
allowing Senator Hatch to modify his amendment. We got into quite a
tussle the other night over that issue. I am pleased to see the comity
that the Senate normally enjoys. It has been exercised on this
occasion. I thank everyone for allowing Senator Hatch to modify his
amendment.
Let me say that this amendment has been described as a poison pill by
the New York Times and the Washington Post and Common Cause. I think it
is important for Members to understand what a ``poison pill'' is by
their definition. A poison pill is anything that might affect labor
unions. Disclosure and consent are universally applauded in the
campaign finance debate. Disclosure and consent are the two principles
upon which there is wide agreement on a bipartisan basis throughout
this Chamber--unless it applies to labor unions.
What Senator Hatch is trying to do is to apply those principles--
disclosure and consent--to organized labor in this country. Admittedly,
the so-called paycheck protection amendment in the past has only
applied to unions. Many of our Members have complained about that.
The senior Senator from Arizona, as recently as January 22,
complained about the fact that it did not apply to shareholders. The
junior Senator from Wisconsin, on the same day, was complaining about
the paycheck protection proposal because it only applied, as he put it,
to one player, the labor unions. Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, in the
last year or so, was complaining about paycheck protection because it
only applied to labor unions. Senator Lieberman, in February of 1998--
just a couple years ago--I suspect it is still his view that paycheck
protection is a problem because it does not apply to corporations. That
is one of the principal arguments against so-called paycheck
protection.
The Senator from Utah has now applied it to corporations. He has
applied it. There is parity between unions and corporations. The goal
is to ensure that all political money is voluntary.
In a corporation without shareholders, if the owner uses his money on
politics, obviously, it is voluntary because it is his money. With
shareholders, we need this legislation so executives do not decide for
the shareholders.
In unions, the consent provision ensures political money from dues
are voluntarily used for political purposes. And, of course, there are
no privately held unions.
Paycheck protection is clearly constitutional. In Michigan State AFL-
CIO v. Miller, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a State
statute requiring unions to get affirmative consent each year from
union members. In fact, the court held that the affirmative consent
requirement, similar to Senator Hatch's requirement, was not even
subject to the highest degree of strict scrutiny. Rather, the court
found the affirmative consent requirement so noncontroversial that it
was subject only to intermediate scrutiny. And it survived intermediate
scrutiny and survived review under this standard.
The court upheld the affirmative consent requirement explaining that:
By verifying on an annual basis that individuals intend to
continue dedicating a portion of their earnings to a
political cause, [the consent requirement] both reminds those
persons that they are giving money for political causes and
counteracts the inertia that would tend to cause people to
continue giving funds indefinitely even after their support
for the message may have waned. The annual consent
requirement ensures that political contributions are in
accordance with the wishes of the contributors.
So there is a binding Federal court precedent upholding affirmative
consent requirements on unions. This case makes clear that such
provisions are not even subject to strict scrutiny.
It is entirely possible that unions are the biggest spenders in our
elections. But we do not know because they do not disclose the majority
of their political activities. The numbers people use to say
corporations outspend unions are suspect because they only include what
unions disclose. But we can estimate what unions spend because there is
no meaningful disclosure anywhere of what unions spend on political
activities--such as phone banks, direct mail, voter identification,
get-out-the-vote activity, candidate recruitment, political consulting,
and other activities--in support of the Democratic Party. We must,
admittedly, simply estimate what they spend.
By contrast, we have a very good idea what corporate America spends
because almost all of its activity is limited to operating PACs and
making soft money donations to parties, which, unlike big labor's
ground game, are fully disclosed activities.
In estimating what unions spend, we should note that in Beck cases--
and remember, the Beck case was about a nonunion member--it is not
unusual for nonunion members, seeking a refund of the pro rata share of
their fees that the union uses for activities unrelated to collective
bargaining, to get back in excess of 70 percent. In the Beck case
itself, Mr. Beck got back 79 percent.
So let's be very conservative and say that the unions spend 10
percent of the money they take in each year to help Democrats.
Now, let's look at how much unions take in from dues from members,
agency fees from nonmembers, and other sources, such as their affinity
credit card program. According to figures from the Department of Labor
for 1999, the Auto Workers Union took in $308,653,016. The Steelworkers
Union took in $569,198,286. The Machinists Union took in $167,201,344.
The Carpenters Union took in $624,205,132. The Laborers International
Union took in $133,921,734. The Food and Commercial Workers Union took
in $316,458,642. The Airline Pilots Union took in $277,508,365. The
Teamsters brought in $303,498,920.
I could go on. I have not yet included some of the largest unions,
such as the Communications Workers, the Service Employees Union, the
Hotel Workers Union, the National Education Association, and the
Electrical Workers, all
[[Page 4195]]
of which are among the largest unions in America.
But if we just add up what the eight unions I mentioned raked in
during 1999, it amounts to $2,700,645,439. If we double this figure, to
reflect what these eight unions took in during the 1999-2000 election
cycle, it amounts to $5,401,290,878.
If these eight unions spent just 10 percent of this amount to help
the Democrats in the last election, these eight alone spent $540
million. So it is safe to say that unions easily spend at least $\1/2\
billion for Democrats in each election cycle.
Independent academic research from Professor Leo Troy of Rutgers
arrives at similar numbers, as do estimates from former high-ranking
union officials, such as Duke Zeller, formerly a Teamsters official,
who has acknowledged that big labor spent about $400 million for the
Democrats and Bill Clinton in 1996.
Contrast this with $244 million total for all corporate and business
association hard and soft money contributions to the Republican and
Democratic Parties, including their congressional committees.
These figures regularly cited about business outspending labor 10 or
15 to 1 are based on questionable figures generated by the ``reform
industry'' to reenforce its own mythology about how corrupt Congressmen
are, in the pocket of big business. These estimates are not based on
sound, unbiased FEC figures.
Moreover, the reformers' estimates only look at how much publicly
disclosed hard and soft money businesses and labor give to parties and
their candidates. They totally ignore the hundreds of millions big
labor pour into its massive, undisclosed ground game operated on behalf
of the Democratic Party.
The dirty little secret that big labor and its allies do not want
anyone to know is that corporate America just makes contributions and
may run up some issue ads once in a while to which we can assign a
price tag, thanks to ad buy information. Big labor, on the other hand,
makes some contributions, runs some issue ads, but that is just the tip
of the iceberg. The vast majority of its political activity and money
is dedicated to the ground game. These direct expenditures which
completely dwarf what business spends on politics, even if they are
only 5 to 10 percent of what big labor rakes in each year, aren't
disclosed anywhere. Nowhere is this disclosed. And big labor's allies
will do everything they can to make sure these massive expenditures
that form the brunt of big labor's political operation remain hidden
away from the sunlight of disclosure.
The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has noted that no
corporation does get-out-the-vote operations. Unions offer the
appearance of a legitimate democratic process but none of the reality,
and disregard the interests of working men and women instead of
representing them.
In 1959, Congress enacted the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act to protect the rights and interests of union members
against abuses by unions and their officials. The act gave union
members various substantive rights that were considered so crucial to
ensuring that unions were democratically governed and responsive to the
will of their membership that they were labeled the Bill of Rights of
Members of Labor Organizations. The LMRDA made rank-and-file union
members the sole guardians of protections set forth in the Bill of
Rights for Members of Labor Organizations by prohibiting the Secretary
of Labor from investigating violations of those rights.
Of course, Congress realized that the protections provided in the
Bill of Rights for Members of Labor Organizations were meaningless if
union members did not know of their existence. Therefore, in section
105 of the act, Congress mandated that ``every labor organization shall
inform its members concerning the provisions of this chapter.''
Unfortunately, as demonstrated by the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals recent decision in Thomas v. The Grand Lodge of the
International Association of Machinists, a decision handed down in just
January of this year, the officials at labor unions have frustrated the
will of Congress and sought to prevent their members from learning of
their rights by refusing to notify members of the act's protections
when they join.
In Thomas, the union asserted that their one-time publication of the
provisions of the act to their membership way back in 1959--the fact
that they published it one time in 1959 --satisfied their obligation to
notify their members. The court of appeals rejected this somewhat
ingenious argument because it ran counter to the clear text of section
105 and because ``Congress clearly intended that each individual union
member, soon after obtaining membership, be informed about the
provisions of the act,'' including the Bill of Rights of Members of
Labor Organizations.
This is the reality of union democracy and the contempt union leaders
have for the rights and interests of working men and women. Unions
still continue to fight disclosing to workers the basic rights Congress
set forth back in 1959.
The reason the underlying amendment doesn't include ideological
groups is that when you give to the Sierra Club, you know the causes
they advocate. When people join unions or are forced to pay fees to
unions, they probably don't know that unions use their dues for such
things as an effort in 1996 to legalize marijuana in California. The
Teamsters contributed $195,000 in union dues to support that particular
effort. I wonder how many hard-working families of union members want
their hard-earned dollars to be used for the legalization of marijuana.
I cite that as an example of the way in which union dues can be used
without the consent of members and on causes certainly the members are
not likely to agree with.
Senator Hatch, though this important amendment is trying to get at
some of these problems, I commend him for his outstanding leadership on
this issue over the years. We certainly hope this amendment will be
approved.
I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished
senior Senator from the State of Michigan, Mr. Levin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for up
to 15 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Connecticut.
Mr. President, this amendment is written as though it would apply to
both corporations and unions. The words on the piece of paper we have
just been handed say ``any corporation or any labor union.'' When
somebody first looked at it, they would say: Aha, this applies to both.
In the real world, it doesn't. In the real world, the only entities
to which it applies are unions and not corporations. The activities
which are covered here are really for, first, voter registration
activity. I don't know of too many corporations that engage in that. I
would love to know from the sponsors of this amendment what percentage
of corporations engage in voter registration activity. That is the
first thing it covers, something which unions do and corporations
don't. But we are told there is parity in this amendment.
The second thing we are told it covers is voter identification or
get-out-the-vote activity. I don't know of too many corporations that
engage in voter identification or get-out-the-vote activity. I would be
really interested to hear from the sponsors of this amendment as to
what percentage do because I don't know of many. In fact, I don't know
of any offhand. So while it purports to be equal in its application,
while it purports to have parity to both unions and corporations, it is
purely paper parity, it is not real world parity. It is the appearance
of parity without the reality of parity--paper parity.
The third item is public communication that refers to a clearly
identified candidate. I am not sure what that means, because if it were
a public communication that expressly advocated
[[Page 4196]]
support for or opposition to, it would then be an expenditure which
would have to be paid for in hard dollars. I am not sure even what the
relevance of that is in this particular place. The same thing with
disbursements for television or radio broadcast time.
The heart of this amendment is to go after union activity and to
place requirements on unions that are so onerous that they will not be
able to meet them. To require affirmative approval of certain
activities in a voluntary organization and association which has voted
to engage in certain activities in which free people engage is set
aside here. Instead, under this amendment, we have a free association
of people, because no one can be required to be a member of a union,
not in this country. Nobody can be required to be a member of a union.
So you have an association of free men and women who have decided
that they want to engage in certain political activity, but we are told
in this amendment that they have to go through certain hoops and they
have to jump across certain hurdles before they are allowed to do so.
We are told that there is parity here. Stockholders are also covered
by this, we are told. Yet we haven't heard, despite the many
suggestions and questions asked about this, of any corporations that
engage in this activity that would be required to obtain stockholder
approval before using corporate funds to do so.
If this were a serious amendment aimed at parity, if this were truly
a real-world parity amendment, it would not be written in the way it is
relative to corporations. Saying that you would have to get the
approval of stockholders, for instance, without saying which class of
stockholders--common stock, preferred stock--what day are we getting
the approval of stockholders on, was it yesterday before a billion
shares of stock were sold on the New York Stock Exchange, is it today,
when another billion shares of stock are going to be sold on the New
York Stock Exchange, This is not a moving target which would be
presented to a corporation. It would be a moving bullet which would
have to be somehow or other captured so these requirements could be
met. But they are not real requirements because corporations don't
engage in the activity purportedly being covered by this amendment.
The purpose of this amendment is to try to restrict legitimate
political activity of an association of men and women in a labor union.
The disguise is pretty thin. The disguise is, look, we have heard a lot
about covering corporations, so we are doing it. But this isn't the
activity that the corporations engage in which is set forth in this
amendment. This is the activity in which labor unions engage--voter
registration activity, voter identification, or get-out-the-vote
activity. So the disguise is pretty thin. The parity is paper parity
only.
This amendment, it seems to me, should be seen for what it is--a way
to attempt to reduce the political activity of labor unions. There was
a case called Machinists v. Street in the Supreme Court back in 1961.
The Supreme Court expressed concern with encroachment on the legitimate
activities and necessary functions of unions. They made it very clear
in that case that it is up to the members of the union to decide in
what activities they would engage, and that dissent is not presumed, in
the words of the Supreme Court.
This amendment reverses that right of association where members of an
association are presumed to support, by the election of their officers
and adoption of their bylaws, the program of that association. It
reverses the Supreme Court's assumption and presumes dissent, requiring
affirmative approval of members of a free association.
This is what the Supreme Court said:
Any remedies, however, would properly be granted only to
employees who have made known to the union officials that
they do not desire their funds to be used for political
causes to which they object. The safeguards in the law were
added for the protection of dissenters' interests, but
dissent is not to be presumed.
This amendment, by requiring that unions go through very complicated,
cumbersome procedures in order to obtain affirmative approval of
members of that free association, is intended to put a damper on union
political activity, and it is very clear what this purpose is.
Finally, let me just say this: This is not an amendment, it seems to
me, which belongs in this bill or is really appropriate in this bill.
This is an amendment that is aimed at labor unions, separate and apart
from any bill that we have before us relative to money going into
campaigns. This is not an amendment that is aimed at the appearance of
corruption, which we have been told, under Buckley, can be addressed by
trying to put some limits on contributions to campaigns. That is what
the Buckley case says we can do.
In order to avoid the appearance of corruption, the appearance of
impropriety, we can put contribution limits on contributions, we can
restrict contributions because of what can be implied, and is too often
implied, by large contributions going into these campaigns. We have not
been shown the corruption that this amendment intends to remedy.
What this amendment intends to do is to restrict the rights of
association of members of a union--people who voluntarily decide they
are going to either be in a union, remain in a union, or join a union;
people who are not required to stay in a union by law; people who are
not required to join a union by law because no law can require that in
this country. Yet it is the restriction of that association, the right
of men and women in a free country to associate freely and to decide on
a regime of political activity that is being restricted by this
amendment--with no showing of an appearance of corruption, restriction
on the rights of association. That is what this amendment reflects.
That cannot just be disguised or covered up by saying, oh, look, it
applies to corporations, too, when in fact the corporations do not
engage in the activity being discussed here. And, in fact, if this
seriously were aimed at corporations, it would be so totally unworkable
that it would fall of its own weight. No corporation I know of could
possibly comply with these rules, even if it wanted to engage in get-
out-the-vote activity or voter registration. There would be no
practical way it could comply with this.
The effort to modify this amendment was a reflection of the total
inability of a corporation to function under this kind of a rule. But
it doesn't cure the problem because, again, we are not told: When is
this decision made? What day are the stockholders going to be counted?
Do they have to be asked on a certain day as to whether or not they
approve a get-out-the-vote campaign or a voter registration campaign?
The next day you may have hundreds of thousands, perhaps in a large
corporation, of different stockholders. What classes of stock are
covered? There is nothing about that--and for good reason. That is not
the purpose of the amendment.
The purpose of this amendment, I am afraid, is a purpose in which we
as a body should not participate. The purpose of this amendment is to
restrict the political activities of a free association. We should not
do that, whether we like the association or don't like the association.
We should not do that whether the association is supportive generally
of our party or opposes generally our party. The principle here, the
principle involved, is the right of association under the first
amendment. It cannot be restricted by law. It should not be restricted
by this body. We should not attempt to place these kinds of
restrictions on the associative rights of American citizens.
Finally, under a NAACP case in 1963, I will close with this quote.
The first amendment is what is being discussed in that case, and this
is what the Supreme Court held:
Because first amendment freedoms need breathing space to
survive, government may regulate in the area only with narrow
specificity.
I know we are going to have a debate over whether or not the bill
before us meets the first amendment test. Those of us who very much
support McCain-
[[Page 4197]]
Feingold feel passionately that it does, that it is narrowly crafted to
allow for regulation, to address the appearance of impropriety and
corruption. But there is no way that the amendment before us, which has
an effect only on the free association of labor unions, can possibly
meet this test with no showing of an appearance of corruption, no
showing of an appearance of impropriety, and severe practical limits on
the rights of association in trade unions. And I believe this language
should not only be defeated by this body, but, hopefully, will be
rejected on a bipartisan basis because it would cut into the rights
that I believe all of us should want very much to protect.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan is correct,
of course, that no worker can be forced to join a union. They can,
however, be forced to pay fees to unions, equal to union dues, as a
condition of maintaining their employment. That is precisely the point
of Senator Hatch's amendment.
As for the concern of the Senator from Michigan about the fact that
no corporation does ground wars as unions do, that is, of course,
precisely the point. That is exactly why McCain-Feingold is biased in
favor of Democrats.
Unions, as the Senator from Michigan has pointed out, do the ground
war for the Democrats. I wish we had an ally like that on our side. I
admire the unions greatly. They do the ground war for the Democrats.
For Republicans, it is the party that takes the primary role in the
ground war. As we have discussed here, and as the Senator from Michigan
has conceded, corporations don't do that sort of thing. They never have
and, in my view, they never will.
McCain-Feingold eliminates one-third of the resources that Republican
Party organizations have to counter the union ground game from which
Democrats benefit 100 percent.
According to Forbes magazine, the NEA's local uniserve directors act
as the largest army of paid political organizers and lobbyists in the
United States. According to NEA's own strategic plan and budget, these
political operatives had a budget of $76 million for the 2000 cycle--
$76 million for the 2000 cycle alone. None of that is touched by
McCain-Feingold.
With regard to the unions, what do unions do to help Democrats?
Again, I say I wish we had such an ally. This is what the unions do for
the Democrats:
One, get out the vote;
Two, voter identification;
Three, voter registration;
Four, mass mailings;
Five, phone banks;
Six, TV advertisements;
Seven, radio advertisements;
Eight, magazine advertisements;
Nine, newspaper advertisements;
Ten, outdoor advertising and leafletting;
Eleven, polling;
And twelve, volunteer recruitment and training.
Boy, I wish we had an ally such as that. That would be wonderful. The
only entity we have that engages in any of those activities on behalf
of Republicans is our party organizations. Their funds would be reduced
by at least a third or, in the case of the Republican National
Committee, 40 percent by McCain-Feingold.
McCain-Feingold purports to regulate some union activity, and I
gather from reading the paper it has made the unions at least a little
bit nervous. It purports to prohibit TV and radio ads that refer to a
candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary.
However, with regard to national parties, everything the national
party does must be paid for in 100-percent federally regulated hard
dollars, even if it does not mention a single candidate.
If, in fact, that 1 restriction on union activity remains in the bill
at the end, that leaves 11 other activities unions engage in untouched
by McCain-Feingold while at the same time the bill reduces the funds
available for the national parties by a third, to 40 percent.
In addition to that, McCain-Feingold, in effect, federalizes State
and local parties in even-numbered years. In order for the Republican
National Committee--it would apply to Democrats as well, but it is not
as important to them because they have the unions as I just described--
in the case of the local parties and the national party, they would
have to operate at 100-percent Federal dollars, even if they were
trying to influence a mayor's race in Wichita, KS.
This bill does little or nothing to the unions. What little it
purports to do, I gather, has made the unions nervous, and it will be
interesting to see if, before the end of this debate, not only are the
amendments such as the one we are debating not approved, I am curious
to see whether there will be additional amendments offered that will,
in fact, take out what few uncomfortable portions of the existing bill
there are for organized labor. In other words, I am predicting that not
only will Senator Hatch's amendments--this one and the one he will
offer after this one--probably be defeated, but that those elements of
McCain-Feingold that currently create some angst among unions, there
will be an effort to strip those out before we get to final passage.
In the name of fairness, what we are talking about, with Senator
Hatch's amendment, is to make sure that union dollars are voluntarily
given by members and that union activities are disclosed. Consent and
disclosure are two principles, it seems to me, that have been at the
heart of the campaign finance debate for many years.
I think we are probably through on this side. I do not know how many
more speakers you have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I know of three or four anyway. There may be
a few others.
Mr. McCONNELL. How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 15 minutes 30
seconds.
Mr. McCONNELL. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I will see how
it goes.
Mr. DODD. How much time remains on the opponents' side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-seven minutes 22 seconds.
Mr. DODD. Maybe we will consume all of it, and if the Senator from
Kentucky----
Mr. McCONNELL. I have reserved mine.
Mr. DODD. How much time does my good friend from Minnesota need?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Ten minutes, and I may not take a full 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will tell you why I may not take the
full 10 minutes. I had an opportunity to hear Senator Levin, and he
said much of what I wanted to say except he said it better than I can.
I do want to be really clear that this ``paycheck protection''
amendment that all of us have been expecting has taken an even more
egregious and cynical form than I had contemplated in all my
nightmares.
This is not about sham issue ads. It is important to go after soft
money that goes into such ads by any kind of organization. This is not
about parity between corporations and unions, for all of the reasons
Senator Levin outlined. This is, however, going after political
activity defined as ``voter registration activity, voter
identification, or get out the vote, public communication that refers
to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office.''
I can understand why, given what we have been doing on the floor of
the Senate over the last couple of weeks, such as, for example, in 10
hours overturning 10 years of work to have a rule to provide some
protection for people against repetitive stress injury--I can
understand why my colleagues would not want unions, or any kind of
organization that represents workers, communicating with those workers.
This is a gag rule amendment. That is what this is about. Basically,
this is the issue: This amendment is all about
[[Page 4198]]
going after a democratic, with a small ``d''--may I please make that
distinction--a democratic institution, with a small ``d,'' and denying
that associational democratic institution the right to represent and
serve its members.
What my colleagues are worried about, what this amendment is a
reflection of, is the concern of some of my colleagues that this
particular democratic organization, with a small ``d''--a union, or it
can be any organization--will be able to serve its members.
Frankly, we in the Senate ought to be for all democratic, with a
small ``d,'' associational organizations, and we should be all about
supporting their rights to serve their members, not trying to gag them,
trying to block communication. My colleagues are so worried that these
associations and these organizations of people who do not give the
millions of dollars will be able to, God forbid, be involved in voter
registration activity, get-out-the-vote efforts, internal
communication, and grassroots politics.
This is the ultimate anti grassroots politics, anti association, anti
group and organization, anti rank-and-file member, anti people
communicating with one another, anti people without the big bucks
through their association being able to have some power and some say
and some clout in American politics.
This amendment should be roundly defeated.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the
so-called paycheck protection amendment. This proposal, in my view, is
little more than a thinly veiled attack on organized labor, and an
attempt to undermine genuine campaign finance reform.
The effect of this amendment would be to bury unions in a morass of
bureaucratic red tape, and severely impede their ability to represent
their membership. It would push unions further to the periphery of the
political process, and hurt the working men and women they represent.
It also may well be unconstitutional.
Every day, associations and other organizations representing
everything from chocolate manufacturers to retired people come to
Capitol Hill to advocate for their members. These organizations use a
variety of mechanisms to decide how they spend their money. Some give
broad authority to their D.C. representatives. Others centralize
authority with their president. Others operate through special boards
or committees.
It is not Congress's business to dictate to these organizations how
they make their internal spending decisions. That is their business.
And that is how it should be.
But this amendment says that it is our business as politicians to
tell unions how to make their internal spending decisions. The obvious
intent is to harm unions' ability to function effectively in the
political process. This doesn't just discriminate unfairly against
unions. It undercuts their constitutional rights of free association
and of free speech.
As a result of the 1988 Beck case, all workers can already opt out of
paying union dues. They can choose not to be in the union and to pay a
fee that only covers costs associated with contract management and
collective bargaining. No worker is forced to join the union.
Therefore, no worker is forced to cover costs associated with political
activities. And, I would add, the underlying legislation includes a
provision that makes this very clear.
In reality, this amendment is a deliberate attempt to undermine one
of the key purposes of unions, advocating for their members not only
with management, but with elected officials. The amendment goes well
beyond what the Supreme Court required in the Beck decision. It would
require union members to affirmatively agree to set aside a portion of
their dues for political activities. And then it would require period
reports spelling out details of those activities.
These requirements would impose significant costs on unions and limit
their ability to participate in the political process.
It is important to remember that unions are democratic institutions.
Decisions are made by majority vote or by duly elected representatives.
Moreover, as I said earlier, nobody is forced to join a union. If you
decide to join, as with other voluntary organizations, you accept the
democratic decision-making process.
It is absurd to join the NRA and ask that no funds be used for
political activities. You cannot pay a reduced fee to simply receive
American Rifleman magazine. And you cannot join the Sierra Club just
for the tote bag. Similarly, political activities are a fundamental
feature of a union's operations.
Unions were formed in the first place to reduce the historic
imbalance between workers and management, between most Americans and
powerful, entrenched interests. By coming together, working families
have an influential voice, and nowhere is the voice of labor unions
more important than in the political arena. This amendment would, in
effect, silence that voice, and in the process silence millions of
working families.
If we believe in the constitution right to free association, we
cannot support this amendment. If we believe in the rights of working
families to be heard, we cannot support this amendment. And if we
believe in fundamental and equitable campaign finance reform, we cannot
support this amendment.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we have many Members desiring to be heard. I
want to make sure I accommodate everyone who wants to be heard.
I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Massachusetts is
recognized for up to 5 minutes.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
The impact of this amendment and the fundamental unfairness of it are
so obvious and so patently clear. What this tries to achieve doesn't
necessitate a raising of voices or even an angry response, although I
think there are plenty of Members who feel offended by what it seeks to
do.
The purpose of this McCain-Feingold legislation is to try to create a
fair playing field. ``Fair'' is not a word we hear a lot applied to the
standards which our colleagues on the other side seem to seek in this.
But ``fair'' means you try to achieve parity to the best degree
possible between both sides' potential supporters, those who give to
us.
What is extraordinary to me is what is being sought here is
effectively the silencing of the capacity of organized labor to be able
to participate with a fig leaf, a pretense about corporate
responsibility and shareholder obligations. There is nothing in the
terminology of the legislation in the way it has been set forth that
actually creates any equality at all between shareholders and union
members who, I might add, are a completely different concept
altogether. After all, I think it is understood there are certain laws
that apply to unions--to union participation, the Beck law, to the
rights of union members, to union democracy, election of leaders, the
way in which they participate--which are completely different from the
role of shareholders and the way shareholders participate.
More importantly, look at the basic numbers. Corporations outspent
unions in political activities in the last election 15-1. Even if you
accept the argument of some Republicans that unions tend to
predominantly be supportive of Democrats, which might incidentally
illicit some thinking on their part about why it is that happens, but
with ergonomics in the past week and other attacks, I think we can
understand that differential, but even if you were to split the
corporate contributions--because some corporations do, indeed, also
give to Democrats--and you took only 8-1 or 7-1, you are looking at a
level of expenditure that so far outstrips the participation of unions
that the real objection of some of our colleagues is not the money; it
is the fact that people, voters, actually go out and get engaged in the
system in a way that shareholders don't.
What they are trying to do is legislatively strip away the capacity
of those
[[Page 4199]]
people to be able to participate to the full extent of our democratic
process.
The Supreme Court of the United States made it clear in Communication
Workers of America v. Beck--in the Beck decision--when it said that
unions can't, over the objection of a dues-paying nonmember employee,
spend funds collected from those activities unrelated to collective
bargaining. They cannot use that money in politics already.
That decision has been properly codified in this legislation by
Senators McCain and Feingold. Here we are codifying Beck and
restricting the capacity of the nonmember employee, dues-paying
employee. What the legislation seeks to do in reading several sections
of it, sections (B), (C), and (D) of section 1, is show it is
specifically targeted to internal and external communications relating
to specific candidates. That is the kind of communication that takes
place in the union. It doesn't take place among shareholders.
Internal disbursements, to operate and solicit contributions--
likewise, not a shareholder participation.
Voter registration drive, et cetera.
What it specifically seeks to do is restrain those activities which
our colleagues don't like because they are participating in the
process, and it doesn't achieve parity with the corporate sector--and,
I might add, places a burden on the corporate process, which is
absolutely not workable.
I don't see how it is possible for corporations to make the kinds of
divisions that are called upon in this legislation. It would require a
constant tracking of new shareholders, a constant recalculation of
their ownership stakes. Shares are traded daily on the stock market.
Corporations would have to collect and process spending authorization
from those daily changing shareholders. And, finally, the corporations
would have to pay additional dividends or other financial benefits to
shareholders who refuse to authorize corporate and political
legislative spending.
It is completely unworkable on the corporate side, but it is not
meant to be workable. It is clearly meant to be a restraint on the
capacity of a voluntary association under the Constitution to be able
to participate in the electoral process in a way not denied to any
number of other groups in our country.
I think our colleagues ought to join together because this is an
amendment calculated to try to undo the McCain-Feingold concept, and
particularly calculated to establish a playing field that is not level.
Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the President of the United States,
President Bush, issued a statement with regard to campaign finance
reform indicating he is committed to working with the Congress to
ensure that fair and balanced campaign finance reform legislation is
enacted. He specifically referred to a desire to have a balance between
unions and corporations in the United States.
Apparently Senator Hatch's amendment is an attempt to do that. But as
has been effectively pointed out by Senator Levin, it doesn't
accomplish that. It isn't balanced. It isn't parity. The distinguished
Senator from Massachusetts pointed out when it comes to the balance
between unions and business in the country, this amendment doesn't even
apply to 99.7 percent of the businesses in the country.
It is an interesting technique to talk about balance between unions
and corporations but not include many other kinds of organizations as
well.
What is even more troubling is the point made by the Senators from
Michigan and Massachusetts. The definition of ``political activity'' is
by no means balanced between what corporations do and unions do. This
needs to be reiterated. There are four kinds of activity listed. Two of
the activities are activities in which at least at this point only
unions participate, and a third is defined in a circular way which
means that it probably doesn't apply to the kind of disbursements for
television or radio that corporations do. The fourth activity refers
only to express advocacy, which unions and corporations can only do
through their PACs.
The Senator from Michigan has it right. He said it is purely paper
parity between corporations and unions. What he said is not only
alliterative, it is dead right. This amendment is purely paper parity.
Even the President of the United States' principles and desire that
we create a balance between unions and corporations are not achieved by
the Hatch amendment.
I compliment the Senator from Utah for attempting to do this. On its
face, the amendment is not as one-sided as some that have been offered
in the past. For example, one previous amendment on this subject said
that any union or corporation that charges its members dues is covered
by the provision. But, of course, no corporation in America charges
dues.
Nonetheless, let's be serious. Is there anybody in this body who
really believes that this provision will actually work? This amendment
supposedly would require every corporation in America to get the
permission of its shareholders before it spends money for political
activities. That is ludicrous. Corporations have millions of
shareholders. Their identity changes every day. The Senator from
Massachusetts made this very clear--how could you possibly do this?
Billions of shares of stock change hands each week--billions.
Apparently, it would be necessary to get the permission of every
shareholder.
What about people who own shares in corporations through mutual
funds? How are their rights protected? Actually the amendment says that
``without the separate, prior, written voluntary authorization of a
stockholder, it shall be unlawful for any corporation described in this
section to use funds from its general treasury for the purpose of
political activity.'' So perhaps this provision only requires
corporations to get the permission of one stockholder.
But if that is what it means, if it does not apply to billions of
stockholders, which would be unworkable, and only requires the consent
of one stockholder, it would be a sham like the earlier proposals.
I take the Senator from Utah at his word, that he is trying to be
evenhanded, trying to cover unions and corporations equally. But if his
proposal actually works, the Senator from Utah has singlehandedly
rewritten the law of corporations in this amendment. Corporate
shareholders generally have little ability to influence corporate
policy and practices. The officers and directors of a corporation do
that, and they are responsible and have a legal duty to their
shareholders to do it. If this amendment actually works--and I am very
skeptical that it does--then before this vote, corporate America should
be descending on this body en masse within an hour or so.
Lots of representatives of corporate America oppose this bill now,
but if this bill passes, every corporation in America will oppose it.
This provision would be a disaster for corporations if it works in that
way.
Aside from the problems with this amendment that the other speakers
have very well pointed out, our Beck provision addresses the issue of
the use of union dues for political purposes. The real problem with
this amendment is that this is a poison pill to this bill. It fits the
definition of a poison pill to a tee.
If this amendment passes, reform is dead. I am confident that we will
defeat it despite the herculean efforts of the Senator from Utah to
cover corporations and unions equally because a sugar-coated poison
pill is still a poison pill. When the sugar wears off, and it will wear
off pretty quickly on this amendment, as we have seen, the poison
underneath will kill this bill.
It is essential for the sake of this campaign finance reform effort
that this amendment be tabled.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the arguments about the mechanics of
the Hatch amendment are a sham. The Securities and Exchange Commission
has
[[Page 4200]]
managed to figure out ways to determine who is a shareholder and when,
so that shareholders can be sent annual statements and proxies.
Regulators are quite capable of handling these issues.
There has been mentioned on the floor, ``the appearance of
corruption.'' Let me ask a question. Why does it create the appearance
of corruption for a union or citizen group to run an ad criticizing our
voting records around election time, such that it justifies regulation
under the Snowe-Jeffords language that is in the underlying McCain-
Feingold bill, but it does not create the appearance of corruption of
the process for that same soft money from advocacy groups and unions to
be used for phone banks, leaflets, mailings, and other things designed
to criticize candidates and influence elections?
This is absurd. Remember when you hear the words ``poison pill,'' you
know it is an amendment that may have some impact on organized labor.
It has been suggested by the sponsors and others that the Beck
decision, which of course applied to nonunion members working in union
shops, was codified in the underlying McCain-Feingold bill.
I have a statement from the lawyer who represented Mr. Beck in that
case, dated January 30 of this year. He said:
I have reviewed section 304. As one of the attorneys for
the nonmembers in Beck, and objecting nonmembers in several
cases following Beck, I can assure you that section 304 of
McCain-Feingold-Cochran does not codify Beck. It would gut
Beck.
The federal courts and the National Labor Relations Board
(``NLRB'') now both have jurisdiction over claims of misuse
of compulsory dues for political and other nonbargaining
purposes. The jurisdiction is concurrent, because such claims
are claims for breach of the ``judicially created duty of
fair representation'' owed to workers by their exclusive
bargaining agents . . .
The Lawyer goes on:
However, section 304 of McCain-Feingold-Cochran would amend
section 8 of the NLRA expressly to make it an unfair labor
practice for a union to ``not to establish and implement [an]
objection procedure'' by which nonmembers compelled to pay
dues as a condition of employment can obtain a reduction in
their dues for ``expenditures supporting political activities
unrelated to collective bargaining.''
If this amendment to the NLRA becomes law, then the courts
are likely to hold that Congress intended to oust the courts
of jurisdiction to enforce the prohibition on such
spending.\5\ That would leave individual workers with no
effective means of enforcing their Beck rights, as history
demonstrates . . .
Further in the statement the lawyer points out:
Many Beck cases do not even make it to the Board, because
the NLRB's General Counsel does not prosecute them
vigorously. According to the National Right to Work Legal
Defense Foundation's Staff Attorneys, who have represented
most employees who have filed Beck charges with the Board,
the General Counsel has settled many Beck charges with no
real relief for the charging employees. The Board's Regional
Directors have refused to issue complaints on and dismissed
many other charges at the direction of the General Counsel.
No appeal from a dismissal of a charge is possible, because
the General Counsel has ``unreviewable discretion to refuse
to institute unfair labor practice proceedings.'' . . .
The Lawyer continues:
Thus, by vesting Beck-enforcement authority in the NLRB,
the McCain-Feingold-Cochran amendment to the NLRA would leave
no real remedy available to objecting employees who wish to
bring Beck claims that a union's spending of compulsory dues
or fees, or its objection procedure, breaches the duty of
fair representation.
Section 304 of McCain-Feingold-Cochran, if it becomes law,
would legislatively overrule almost 40 years of decisions of
the United States Supreme Court concerning what union
activities objecting nonmembers may be compelled to subsidize
. . .
Far from codifying Beck, this underlying bill basically neutralizes
Beck.
Section 304 of McCain-Feingold-Cochran purports to limit
the use of compulsory union dues and fees. In fact, it is
craftily drafted to overrule the Supreme Court's
interpretation of the federal labor laws and sanction the
use, now prohibited, of compulsory dues and fees for a broad
range of political, ideological and other non-bargaining
purposes.
Section 304 effectively would overrule the Court's
decisions in Ellis and Beck for employees forced under the
NLRA to pay union dues and fees to keep their jobs, because
section 304 does not prohibit the use of compulsory dues for
all activities unnecessary to the performance of a union's
duties as the exclusive bargaining agent for the objecting
employees' bargaining unit. Rather, section 304 prohibits the
use of compulsory union dues only for ``political activities
unrelated to collective bargaining.'' Section 304, if
enacted, thus would permit the use of compulsory funds for
union organizing, litigation not concerning the nonmembers'
bargaining unit, and the portions of union publications that
discuss those subjects, uses now prohibited under Ellis and
Beck.
Even worse, section 304 would repudiate the 1961 decision
in Street that no political and ideological activities may be
subsidized with compulsory dues and fees. Section 304 would
not prohibit the use of compulsory funds for all political
activities, but only ``political activities unrelated to
collective bargaining,'' which it defines as only
``expenditures in connection with a Federal, State, or local
election or in connection with efforts to influence
legislation unrelated to collective bargaining.'' (Emphasis
added.) This definition would not prohibit the use of
compulsory dues and fees for political party activities not
in connection with an election, lobbying on judicial and
executive branch appointments, campaigning for and against
ballot propositions, and publications and public relations
activities on political and ideological issues not directed
to specific legislation. Moreover, because most legislation
on which unions lobby could be said to be ``related to
collective bargaining,'' the McCain-Feingold amendment would
effectively prohibit the use of compulsory dues and fees only
for and against candidates for public office . . .
Mr. President, you get the drift. Beck is effectively repealed by the
underlying McCain-Feingold legislation.
I do not know how many more speakers we have.
How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes. The other side has 29 minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from New York.
How much time remains for the opponents?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opponents have 29 minutes remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment of my friend Senator
Hatch on so-called ``paycheck protection.''
All of us know the purpose of this amendment. It is, quite simply, to
kill McCain-Feingold, pure and simple.
The proponents of this amendment won't vote in favor of McCain-
Feingold. They just want to diminish the number of Democrats voting for
McCain-Feingold and thereby have it fail.
In reality, the actual reason for this amendment is simply to end
campaign finance reform as we know it today.
If the proponents of this amendment wanted to move the issue forward,
they wouldn't do it as part of campaign finance because this amendment
has absolutely nothing to do with campaign finance.
This amendment is about the way unions and corporations govern
themselves, a subject we should debate separately.
I ask those who are proponents of this amendment if their goal is not
to kill the underlying bill, they should then withdraw the amendment
and move it forward in the appropriate committees as part of corporate
governance and governance of labor unions.
Let us be clear about the actual substance. It is, as many have
already said on other occasions, ``paycheck deception'' to claim that
union members get railroaded into paying for speech with which they
disagree.
In reality, all of us know people are not forced to join unions.
Unions are voluntary associations that members are free to quit the
second they disagree with the union's political activities.
That is the essential freedom. If the freedom went any further, we
would have no voluntary organizations in America, and we probably
wouldn't have a democracy.
To say that people are coerced by an organization that they can quit
at any moment because they do not get the majority vote, there would be
strong objection to any legislative body, including this one, as there
would be to unions.
[[Page 4201]]
Even those who quit, of course, would be represented by the union by
paying agency fees.
For that reason, the first amendment argument advanced by the
proponents of this amendment is, quite frankly, a red herring.
There are people in this country and in this body who just do not
like unions. So they argue with the structure of the union, and the
very same structure of an organization that they like, they don't argue
with at all.
The first amendment rights of members are not transgressed when
unions engage in political activity because they chose to associate
themselves with the speech. It's that simple.
Moreover, unions are democratic organizations.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle would have you believe
that union bosses are making unilateral decisions in smoke-filled rooms
that flout the will of their members and stifle their first amendment
rights.
That very argument has been made by Communists and fascists about
this body and about our democracy. They vote. They set their own dues.
Not everybody gets his or her way because a majority vote prevails.
It makes no sense to castigate unions for engaging in the same
majority rule upon which our country is founded. I argue that the
reason we hear this argument is not because of any greater devotion to
democracy but because of dislike and even hatred of unions. How dare
these union organizations force employers to pay more than the employer
wants to pay. But, my colleagues, that argument went out if not in the
1890s, in the 1930s.
We all know union members elect their own leaders, and they set their
own dues. Not every member of the union is satisfied with the election.
In almost every vote we take here not every Member is satisfied with
the outcome of the vote.
If the union wants to change leaders and lower their dues to
foreclose political expression, they are, of course, free to do so.
That they have not done that on the whole is an indication that
members' free speech rights are not being violated in the wholesale way
alleged by our friends on the other side.
Now, the sponsor of this amendment has commendably made the attempt--
unlike some past versions of this--to include at least publicly held
corporations.
For one thing, I do not hear the venom directed at publicly held
corporations that make decisions and spend their money on ads when
certain shareholders disagree with those decisions. Shareholders can go
to the corporate meeting, voice their objections, and they probably
have even less chance as an individual union member of changing things.
We do not hear that kind of vehemence and even venom. But the
argument for union democracy is probably greater than that of corporate
democracy.
Shares in corporations are alienable and change hands in virtually
instantaneous transactions millions of times each day.
To pretend that shareholders who buy and sell their shares so readily
are analogous to members for the purpose of consenting to political
speech is just not a serious argument.
That is why it just isn't workable to try to include corporations,
and why, my colleagues, this is just an anti-union measure from start
to finish that should be debated in the Health, Education and Labor
Committee and put to its proper death.
Incidentally, also, other associations similar to labor unions, such
as the Chamber of Commerce, aren't covered by this amendment.
In sum, I urge Members to vote against this amendment and see it for
what it is--a poison pill that has nothing to do with union members'
rights but everything to do with defeating campaign finance reform.
I thank my colleague and yield back the time I may have remaining.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I know my colleague from Oklahoma wishes to
be heard. I want to take a couple of minutes. I will be glad to give
him whatever time he needs. I would like to reserve 4 minutes at the
end of the debate.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A little over 21 minutes.
Mr. DODD. I will take about 5 minutes. My colleague from Oklahoma
wants 5 or so minutes, if he would like, and others may show up. I
would like to reserve the last 4 minutes to share some of that time
with my colleague from Kentucky, if he needs it, or anyone else who may
come over.
Senator Schumer from New York made a very compelling and sound
argument against this amendment.
First of all, I know it is something Members do with great frequency.
If you read this amendment, it is terribly complicated. It almost seems
to be a flawed amendment. I get the thrust of what I think the Senator
from Utah wants to do, but I am not sure, even if it were adopted, it
achieves the results that he desires with the language he has crafted.
It is rather complicated. In fact, the modification that the Senator
from Utah made may even complicate it further, as I read it.
Just on a first blush, if you look at this, the amendment itself
probably should be recrafted in a way. So it ought to be rejected
merely on technical grounds.
Even for those who may support what he wants to do, I do not believe
this amendment does what the author claims. For those of us who
disagree with the intent of the amendment, there are deeper reasons why
this amendment ought to be rejected. First, there is no parity. That is
what my colleague from New York was suggesting. Whether people like
unions or not, they are democratic institutions. There are laws which
govern how union officials are elected. They may not always perfect
elections. There have been some highly flawed elections. Recently, we
went through one nationally where there was great controversy of one
particular international union. Members of that union protested loudly
over how that election was conducted.
But, fundamentally, they are democratic institutions where the
members get to decide a number of things. They decide whether or not to
form a union. They decide who their officials will be by secret ballot.
They have rights to access of information about union finances and
operations. Under the law, they are required to have that access. Union
rules are applied on an equal basis. Now, there are problems that occur
in the breach, but the law requires it.
If you change the word from ``union'' to ``corporation,'' the workers
in a corporation do not have the right to organize themselves per se.
They do not elect their officials, the management team. Access to
information of finances is not legally required to be made available to
all the employees. The rules apply differently than from unions.
Corporations are hierarchical structures. They could not function
otherwise. I am not suggesting it ought to be, but to suggest that
unions and corporations are sort of parallel organizations is to fly in
the face of factually what exists.
So there is a significant difference between how a union is
organized, how it functions, and how a corporation functions. Despite,
again, what my colleagues have said, there are 21 States in this
country where people who are nonunion members still get the benefits of
what unions are collectively able to bargain for. Nonunion members get
a free ride on the coattails of collective bargaining agreements in 21
States in this country.
Further, there are laws in place to ensure that nonmembers in the 29
free-bargaining States can confine their payments to what is directly
related to collective bargaining, contract administration. That is in
29 States in this country.
There have been a bunch of different States that have tried to do
what the Senator from Utah wants to do. Every one of these States
rejected it. Only one has it--ironically, the State of Utah--and that
State has not made a determination yet as to whether or not this
paycheck deception, as I call it, is going to become the law of the
land.
[[Page 4202]]
Our colleagues in the State legislative bodies have rejected this.
The courts have rejected this as being unconstitutional as well.
Unions are the only member organizations that have to give their
members the option of receiving all the economic benefits of membership
whether they are actually members. So whether one likes unions or does
not like them, there is a fundamental difference. To suggest somehow we
are going to achieve parity, that is not the case.
On the issue of shareholders, despite the fact there has been a
tremendous and healthy explosion of involvement by average citizens
purchasing stocks in America in the last 10 years--While I do not have
the exact percentage today of Americans who own stock, own a piece of
equity in American business, I would estimate it to be approximately
around 70 percent. It is a wonderful, new statistic in terms of
people's participation economically in their own independence. But a
substantial part of stock that has been purchased is purchased through
mutual funds. There are individual buyers, but a lot of it is done
through large investors or larger conglomerates, if you will.
However, when you start breaking this out and start to decide how a
shareholder would vote on whether or not corporate funds ought to be
used for political activities--I do not think I have to say much more--
you are entering a morass of problems on how you divide the percentages
of corporate equity based on a corporation's political involvement. You
are literally putting a sign around almost every corporation's neck
saying: Indict me. Because I do not know how you do it without getting
yourself into trouble.
It seems to me, this bill is a step in the wrong direction. In a bill
where we are trying to reduce the amount of money, the proliferation of
soft-money dollars, in politics, to try, all of a sudden, to engage in
a debate that is unworkable, and as the amendment is currently crafted,
it is unworkable--and even if it were well crafted--I think this is
fundamentally a step in the wrong direction and does not further the
overall goals of this bill.
My colleague from New York said it well. If corporate America thought
this amendment was going to be adopted, it would be banging down the
Senate doors. The idea that they should be treated exactly like unions
is not something that corporate America would welcome.
Here make no mistake, again there appears to be a lot of animosity
here, a lot of venom, a lot of anger over the fact that organized labor
fights on behalf of their people. They fight for a Patients' Bill of
Rights. They fight for prescription drug benefits. They fight for a
minimum wage increase. They fight to improve the quality of education.
Make no mistake, there are people who disagree with them. And they wish
the unions would just be quiet and go away and stop speaking out on
these issues and stop getting themselves involved in the political life
of America. I appreciate their desire to have that occur, but that is
not right. It is not how America functions. It is not what we ought to
codify as new law.
Whatever else one thinks about McCain-Feingold--and despite the fact
I agree with my colleague from Wisconsin, if this amendment were
adopted, it would virtually act as a ``poison pill'' and kill this
bill. To the extent people are interested in campaign finance reform,
the adoption of this amendment would, for all practical purposes,
destroy the fine effort that has been waged by the Senator from Arizona
and the Senator from Wisconsin to achieve campaign finance reform.
If this amendment were adopted, aside from that issue, it would be a
major setback, in my view, for millions and millions of working people
in this country who want their voices heard, want the issues they care
about to be on the table when politics is being discussed and
candidacies are being decided.
For those reasons, and others brought up today, I respectfully say to
my friend from Utah that this amendment would be more properly
withdrawn for the reasons I said at the very outset of the discussion.
Notwithstanding all of the above, the amendment ought to be defeated.
And I urge my colleagues to do so when the vote occurs.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, it is with some regret I rise in
opposition to this amendment. I tell my friend and colleague from
Connecticut, I happen to agree with him on the portions of his debate
alluding to the corporate side of this, trying to say that stockholders
would give approval--for the information of the Parliamentarian, I am
on the time of the Senator from Connecticut. I see the Parliamentarian
is having a hard time deciphering that. I am not often on the side of
my friend from Connecticut, but at this time I will use his 5 minutes.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I hope the world notes and records this
moment. I thank my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. For the record, the Senator from Connecticut
wants to be notified when there are 4 minutes remaining?
Mr. DODD. I think my colleague said he needs 5 minutes. I will give
him 10 minutes. If he uses less, let me know.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 12 minutes left.
Mr. DODD. Better make it 8.
Mr. NICKLES. I will do that.
Mr. President, I mention to my friend from Connecticut, I happen to
agree with him. The corporate side of this would not work. I read the
language. It is the second time today I have read the language. The
other time I read the language was in relation to the amendment dealing
with broadcasting.
All of a sudden we are giving gifts to politicians to the tune of--if
you are from a large State, such as New York, New Jersey, or
California, the previous amendment gave a gift to politicians in the
millions of dollars. And that was in the language. The language in this
amendment, regretfully--I have the greatest respect for my colleague
from Utah, but I do not think the corporate side is workable.
I heard people say: We want to have voluntary campaign contributions
that should apply to the unions and businesses. But no one is compelled
to be a stockholder.
My friend from Connecticut mentioned, you may happen to own a mutual
fund. This is absolutely impossible to enforce. But I also say there is
a big difference between stockholders and employees. And the reason why
we called the original one paycheck protection is because unions are
actually taking money away from individuals on a monthly basis many
times to the tune of $20 or $30 a month, and in 29 States, in many
cases, taking away that money without their approval. Oh, they may not
join the union, but they still have to pay agency dues, agency fees.
A lot of that money is used for political purposes. That part of the
amendment I happen to agree with wholeheartedly. That is the amendment
I wish we were voting on, not this one that confuses corporate, where
you have to get shareholders' approval, who voluntarily purchase stock,
because that is not workable.
It is workable to say, before you take money out of a worker's
paycheck to the tune of $25 a month, if that individual does not want
their money to be used--maybe $5, $10, $15 a month--for political
purposes, they should have a veto. They should be able to say: No,
don't take my money.
No one should be compelled to contribute to a campaign in the year
2001 in the United States. Yet we have millions of Americans who are
given no choice. Some people have said this is a killer amendment, that
it is a poison pill to kill the bill. I disagree wholeheartedly. I was
a principal sponsor of that original paycheck protection amendment. I
still am. I believe very strongly no one should be compelled to
contribute to a campaign against their will, period. We want to
encourage participation. We don't want to mandate it. We don't want to
take money away from an individual, use it in a way they
[[Page 4203]]
don't like, and then say: If you want to, you might file for a refund.
That is the Beck decision. I think we should strike the Beck
provision. I agree entirely with the Senator from Kentucky. The Beck
provision in the underlying bill is a fraud. It should not be in there.
It doesn't protect workers; it doesn't codify Beck. It dilutes it, if
it does not totally eviscerate it. It needs to be deleted. We will
wrestle with that amendment later. I don't want to confuse the two.
Paycheck protection is important. It is important for those millions
of workers in 29 States that are compelled to join a union. If they
object to the union and resign their membership in the union, they
still have to pay agency fees. Agency fees can be in excess of $20 a
month. Much of that money, maybe half, maybe more, is used for
political purposes against their will. Those hard earned dollars may be
used for political purposes maybe they don't agree with, money that
goes to candidates campaigning against a tax cut, maybe campaigning to
take away their right to own firearms, maybe very liberal positions
with which they don't agree.
You might ask: Where did Paycheck Protection come from? I began this
fight because an American Airlines union member came up to me and said
that his money was being used for political purposes that he was
against it, totally, and he couldn't do anything about it. I told him I
would try to help him. I told him I will try to pass legislation to
have voluntary campaign contributions for everybody in America. That
shouldn't be too much to ask for. That is the genesis of paycheck
protection.
I hope maybe we will have a chance to vote on that. I hope we will
find out, are people really for voluntary campaign contributions.
Unfortunately, the amendment we have before us does much more than make
a campaign contributions voluntary. So maybe at a later point in the
debate--we still have a week and a half left--maybe we can vote on
voluntary campaign contributions. That is this Senator's purpose.
For someone to say this is a poison pill because organized labor
doesn't want it is nonsense, do we should just give a special interest
a blank check--do we let them veto anything that we present on the
floor of the Senate? I don't think so. Organized labor forcibly
confiscates hundreds of millions of dollars for political purposes.
Organized labor put in at least $300 to $500 million in the last
campaign cycle. That is a lot of money. Let them participate, but it
just should all be done with voluntary campaign contributions.
Likewise, if businesses are raising money for political action
committees, that should all be done on a voluntary basis. Nobody should
be compelled to contribute to a campaign in the year 2001.
I hope we will have a chance to vote on paycheck protection,
voluntary campaign contributions for all Americans. I do believe that
the language that deals with the corporate side of this is not workable
and does not have anything to do with voluntary campaign contributions.
I say that with great regret because I have the greatest respect for my
colleague from Utah.
I also want to address one other issue very quickly. That is the
issue with Beck. My friend from Kentucky mentioned that the Beck
language in the underlying bill needs to be taken out. I agree
wholeheartedly. I hope we will have bipartisan support. People who said
they wanted to codify the Beck decision, this does not codify it, it
changes it, changes it dramatically. To me, that is not right. I don't
think it is right for us to say verbally it codifies Beck when it takes
worker protections and actually guts the Beck decision. I hope that at
a later point, not to confuse it with this amendment, but at a later
point my colleagues will join those of us who would like to see that
language removed from the underlying bill.
I thank my friend and colleague from Connecticut for the time and
also my friend and colleague from Kentucky who I think has handled this
bill quite well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 7 minutes 23 seconds remaining for
the proponents, and 6 and a half minutes for the opponents.
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Before the Senator from Oklahoma leaves the floor, I
want him to know he has our great admiration. He is the one who thought
of paycheck protection. He outlined the history of it a few moments
ago. I understand we will not have his vote on this offering because,
as he knows, we were trying to meet the objections of some of those on
the other side who have said for years: You ought to apply it to
corporations as well as unions. We did that. It looks as though we are
not going to get any of their votes anyway.
I do credit the Senator from Oklahoma. This is his piece of work
originally. I hope at some point in the debate he will offer the
amendment without the corporate provision. I certainly would vote for
it. I think many Members would. It deals with a very real problem in
the American political system.
I think we are essentially through with the debate, I say to my
friend from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, we are prepared to yield back
whatever time we have remaining. If that would be the case, then I
think a motion to table would be made, and we could move on.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield back the time on this side.
Mr. DODD. I yield back our time as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to table amendment No. 134, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 31, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 43 Leg.]
YEAS--69
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thompson
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--31
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Craig
Crapo
Enzi
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Thomas
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
This motion was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was
agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent, following the debate tonight
on the pending Hatch amendment, the Senate then resume consideration of
the amendment beginning at 9 o'clock in the morning, and there be 30
minutes of debate remaining, equally divided, in the usual form.
Finally, I ask consent that following the use or yielding back of time,
the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 136
Mr. HATCH. I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] proposes an amendment
numbered 136.
[[Page 4204]]
Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object--I don't intend to
object--does the Senator have copies of the amendment?
Mr. HATCH. I understand your side has copies.
Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague, there is a copy we can get.
Mr. KENNEDY. I have a copy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the dispensing of the
reading of the amendment?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To add a provision to require disclosure to shareholders and
members regarding use of funds for political activities)
On page 37, between lines 14 and 15, and insert the
following:
SEC. 305. DISCLOSURE OF DISBURSEMENTS OF UNION DUES, FEES,
AND ASSESSMENTS OR CORPORATE FUNDS FOR
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.
Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 304
the following:
``SEC. 304A. DISCLOSURE OF DISBURSEMENTS OF UNION DUES, FEES,
AND ASSESSMENTS OR CORPORATE FUNDS FOR
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.
``(a) In General.--Any corporation or labor organization
(including a separate segregated fund established and
maintained by such entity) that makes a disbursement for
political activity or a contribution or expenditure during an
election cycle shall submit a written report for such cycle--
``(1) in the case of a corporation, to each of its
shareholders; and
``(2) in the case of a labor organization, to each employee
within the labor organization's bargaining unit or units;
disclosing the portion of the labor organization's income
from dues, fees, and assessments or the corporation's funds
that was expended directly or indirectly for political
activities, contributions, and expenditures during such
election cycle.
``(b) Contents.--
``(1) In general.--The report submitted under subsection
(a) shall disclose information regarding the dues, fees, and
assessments spent at each level of the labor organization and
by each international, national, State, and local component
or council, and each affiliate of the labor organization and
information on funds of a corporation spent by each
subsidiary of such corporation showing the amount of dues,
fees, and assessments or corporate funds disbursed in the
following categories:
``(A) Direct activities, such as cash contributions to
candidates and committees of political parties.
``(B) Internal and external communications relating to
specific candidates, political causes, and committees of
political parties.
``(C) Internal disbursements by the labor organization or
corporation to maintain, operate, and solicit contributions
for a separate segregated fund.
``(D) Voter registration drives, State and precinct
organizing on behalf of candidates and committees of
political parties, and get-out-the-vote campaigns.
``(2) Identify candidate or cause.--For each of the
categories of information described in a subparagraph of
paragraph (1), the report shall identify the candidate for
public office on whose behalf disbursements were made or the
political cause or purpose for which the disbursements were
made.
``(3) Contributions and expenditures.--The report under
subsection (a) shall also list all contributions or
expenditures made by separated segregated funds established
and maintained by each labor organization or corporation.
``(c) Time to Make Reports.--A report required under
subsection (a) shall be submitted not later than January 30
of the year beginning after the end of the election cycle
that is the subject of the report.
``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Election cycle.--The term `election cycle' means,
with respect to an election, the period beginning on the day
after the date of the previous general election for Federal
office and ending on the date of the next general election
for Federal office.
``(2) Political activity.--The term `political activity'
means--
``(A) voter registration activity;
``(B) voter identification or get-out-the-vote activity;
``(C) a public communication that refers to a clearly
identified candidate for Federal office and that expressly
advocates support for or opposition to a candidate for
Federal office; and
``(D) disbursements for television or radio broadcast time,
print advertising, or polling for political activities.''
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this amendment is simple, and
straightforward. It does not attempt to codify the Beck case that we
debate year-after-year on the Senate floor. There is nothing complex or
legalistic about it. Frankly, like the section 527 bill we passed last
year, we simply require disclosure.
This is a modest measure of fundamental fairness. It is a simple
right-to-know amendment. The right of American workers and shareholders
who pay dues and fees to unions and corporations that represent them,
to know how their money is being spent for certain political purposes,
causes, and activities. It does nothing more than require a report by
labor organizations and corporations to be given to the shareholders
and workers represented by unions. This shows how much of their money
is being spent in the political process.
As we all know, part of the debate here has been the use of these
types of money that never have to, because of the loophole in the
Federal election laws, be seen on the reports or be reported by those
who received benefits from union expenditures.
I have to say this amendment does not impose overly burdensome or
onerous requirements on corporations or unions. This is basic
information, and it should be freely provided.
I cannot believe that either union or corporate leadership has a
legitimate interest in keeping secret what political causes and
activities employee dues, fees, or earnings are being spent to support.
If employees or shareholders learn how their money is being spent in
the political process, unions and corporations will enjoy an even
greater confidence level in their decisionmaking.
On the other hand, if employees and shareholders might not like what
they see, is that any reason they should not see it? Is it too onerous?
No. After the numerous paperwork burdens that this Congress has freely
imposed on small businesses and all taxpaying citizens, how can any of
us object to ensuring that workers, teachers, janitors, electricians,
and others are informed about how their dues are being spent on the
most fundamental of all American activities, the political process?
I doubt anyone would suggest that unions, even at the local level, do
not keep these records anyway. How else can an organization that
represents employees be effective and accountable, if it does not even
know how the dues and fees collected from the employees it represents
are being expended?
Should we have the same requirements also be applied to corporations
that give this type of information to their shareholders? There is not
the same problem there, but why not, if that is what my colleagues
think is fair? My amendment therefore covers not only labor unions but
also corporations for this simple disclosure requirement.
This amendment represents only one simple, straightforward question:
Should an employee be left in the dark on how his or her union dues and
fees are being spent in the political process? This amendment is the
most modest of beginning steps we can take to bring common sense or
reform to our campaign laws.
Finally, let me add one more important point. Everyone knows that the
corporate world represents shareholders and not individual dues-paying
members. Everybody knows the corporate world does not do the collateral
campaign work that the unions do with dues-paid money. It is hardly the
same situation. That most likely is the reason why some of my
colleagues did not vote for the preceding amendment.
But the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has in the past
raised a fair point. If we include the unions, why should we not
include the corporations? These are not reporting requirements that are
onerous or burdensome.
This amendment is about basic fairness, and I hope all my colleagues
will support it. Basically, it allows individuals that are shareholders
or members of a labor organization the right to know how their money is
spent in the American electoral process.
I think this is a fair amendment, it is a decent amendment, it is
fair to both sides. It just requires simple disclosure. Why not?
I yield the floor.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, does my colleague from Arizona wish to be
heard on this?
[[Page 4205]]
Mr. McCAIN. I would like 3 minutes.
Mr. DODD. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hatch for an effort to do
what all of us agree is a fundamental of any campaign finance reform,
and that is full and complete disclosure. I regret having to point out
my opposition to this amendment because it is my understanding this
full disclosure of political activity of both business and labor is
defined in the basic bill under section (2) Political Activity, which
says:
The term ``political activity'' means--(A) voter
registration activity; (B) voter identification or get-out-
the-vote activity; (C) a public communication that refers to
a fairly identified candidate for Federal office and that
expressly advocates support for or opposition to a candidate
for Federal office; and [finally] (D) disbursement for
television or radio broadcast time, print advertising or
polling for political activities.
The way I read this is most of these activities are conducted by
labor unions and only one by corporations. So we have an imbalance here
on requirements for disclosure.
There are many other things that are done by businesses and
corporations that need to be disclosed as well, in my view. Very few
corporate activities are involved in voter registration activities. Of
course, unions are. The same thing holds for voter identification or
get-out-the-vote activity. Express advocacy is clearly not something
that is done a lot by businesses, nor is polling.
I assure Senator Hatch of the following: We are working with Senator
Snowe and with Senator Cochran and Senator Collins, and we are trying
to come up with a fair disclosure amendment that will give greater
disclosure than is presently in the bill but in a more fair and
balanced way.
I will have to oppose this amendment on the grounds of its imbalance.
The one thing we promised everybody when we proposed this legislation
was we would resist any attempt to pass an amendment that would
unbalance what we had put forward as a level playing field. This would
imbalance that. I believe we can have all of those items fully
disclosed, and more, so observers will say this full disclosure, this
light, will shine on business and unions alike in an equal manner.
Having said that, I regret to have to oppose the amendment. I will
make a motion to table at the appropriate time.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Connecticut yield
me 3 minutes?
Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield my colleague 5 minutes.
I thank my colleague from Arizona for his comments. We are going to
meet in the morning for a half-hour debate before the final vote on
this Hatch II amendment. I thank my colleague.
The Senator from Massachusetts?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with all respect to my friend and
colleague from Utah, this really is no improvement over the earlier
amendment. In many respects, it just continues the differentiation by
which different groups are being treated, not just the corporations and
unions but other groups as well.
Again, I know my friend talked about the drafting. He doesn't need
any lectures from me. But I am confused because the amendment is very
unclear. It says, for example, that ``political activities'' must be
reported. If you look on page 5 it has ``political activity'' defined.
If you go to the term ``political activity,'' it means, if you go to
line 19, ``political activity.''
So you have political activity being defined as political activity.
It is really quite difficult to understand.
We all know at the present time that unions are subject to
substantial reporting and disclosure requirements. I have in my hand
the disclosure requirements. They are extensive. Unions have to
disclose PAC funds, all payments for express advocacy, and detailed
financial information. This goes far beyond what corporations today are
required to report.
It is publicly available. For any of those who have a viewpoint that
is the same as that of the Senator from Utah, they can just go down to
the Labor Department where all these reports are on file. They are
available to the public.
The case has not been made about the inadequacy of the information
that is reported. We have language requiring additional disclosure in
this amendment, but there has been no case that the current information
is inadequate to reveal what political activities are being supported.
I think that doesn't make a great deal of sense.
This bill is not only vague, it is burdensome. As we mentioned
earlier, and as Senator Hatch said during our prior colloquy,
corporations would have to send reports to anyone who was a shareholder
at the time of the expenditures.
We have had the chance to do the numbers. Last week alone there were
more than 6 billion stockholder transactions just on the New York Stock
Exchange.
Does this mean that if any of the corporations that would be included
in this bill made an expenditure last week that all holders of those
shares would have to be notified? The amendment says they would have to
be notified of all expenditures within a 2-year election cycle. That is
unwieldy. It is unworkable. It is enormously bureaucratic. It makes no
sense at all.
We had a good exchange in the last debate. Many of us are troubled
about what either my good friend, Senator Hatch, or others who support
this amendment have against working families and the working families'
agenda. Working families want an increase in the minimum wage, a
Patients' Bill of Rights, and additional funding in education. They
want to make sure we have a sound and secure national security. They
want Medicare and Medicaid to be enhanced. They want to improve worker
training. They want to invest in continuing education and workforce
training programs. I daresay that kind of a program would be worthwhile
at the present time. This is what their agenda is all about.
We are probably in some form of economic crisis. And what we have
from the administration is a tax bill which isn't an economic program;
it is a tax bill that was basically devised over a year ago when we had
entirely different economic conditions.
I think the kinds of investment that working families have advocated
in terms of ensuring that we are going to invest in training programs,
invest in education, invest in small business, enhance research and
training, and not see further cuts in the National Science Foundation,
or other cuts in the advanced technology program, makes a good deal of
sense.
We hope this amendment is not accepted. In the earlier debate and
discussion, we went through these and other provisions in careful
detail. The amendment does seem to be one-sided, unfairly targeted, and
completely unnecessary.
I think the sponsors, Senator Feingold, and Senator McCain, as well
as Senator Dodd and others, have eloquently pointed out the kind of
balance and protections for the American voters that have been included
in the McCain-Feingold legislation. That was carefully considered. It
seems to me that we ought to stay with those proposals. I hope this
amendment will not be accepted.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for
his comments. I think he hit it right on the head with this.
I made comments earlier on the previous amendment offered by my good
friend from Utah. He made the point. I understood the intent of what
the Senator was trying to achieve. As Senator Nickles of Oklahoma, with
whom I don't normally agree on these matters, properly pointed out, you
cannot carry out the intent of the amendment. Despite the desire to do
so, the language of the amendment, if followed to the letter of the
proposal, or even the spirit, creates a tremendously bureaucratic
nightmare for both corporations and for labor organization.
I do not agree that anyone would have an interest to discourage
activity at all. We want to know what is going on. Under current
Federal law, labor unions are required to make various
[[Page 4206]]
records be available and open. The records cannot be shielded or
hidden. That is in violation of existing Federal law.
To suddenly add even more bureaucratic requirements for every
disbursement, receipt and expenditure in every level, including
affiliates, and every minor tangible office, is not in the spirit of
true disclosure. This is in the spirit of discouragement from anyone
participating in the process. Everyone knows we have a hard time
getting more people to participate in the process as it is.
In last year's Presidential and congressional Federal elections, we
had about 50 million who participated out of 101 million eligible
voters in this country. It seems to me we ought to be doing better and
we can do better. We lecture the world all the time about how important
it is to vote. We like to think of ourselves as an example for nations
that are seeking to establish democratic institutions.
It seems to me it is in our collective interest to promote that idea,
and to do so by example with an environment of full disclosure, of
fairness, and of equity.
But with all due respect to my friend from Utah, the adoption of this
amendment is nothing more than to create unnecessary burdens on
institutions that, frankly, we wish were more active in the political
life of America. If they were, then in some sense through voter
education efforts we might have greater voter participation.
This amendment, in my view, only adds additional unnecessary burdens
to a process that already discourages too many people from
participating in the public life of our Nation. For those reasons, I
urge our colleagues when the vote occurs tomorrow to reject this
amendment.
I think the provisions included in the bill drafted by the Senators
from Arizona and Wisconsin very aptly deal with this very question of
true disclosure and information. They have done so in the spirit of
seeking to make people aware of what institutions are doing that
involve themselves in the political life of our country.
But to add this amendment to the McCain-Feingold bill would have the
opposite effect. It would not effectuate what we are trying to achieve.
Our goals are to reduce the proliferation of the money in the political
life of our country and to make it less costly for people to seek
Federal office.
We ought to simultaneously try to reduce the amount of hurdles,
burdens, and gauntlets that institutions such as corporations and labor
unions have to presently meet. To add to them, to make their
involvement even more difficult, I don't think is in anyone's interest,
Democrats or Republicans, and certainly not in the interest of the
American people.
For those reasons, I frankly urge that the amendment be withdrawn.
But, if it is not going to be withdrawn, I urge my colleagues with the
same expression that we saw with the previous Hatch amendment to vote
with the same sense of collective voice on this particular proposal.
For those reasons, I urge the rejection of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have listened to these comments about the
imbalance. McCain-Feingold is balance. It brings balance. Let me give
you an illustration.
McCain-Feingold regulates what unions care about least. Think about
it. It regulates get out the vote. It regulates two things: It
regulates television advertisement within 60 days. It regulates radio
ads for a candidate--not a party--within 60 days of a general election,
or 30 days of a primary. It does do that. That is technically
unconstitutional on its face. But it does do that. Television
advertisements and radio advertisements are all McCain-Feingold does
with regard to what the unions are interested in. These are the two
things they care about least.
What they really care about and what we ought to be concerned about,
if we want fairness, and if we don't want one side to have an advantage
over the other, McCain-Feingold ought to cover all get out the vote
activities. That is probably one of the most important things in the
political process today, if not the most important thing.
Voter identification, McCain-Feingold does not do anything about
that. Voter registration, nothing. Mass mailings, nothing. Phone banks,
nothing; magazine advertisements, newspaper advertisements, outdoor
advertising and leafleting, polling, volunteer recruitment and
training, union-salaried, full-time political operatives. And look, I
do not have any problem with that in the sense that unions have a right
to do whatever they want to do in advancing their issues in the
political process. And I would fight for their right to do that, as I
have in the past. But the only people whose rights are infringed upon
by the McCain-Feingold bill happen to be the Republican Party because
the unions do all of this for the Democratic Party.
Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?
Mr. HATCH. If I could finish making my point, and then I will be
happy to yield.
The unions are the principal get-out-the-vote force in the Democratic
Party. Keep in mind, 40 percent of union members are Republicans, yet
almost 100 percent of the money that unions raise helps get out the
vote for Democrats. That does not seem like a fair process, but that is
the way it is. But that money could only be hard money to the political
parties, meaning they are severely hampered in getting out the vote.
No. 2, voter identification. The unions do that beautifully for
Democrats. I do not know of one Republican that a union has worked for
to help identify Republican voters. I am sure there is one or two, but
the fact is the vast majority--almost 100 percent--of their money goes
to help Democrats. That is their right. Why aren't the Democrats scared
about what the McCain-Feingold bill will do to the Democratic Party?
Because the Democratic Party does not have to worry about all of this
because the unions do it for them? Most of the employees of the unions
are dues-paid political operatives. They are very good, the best in the
business. I respect them.
Volunteer registration: The Republican Party has been limited to hard
dollars--$1,000 a person--in order to get out voter registration. The
unions do it for the Democrats. And, by the way, there is not one word
in McCain-Feingold to regulate that, or to require the same requisite
on the unions that they require on the Republican Party.
The Democratic Party can get by because the unions will do it for
them. Even though they have the same rules as the Republican Party, the
Republican Party does not have a group like the union movement doing
get out the vote, voter identification, voter registration, mass
mailings, phone banks, magazine advertisements, newspaper
advertisements, outdoor advertising and leafleting, polling, volunteer
recruitment and training, and a whole raft of other things, including--
--
Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield on that point? That is not our
fault. That is your fault. Why don't you get somebody to organize the
voter registration and GOTV?
Mr. HATCH. Wait. The last point I was making was, and union-salaried,
full-time political operatives.
You can say that is our fault. Let's assume that is so. The fact is,
we do not have anybody doing that. It is totally unregulated. That is
the guts of the political process. If we are going to regulate, let's
regulate everybody, not just the parties. And the parties themselves
ought to be given greater leeway than this bill gives them.
The only thing that McCain-Feingold regulates is the thing that the
unions care about the least; that is, TV advertisements and radio
advertisements.
Look, I give a lot of credit to the Democrats. I give a lot of credit
to the unions. There is no question that is why they won the last
election in the Senate and had more people elected than Republicans.
Because they were getting out the vote like never before. They did
voter identification like never before. They did voter registration.
They did mass mailings. And they did phone banks. They did TV
advertisements, radio advertisements, magazine advertisements,
newspaper advertisements, outdoor advertising and
[[Page 4207]]
leafleting, polling, volunteer recruitment and training, and had union-
salaried, full-time political operatives all over this country. That is
their right.
Why do we take all those rights away from the Republican Party? You
can't just answer by saying that is the Republicans' fault because they
are not paying the same homage to the unions that the Democrats do, and
I have to say we are not, in the sense of doing everything that they
want done, because not everything they want done is right.
All my amendment does is require disclosure to the union members and
corporate shareholders. I am not even asking for priority in this area.
I am not asking for any equality with regard to all the things the
unions do for Democrats that make them not care about the parties not
being able to raise soft money. The unions do it all for them, and that
is all soft money.
Now, I had some strong words with my colleague from Massachusetts
earlier in this debate, and they were meant in good taste and in good
humor as well. But I feel strongly on this issue.
This amendment will give ordinary workers the opportunity to have a
meaningful voice in how their political contributions are used. I held
a union card. I understand this.
Organized labor is not a monolithic entity, but too often the
leadership of these unions act in a monolithic fashion when it comes to
elections.
This amendment tries to level the playing field for both unions and
corporations. All it requires is disclosure.
Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield on that point?
Mr. HATCH. Sure.
Mr. DODD. I want to point out, if I may, when you talk about the
great advantage that labor has, because it does organize, it does work
on voter registration, it does work on get out the vote----
Mr. HATCH. It does all these things----
Mr. DODD. If I may finish. This is not a liability and it should be
applauded. The fact that corporations do not do that sort of a thing
does not mean that other organizations should be condemned because they
do encourage people to participate.
To make one other point regarding parity, as of October 2000,
according to the Center for Responsive Politics and the Federal
Election Commission, the ratio of ``total'' contributions from
corporations versus unions was 15 to 1. As of October 2000,
corporations had contributed more than $841 million dollars, while
unions contributed just over $36 million. As of October 2000, the ratio
of ``hard money'' contributions from corporations versus unions was 14
to 1. In 1998 and 1996, the ratio was 16 to 1. Between 1992 and 1998,
corporate contributions increased nearly $220 million, while union
contributions grew by $12.6 million. No parity in these statistics.
These ratios and statistics are according to the Federal Election
Commission. You talk about disparity--16 to 1--every year, I say to my
friend from Utah. Corporations have massive amounts of money, hard and
soft money, they are pouring into these Federal elections.
Mr. HATCH. If I may take back the floor.
Mr. DODD. Of course you may. It is your time, Senator.
Mr. HATCH. Nowhere did they count these dues-paid political
operatives. I read a report a number of years back--I think it was the
Congressional Research Service, if my recollection serves me
correctly--where they estimated that the unions spend about a half
billion dollars--that is with a ``B''--a half billion dollars every 2
years in local, State, and Federal politics. This money is spent on
dues-paid political operative activities that never show up in these
figures.
Let me tell you, I am not against their right to do that. I think
they should have a right to do that. I respect them. I will fight for
their right to do that. The fact that it is all one-sided, even though
40 percent of union members are Republicans, I can live with that. But
what I cannot live with is shutting down the party, the only way we can
compete, where the unions do all these things for Democrats but nothing
for Republicans.
The fact is, the Democrats will continue to count on the unions to
get out their vote. But why do we have McCain-Feingold shutting down
the rights of Republicans to compete to get out the vote, to have voter
identification, voter registration, mass mailings, phone banks, TV
advertisements, radio advertisements, magazine advertisements,
newspaper advertisements, outdoor advertising and leafleting, polling,
volunteer recruitment and training, and full-time political operatives?
The fact is, this is all done for Democrats. Their party does not
have to do it. They can live with the hard money limitation that this
bill would impose upon them. But the Republican Party would have no
soft money. All this is soft money on the unions' part--all working for
Democrats, all one sided. And the Republican Party does not have the
same opportunities. Talk about imbalance.
Again, let's go back to what my amendment does. My amendment does not
say: Stop that. You members of the unions are not allowed to do that.
It does not say that at all. It does not say you can't get out the vote
for Democrats, and does not say you can't do voter identification for
Democrats. It does not say you can't do voter registration for
Democrats. It does not say you can't do mass mailings or phone banks or
TV advertisements or radio advertisements--although for those two, with
the 60-day requirement, McCain-Feingold does do something; but it is
unconstitutional on its face--it does not say you can't do magazine
advertisements and newspaper advertisements and outdoor advertising and
leafleting and polling, and volunteer recruitment and training. It does
not say you can't have union-salaried, full-time political operatives--
the best in the business, all over the country in every State in the
Union that counts, in every large city that counts. They can do all of
that.
I am not arguing against that. All my amendment says is that they
need to disclose to their members something that in this computer age
they can do without--
Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?
Mr. HATCH. If I could just finish my comments, something that they
can do in this computer age without an awful lot of difficulty, and
something I believe the corporate world can do without an awful lot of
difficulty is provide disclosure. Tell me what is wrong with
disclosure. To me, that is the only thing that will make our process
more fair, more honest, more decent. Disclosure helps everyone equally
to know how their money is spent. I believe that everyone should be
entitled to know what political speech they are supporting. Disclosure
is what honesty and fairness in politics is all about. Why would anyone
fight against disclosure?
Fairness is all I am asking for. I am not asking to stop any of this.
It has been admitted basically that unions do the work for the
Democratic Party.
Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HATCH. They basically help the Democratic Party, and they will
continue to have the right to.
Mr. DODD. Should we have with all these independent 501(c)(4)s, the
National Right to Life groups, the Christian Coalition, the National
Rifle Association, should there be full disclosure of every member,
including all their disbursements, contributions, and expenditures?
Does my colleague support that?
Mr. HATCH. You can't compare those to the unions.
Mr. DODD. Would you agree?
Mr. HATCH. I would like to answer. The National Rifle Association is
made up primarily of blue-collar Democrats. In all honesty, that is why
there hasn't been a lot of mouthing about gunslinging because Al Gore
found in the last election that he had offended an awful lot of
Democrats. I think that is why he lost West Virginia.
Mr. DODD. Should we have full disclosure?
Mr. HATCH. Not of members, but only of expenditures.
Mr. DODD. Why not of members?
Mr. HATCH. Because then you get into the NAACP, and we have already
[[Page 4208]]
had the Supreme Court say that is unconstitutional.
Mr. DODD. Should we know who are making the contributions to these
organizations that are out every day with such activities as get out
the vote, voter registration, voter information, and mailings? You talk
about full disclosure, why not full disclosure on these organizations?
Mr. HATCH. The Supreme Court has ruled in cases that you cannot
require disclosure of membership lists. I don't personally have much
problem with disclosure of moneys that have been put into the process,
but not the names.
Mr. DODD. Are we going to keep that secret?
Mr. HATCH. The main case was the NAACP where one of the Southern
States tried to get them to disclose their membership list and the
Court said they didn't have to do. They are a legitimate organization.
I am not asking the unions to disclose their membership lists either,
nor am I asking corporations to disclose their shareholder lists,
although anybody who looks at a corporate filing can figure that out.
If disclosure requirements applied equally to the Sierra Club, to
NARAL, and to other groups, disclosure might not be a bad thing for all
of them. I would not be pushing for disclosure of members in nonprofit
foundations because the Supreme Court has already ruled on that. But
now we are talking about real players in the political process, not
peripheral organizations. The fact is, many members of the NRA are
Democrats. They are just offended by some of the phony demagoging that
has been done about guns through the years. They are tough on crime.
That is another debate.
With regard to the right-to-life community, I have to admit that they
support both sides, but they support people who are pro-life, just as
the pro-choice groups support the people who are pro-choice on both
sides.
Mrs. CLINTON. Will the Senator yield on this point?
Mr. HATCH. I am happy to.
Mrs. CLINTON. My good friend from Connecticut raised an issue that
troubles me about this proposed amendment that the distinguished
Senator from Utah has put forth.
In addition to the issues that Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd have
raised about the vagueness and definitional concerns raised in the
amendment, this particular issue is the real heart of the parity
problem that many of us have with this amendment.
It reminds me of the old Anatole France saying: The law is fair;
neither the rich nor the poor can sleep under the bridge. What we have
is an amendment that in its practice not only would fall
disproportionately on unions as compared to corporations but which,
under the rationale put forward by it, completely leaves out other
membership groups, as the Senator from Connecticut so rightly points
out.
The burdensome reporting requirements that are imposed under this
amendment on unions in particular are really much more difficult to
comply with than if they would be in a corporation. As I understand the
amendment, corporations would be required to report only on
expenditures from their own general treasuries and from the general
treasuries of their subsidiaries. However, unions would be required to
report on the expenditures from all of their affiliates, which would
mean that a local union would be required to report on expenditures by
a national union, and vice versa, even though neither of them had
either access or control to the financial records of the other.
This point we heard about from Senator Dodd is particularly
important. If the point we are trying to get at with this amendment is
to understand who is doing what with what funds to engage in political
activity during election cycles, then clearly a lot of the other
membership groups that raise and spend tremendous amounts of money--two
were mentioned, the NRA, the Sierra Club, you can add the Chambers of
Commerce, National Right to Work Foundation, other groups across the
political spectrum----
Mr. HATCH. Does the Senator have a question because I think I have
the right to the floor.
Mrs. CLINTON. My question would be: In response to the discussion
between the Senators on this issue, how can we impose undue burdens on
only unions as compared to corporations and completely leave out of the
Senator's concerns all of these membership groups that raise tremendous
amounts of money, are on the front lines of our political campaigns,
have a direct influence on how voters vote, and yet are in no way
covered by the Senator's amendment?
Mr. HATCH. Let me answer the question. The fact is, we are equal with
regard to both corporations and unions. We don't include any
ideological groups because when you give to the Sierra Club, you know
the causes they advocate. You have a right to give. You are not forced
or compelled to contribute to these organizations. But when people join
unions or are forced to join unions because of the laws that we have,
they are forced to pay fees to unions. Most of the union members
probably don't know what the union dues are used for, especially with
regard to politics or things such as an effort in 1996 to legalize
marijuana in California, for instance. The Teamsters contributed
$195,000 to that effort in union dues to support that effort. How many
working families want their hard-earned money to be used for marijuana
legalization? I think that they have a right to know this kind of
information.
Disclosing expenditures is constitutionally different from disclosing
contributors to ideological groups which the Supreme Court has said we
should not do. Disclosing expenditures does not implicate free
association. It is important to differentiate between expenditures and
contributors. The difference is, union members are forced to pay dues.
Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, we disagree so fundamentally on
that.
Mr. HATCH. Let me restate that.
Mr. DODD. That is not true.
Mr. HATCH. It is true in nonright-to-work States. People are forced
to join the union and forced to pay dues. They don't have to stay in
the union, I agree. They can quit if they give up their jobs.
Mr. DODD. Nor are they required to contribute union dues. Under those
29 States, that is not the case with respect to the contribution of
union dues.
Mr. HATCH. In right-to-work States, that is not the case.
Mr. DODD. They get the benefits of the collective bargaining
agreements even though they are not members per se. They all get the
same benefits.
Mr. HATCH. That is another argument for another day. The fact is, I
don't think anybody in their right mind is going to say that people are
not compelled to pay union dues in nonright-to-work States, if they
want the job and they want to work in a union business. It is that
simple. Nobody doubts that. I don't have any problem with that. That is
the way the law is. But to say they can spend 100 percent of the money
for only one party and not disclose it seems to me to be a bad process,
especially when Democrats have suggested: Well, if you don't make the
corporations disclose, why should you make the unions? I am saying
let's make both of them disclose. Let's be fair so there is no
imbalance.
The imbalance is in the fact that the only two things the unions
don't care about are TV advertisements and radio advertisements. They
can do all these other things: Get out the vote, voter identification,
voter registration, mass mailings, phone banks, TV advertisement, radio
advertisements, magazine advertisements, newspaper advertisements,
outdoor advertising, leafleting, polling, volunteer recruitment and
training, and most of their employees are union salaried, full-time
political operatives, all working for one party, and at the same time
this McCain-Feingold bill limits the Republican Party, which has no
outside organization doing this. It limits hard dollars to no more than
$1,000 per contributor. Talk about imbalance. In other words, the two
groups that you would hope would be fully in the political process--
[[Page 4209]]
the two political parties--are the ones that are left out, while we
ignore all this other stuff.
Talk about imbalance. The McCain-Feingold bill is imbalanced. What is
even worse, in my eyes, is that the one thing they impose on unions and
others is TV advertisements and radio advertisements within 30 to 60
days of the primary and general elections. Think about that. That says
they don't have the right to speak during that time which, under
Buckley v. Valeo, shows that directly violative of the first amendment.
Here we have the media and everybody else arguing for this.
My amendment does one thing. It doesn't stop the unions from doing
this. It doesn't say you are bad people, you should not do this. It
says you need to disclose what you are doing so that all members of the
union know what political ideologies they are supporting with their
dues. That includes 40 percent of them who are basically Republicans
and whose moneys are all going to elect Democrats, people who are
basically contrary to their philosophical and political viewpoints.
All I ask is that there be disclosure. But to even it up, since the
Democrats have raised this time and again, I would require disclosure
in the corporate world, too--disclose what the money is used for
regarding politics.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________