Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there is no objection to the amendment on this side.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we have been able to work out the amendment offered by my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, with regard to an expedited review of the McCain-Feingold measure. While I strongly disagree with my colleague's conclusion that absent review, the citizens of this Nation will be subjected to unconstitutional provisions that infringe on speech, I do support the intent of this amendment. I believe that this measure, S. 27, is a balanced attempt to follow the requirements laid down in Buckley and the Shrink Missouri PAC cases. The Court has essentially invited Congress to express our will in this area, and the McCain-Feingold legislation does just that. My support for the Senator's amendment should in no way be read to suggest that I think there are provisions of this measure that are unconstitutional. To the contrary, I believe it will pass constitutional review. However, I understand the Senator's desire to put this question to the test in an expedited manner. This is not an unusual request for such far-reaching and important legislation. The purpose of this amendment is to provide expedited judicial review of this legislation. In this Senator's mind, this is a good idea. I am confident that the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold this legislation and it is in everyone's best interest to know that as soon as possible. But by saying that, however, I do not want to suggest that the Court should not take adequate time to review any such challenge. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that such an expedited review be conducted at the expense of allowing all interested parties to intervene in this matter in order to provide assistance to the Court in its decision. This may be the first major effort to reform this Nation's campaign finance laws in nearly 25 years that becomes law, and there is a wealth of expertise on this issue in both Congress and the private sector which can be of immense assistance to the Court in its review. Finally, I express my appreciation to the Senator from Utah for his willingness to clarify that any such expedited challenge to this measure must be brought exclusively in the District Court for the District of Columbia. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment as well. I think this has been worked out carefully. I commend the Members and staffs who worked on this amendment. This is in very sound shape. It avoids the potential problems of being overly broad or too vague with respect to the language, which would expose too many honest and good people who want to be involved in the political process from allegations of criminality. None of us want that to occur. This amendment is worthwhile. Mr. President, if I might, since we are going to be a few minutes before we vote on this, I want to take a couple minutes and address another matter that may come up this morning which deserves some attention. That is what I see as one of the glaring problems still with the bill as a result of an amendment we adopted last week dealing with the so-called millionaires loophole. I voted against that amendment because I thought it was unnecessary. But it is even more so by the events over the past week, as we have adopted amendments now which have increased the hard dollar limits by 100 percent. Thus, the need for providing some additional resources to so-called less wealthy candidates is certainly far less than it was a week ago. As we all recall, last Tuesday the Senate adopted amendment No. 115 offered by Senators Domenici, DeWine, Durbin, McConnell, and others. I opposed the amendment because it did not appear to me to be reform. It added more money to the system and did so in a way to protect nonwealthy incumbents with substantial campaign treasuries. The amendment that may be offered later this morning would intend to close what I think is an unintended loophole in this language. The Domenici amendment addressed the situation of a wealthy candidate financing his or her own election with personal resources. It granted more generous contribution limits to nonwealthy opponents. It sounds reasonable enough, but in the case of a nonwealthy incumbent, the amendment ignored the substantial resource that such an incumbent may have at his or her disposal in their campaign committees' accounts or treasuries. The amendment that may be offered provides that the amount of such campaign balances must be taken into account before a wealthy candidate's contributions to his or her own campaign trigger the higher contribution limits for the incumbent. Last Tuesday, the authors of this amendment described the situation of a wealthy candidate financing his or her own election as a constitutionally protected loophole. But my colleagues' solution, as adopted last week, unwittingly opens a more insidious loophole. One that protects incumbents and, more precisely, incumbents' campaign treasuries, from a wealthy candidate. In describing the purpose of their amendment, which I opposed, my colleague contended that the Buckley decision created a substantial disadvantage for opposing candidates who must raise campaign funds under the current fundraising limitations. That was last Tuesday. This week we adopted the Thompson-Feinstein amendment which doubled the individual hard money contribution limits and indexed those limits for future inflation. The Thompson-Feinstein amendment also doubled the contribution amount a Senate campaign committee can make directly to candidate to $35,000 per election cycle and indexed it for inflation also. In a period of 1 short week, we potentially gave an incumbent facing a wealthy challenger an additional $17,500, plus an additional $4,000 per couple per election. So the substantial disadvantage that incumbents supposedly faced last Tuesday has been substantially eliminated by the actions we took during this week on the bill. Even so, the entire premise of the Domenici amendment that somehow incumbents need protection from wealthy opponents ignores one simple fact: Many nonwealthy opponents are actually incumbents sitting on healthy campaign accounts. Those campaign war chests can be equal to or greater than the personal funds being used by a so-called wealthy opponent. For example, based on FEC disclosures, some of my colleagues facing reelection next year are sitting on campaign accounts with cash balances ranging from $100,000 to in excess of $3 million. Surely my colleagues cannot be serious that with $1 million or $2 million sitting in their treasuries, and the advantages of incumbency we have automatically, including increased hard money limits, that they somehow need protection from a candidate who decides to put $600,000 into their own race. For example, take a State the size of mine, a State with a little over 3 million people. The threshold amount would be $270,000. A wealthy candidate who contributed or spent $600,000 of his or her own money in that race would trigger contribution limits three times the normal for that incumbent, or $12,000 per individual per election, or $24,000 per couple. If you double that for primaries, as well as an election, you actually get $48,000. That is a substantial increase from where we were a week ago. If that same incumbent has a war chest of $1 million, he actually has a cash balance of $400,000 more than the wealthy challenger. Are we really serious that the incumbent in that situation is somehow disadvantaged--should he or she be able to raise $24,000 from a couple until the difference in the balances are reached? Yet that is exactly what the Domenici amendment, which I opposed, will provide. Although my colleagues have argued that the tiered trigger system of the Domenici amendment is proportional, and that proportionality levels the playing field, that is simply not the case when a nonwealthy candidate is an incumbent. In the case of a nonwealthy incumbent, the provision does anything but level the playing field. It becomes essentially an incumbent protection provision. The amendment that was adopted last week simply goes too far under the present circumstances. The amendment that may be offered by Senator Durbin, myself, and others restores some balance between the incumbents with healthy campaign treasuries and individuals with personal wealth. It requires that the personal wealth of an opponent be offset by the amount of campaign treasury funds of a nonwealthy incumbent before any trigger of benefits to that incumbent occurs. This amendment effectively adds the amount of the cash-on-hand balance reserves of an incumbent's war chest into the calculation of the opposition personal funds amount. So in my example, until the ``wealthy'' challenger spent $1 million in personal funds, that ``poor'' incumbent with the war chest would not get the advantage of the increased limits. Just as my colleague's amendment last week was an attempt to correct the unintended effects of the Buckley decision, this amendment, which I believe will be offered, corrects the unintended effects of the amendment adopted last week; namely, protecting incumbents from wealthy opponents. When that amendment is offered, I urge my colleagues to support it. Amendment No. 165

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of S. 27.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we may want to allocate an hour, I suspect, between the two authors of the bill and others who would want to use 5 minutes or so to put in final statements.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Let me say to Senator Levin and Senator Ensign and others, I want to be considered a cosponsor as well, Mr. President. I appreciate the efforts of Senator Levin and Senator Ensign to work this out. This is an important provision that is going to make a difference. It is done in a very thoughtful way, a very responsible way. I think it adds again to the value of this piece of legislation. I thank our colleagues for their efforts.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, am I out of time?

Mr. DODD. We do.

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend our colleague from Illinois. This is a very worthwhile amendment. We can all relate to this. We have seen these ads come on and you have to freeze frame it and get a magnifying glass to even read the source, where they are coming from. Usually, it is a name that has no identification other than something that sounds very good and hardly revealing as to who is responsible for it, let alone any address or telephone number that would allow the kind of disclosure that ought to be associated with this kind of advertising. This is a very commonsensical. I think everybody ought to appreciate the effort. I commend my colleague for offering it. I am happy to be a cosponsor of it and urge its adoption.

Mr. DODD. Who said politics makes strange bedfellows?

Mr. DODD. I thought the majority leader might want to make that clarification. I think we are prepared now to go to the Frist amendment. Amendment No. 156

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 163

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I understand this amendment has been cleared by both sides. The amendment enhances the criminal enforcement provisions of the FECA legislation by authorizing felony prosecutions of willful and knowing violations of that law over $25,000, directs the Sentencing Commission to promulgate guidelines on campaign finance violations, and extends the FECA statute of limitations for criminal violations from 3 to 5 years.

Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD. While we are waiting for Senator Hatch, Senator Reed from Rhode Island has an amendment he would like to have considered. Amendment No. 164

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take a couple of minutes, if I may. I think the Senator from North Carolina has eloquently framed what the present amendment would do and what the consequences are, should the Frist-Breaux amendment be adopted--and I am not sure it has been offered yet--even if you accept the modification that is about to be offered by our friend and colleague from Louisiana. This gets a little confusing. It is hard for people to even hear--despite the fact we live in this world--and to even understand the issues of severability, nonseverability, hard money, and soft money. This can glaze over the eyes of even the most determined person to follow this debate. It is confusing, but it is very important. Let me try, if I can, to frame this so people may have a clear understanding, at least as I understand it. If Snowe-Jeffords--the union and corporate disclosure provisions; I will call that Snowe-Jeffords although they are often in different places--if that falls because it is ruled to be unconstitutional, then the ban on soft money also falls. If the Breaux amendment modifies the Frist amendment, then so would, as I understand it, the Thompson-Feinstein amendment, which allowed for the increases in hard money. With all due respect to my friend from Tennessee, who is also opposing this amendment--not the author of the amendment but the opponent of the amendment--and my friend from California, Senator Feinstein, Thompson-Feinstein is not a reform. Thompson-Feinstein was the price we paid to have the votes together on the banning of soft money. There is no illusion about this. That was not a reform. I know they want to call it that. I reluctantly voted for it, having spoken against the increases in hard money. My friend from Wisconsin and my friend from Arizona also took similar positions that they did not endorse or support those increases except that it was necessary to keep the votes together for the two reforms in this bill: Snowe-Jeffords, disclosure elements, and the ban on soft money. Those are the only two reforms in this bill. Thompson-Feinstein is the price we paid for those two reforms politically. I will stand corrected if someone wants to tell me I am wrong. Basically that is the deal. We have this increase in hard money, which I have a hard time accepting, but in exchange for that we get the two reforms of getting rid of unregulated money and the Snowe-Jeffords provisions. I believe, based on those who know far more about this than I do, Snowe-Jeffords should not fall for constitutional reasons, although my friend and colleague from North Carolina properly points out that we have been surprised lately by Supreme Court decisions where experts have told us they would rule one way and they ruled another. I urge my colleagues to keep this in mind, that if, in fact, they have been a supporter of McCain-Feingold, understanding that this is not every reform of the process, and understanding there may be some imbalances created here--we are all very much aware of this. My colleague from Utah spoke eloquently about the fact that none of us can say with any certainty exactly where all of this is going to end up. If you took McCain-Feingold as modified up to now and it became the law of the land tomorrow, there is some uncertainty, except this: The certainty that soft money, the unregulated millions of dollars-- billions of dollars now have been pouring into campaigns--is going to be stopped. No one is suggesting the ban on soft money is unconstitutional, and that would be a major achievement. We may end up coming back at some future date, less than 30 years down the road, because we discover there have been unintended consequences in this legislation. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the ban on soft money and the Snowe- Jeffords provisions--assuming they survive--are worthy of this body's support. The issue of saying they both fall, the ban on soft money and the price we paid for it, as well, if Snowe-Jeffords falls is an unequal trade off. I urge my colleagues to reject it. Lastly, I say to my friend from Kentucky, there are differences of opinion on how we voted on two previous campaign finance reform bills. There was tied severability in those two other bills. It was not nonseverability. We linked two provisions. We said if one fell, then the other would fall as well. It was, if you will, a partial severability in those two bills for which 23 of us, who are still here, voted. We did not vote for nonseverability. That is a semantical game in a sense. We voted for tied severability, partial severability. That is a side question. The basic issue is my colleagues ought to, with all due respect, reject the Frist-Breaux amendment if they believe, as I think a majority of us do, that the ban on soft money and Snowe-Jeffords are truly reforms. We fought too long and too hard not to succeed with those and to link severability is a mistake. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Is there some particular constituency in Mississippi the Senator wants to inform?

Mr. DODD. A point, if I can, Mr. President. I am informed that we have dealt with 24 amendments about equally divided; 24 left, I am sorry, both Democratic and Republican amendments. I know, for instance, Senator Lieberman and Senator Thompson have an amendment, one of the outstanding amendments. Maybe it can be worked out. Senator Bingaman has one that has been worked out. It is important to note there is a good-faith effort obviously to complete this work, but I do not want to see us put in a position now, having considered a lot of these amendments, that we are going to start telling people who have had amendments pending--Senator Durbin has been on me and talking to me for the past 10 days about when can he bring his amendment up; also Senator Harkin and Senator Levin. I have been trying to orchestrate this the best I can, but I do not want them put in the position of all of a sudden because we completed the amendments the opponents of the legislation care the most about, that we are going to deny or curtail in some way the rights of other Senators who care just as deeply about their proposals and not provide adequate time for them to be heard. We are prepared to go forward. I know the next amendment is from Senator Frist on severability. I have a number of requests, I say to the majority leader, from people who want to be heard on this amendment. I know the proponents of the amendment do as well.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for bringing this up. These were provisions we proposed as well over the last number of years. There are very good concepts here. The random audit races issues can be very expensive. If there is no cause for doing it randomly, there is a legitimate concern this can be abused by those who would like to become a policing action, without any rationale for doing it, other than for the sake of doing it. I would like to sleep on this and take a look at it and see if we can maybe get some agreement to accept it tomorrow, maybe make some modification; rather than dealing with it this evening, see if the staff can work on it, the majority and the minority, to see if we can come up with a proposal to be accepted before we can bring it up for consideration between 9 o'clock and 11 o'clock in the morning. If the Senator would agree, that would help.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. I have an amendment I may offer tomorrow, but we will have the staff look at it and get their thoughts on it. We have done a lot of work. There are outstanding amendments, including the amendment of Senator Reed of Rhode Island, an amendment of Senator Hatch and Senator Specter, and one I want to offer tomorrow morning, if necessary, with half an hour equally divided. That will be between 9 o'clock and 11 o'clock and we should be able to wrap this up.