Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the senior Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I inquire, I believe there was a similar request made to respond to the unanimous consent request of the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. DODD. The distinguished Senator is always eloquent. I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts 3 minutes.

Mr. DODD. The distinguished Senator from Wisconsin or the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, I had thought, wanted to be heard on this issue. Mr. President, let me reserve the time for them. I will take 2 minutes and say to my friend and colleague from Kentucky, this is a new world. I accept that description. I wouldn't call it necessarily a perfect world, but I think for those of us who support McCain-Feingold, we think this is a far better world than the one we have been engaged in over the past number of years, as we have watched the explosion of unregulated soft money flow into the political process in this country. Senator Bennett of Utah a little while ago said no one can say for certain where this is going to go. That is true. I think we do appreciate, those of us who have supported this legislation, that a system that is devoid of unregulated soft money, and those of us who believe that the Snowe-Jeffords provisions and the price we paid by increasing modestly the hard money contributions, make this a better system than the one we presently are operating under. So, yes, it is a new world. I happen to believe it is a vastly better world and that the American public, who have something to say about this and who have been declining, as my colleague and friend from Kentucky has pointed out, declining in their checking off on the 1040 forms of moneys to go into the public coffers to support Presidential elections is a good poll about how the public feels--he says about public financing, I think about politics--I am not certain this is going to change entirely the public mood. I think we are taking a giant step forward with the adoption of McCain-Feingold in improving the climate and improving the public's confidence and their respect for the political process in this country. Yes, it is a new world. I think it is a better world. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Massachusetts and then reserve the remainder for Senator Feingold or Senator McCain.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of that time. Let me turn to our colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Mr. DODD. That is correct. Amendment No. 157

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me thank our colleague from New Mexico for proposing this amendment. All of us here, and those who pay any attention at all to politics in this country and are confronted with this, as most Americans are, if you look at this chart by the Senator from New Mexico, particularly in that August, September, October period of an election year, it is hard not to be confronted with the assault-- that is the only way to describe this--of ads on television from one end of the country to the next, on every imaginable radio station, television station, now cable stations--this bombardment that occurs. What the Senator from New Mexico has graphically demonstrated with his chart is that the overwhelming majority of these ads are the so- called attack ads. Usually, they are very vicious, designed to not promote one's ideas nor one's vision, one's agenda--if they are elected to Congress or the Senate or the Presidency or some other office--but merely to try to convince the rest of us why you ought to be against someone; not why you ought to be for me but why you ought to be against my opponent. The least enlightening part of a campaign is the proliferation of these ads. They do nothing, in my view, to contribute to the education, the awareness of the American people. We have seen an explosion of them over the past few years. I suspect this has probably been in the last 6 or 7 years, with the explosion of soft money that the McCain-Feingold bill seeks to shut down. As I understand, we are not talking about ads where candidate X goes after candidate Y--an individual candidate making a case, although I have problems with that as well, but what the Senator from New Mexico is talking about are these issue-based ads where they get away with it by merely not putting in a line at the end--they don't say at the end ``vote for,'' ``vote against,'' but that is hardly a necessary tag line after they have proceeded to just destroy your reputation and probably that of your families and your neighborhood, and any pets you may have as well. These are designed to be sort of nuclear bombs on people. We have all seen them. Some of them are almost laughable they are so bad, and I suspect the damage may be minimal because they are so bad. Unfortunately, many of them are very effective. The theory works, again, if I can get you to hurt my opponent or hurt someone whom I think may be inimicable to my special interest, you are more likely to vote for the person you know less about or nothing about. So this has become a standard diet to which the American public is subjected every late summer and fall of an election year. As I understand it, what the Senator from New Mexico attempts to do is address these issue-based ads, ads not from a specified opponent but, rather, from one of these amorphous organizations that, up to now, have had unlimited sources of revenue to come in and destroy a reputation without having any fingerprints. You can't find out who contributes the money; you can't find out where they come from; usually your opponent says I know nothing about them; in many cases the opponent will hold a press conference to disavow that ad and say I deplore that kind of advertising, while simultaneously winking and allowing this process to go forward, distorting the political process. The Senator from New Mexico makes a very valid point in his amendment. It is something we are getting further and further away from, by the way. The airwaves in this country belong to the American public. We give people the privilege to utilize those air waves for the benefit of the American public. It is not a right; it is a privilege. It is a limited privilege, based on your sense of responsibility. That privilege or that license can be removed if you abuse it. There are numerous examples, almost on a daily basis, where that happens. What the Senator from New Mexico, as I understand it, is suggesting is that if, in your discretion as a radio station or television station, you decide to tolerate this kind of political advertising, knowing full well how damaging it can be, then we have the right to say to that station you must extend to that candidate an opportunity to respond to that kind of garbage. I think this has value. It will have the net effect of ending these issue-based ads that destroy people's reputations and destroy any sense of understanding of what that particular campaign may be about. To that extent, everyone is benefitted--not the candidate so much, in my view, but the voting public who may learn more about what people stand for, rather than what some issue group dislikes about a candidate. I am attracted to this amendment. I think it contributes to McCain- Feingold. Obviously, there are questions that will be raised about constitutionality. My friend and colleague is a brilliant lawyer. He understands it well. He has crafted it about as tightly as you can to achieve the desired result. I think it is worthy of our support. I look forward at the time this comes up for a vote to support it. I urge my colleagues to do so as well. We are all sick and tired of this. I go back to the point I made earlier. We are seeing a declining level of participation too often in the political life of our country. How sad I think all of us are when we see that. There are a myriad of reasons for it, but one of the major reasons is this growing disgust people have over the low level of debate, the way campaigns are conducted. It is all done now on television and radio; most of it in negative ads, as this graph so graphically points out. We wonder why only one out of every two eligible adult Americans participated in the national elections of this past fall. Fifty percent of adult eligible Americans stayed home. I know some may have done so for legitimate personal reasons. I suspect a significant majority of those who stayed home did so because they are fed up. They are fed up with the process. They think it is out of control, and one of the strongest pieces of evidence of that is this: a deluge of negative ads that have swamped the airwaves of this country and have the net effect of depressing turnout of the vote and disgusting the American public. I think the Senator from New Mexico has offered a very constructive suggestion with this amendment, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisles to be supportive of it. I see my friend from Arizona is still here.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I was going to respond to some of the things the Senator said. Let me also in response to my good friend from Arizona say that there are a number of amendments that Members have that have been coming over with great regularity over the last 2 weeks. I have been sitting here for 2 straight weeks. We have had very few quorum calls. I have been asking the indulgence of my colleagues to postpone their offering of amendments over the past 2 weeks while we considered some of these other amendments, such as the ones that we most recently rejected dealing with severability. But these are serious amendments. Like any other issue, I suppose, depending upon whether it is your amendment or someone else's amendment, it becomes more serious or less serious. But I know my colleagues from Michigan, from Florida, and Illinois, also my colleague from Minnesota, among others, have some amendments, some of which will probably be agreed to. My hope is that certainly will be the case. But others may require a little debate. I apologize to them because I don't want them to think this is going to be a rush deal. If they want to be heard, they are going to be heard. I bear some responsibility for having told them to wait while we considered some of these other amendments. I promise you, I am not going to then ask you to somehow be on a fast track here when you want your amendment considered and debated adequately. My hope is you will be able to do it in less amounts of time than we have allocated for every amendment. You get 3 hours if you want it, unless you yield back time or the opponents do. We ought to try to move along if we can. I want you to know, I think your amendments are serious and they deserve to be heard, debated, and voted upon, if you so desire. I apologize for having asked you to wait for a week and a half and want you to know that you will have adequate consideration for your time. I turn to my colleague from New Mexico to respond to any of the unfair accusations that have been made about his stunning amendment.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, we are in the process of hotlining the vote. If it is all right with my friend from Arizona, the vote on or in relation to the Bingaman amendment can begin at 5 of 6. A couple of people are having meals, and this will give them a chance to get online. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on or in relation to the Bingaman amendment commence at 5 of 6.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may we ask for the yeas and nays at this time? Is it an appropriate request?

Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table commencing at 5 of 6.

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

Mr. DODD. The Democratic leader said it well. Any technical amendments would have to be amendments agreed to by both managers. So that the idea of something coming up late--I make it plural because the staff is apt to encounter more than one. Any technical amendments would have to have the concurrence of both managers.

Mr. DODD. Yes. That will be up tonight.

Mr. DODD. Probably not. No. We will get you some.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I ask for 10 minutes.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Iowa and my colleagues, as well, who have spoken today--Senator Dorgan and Senator Wellstone--for their support of this amendment. I, too, support this amendment. Senator Dorgan has said it well. Senator Wellstone has said it well. This is true reform. If we are really interested in doing something about the money chase, both in terms of contributions and the rush to spend even more in the pursuit of political office in this country, then the Harkin amendment offers a real opportunity for those who would like to do something about this overall problem by casting their vote in favor of his amendment. Senator Harkin has explained this amendment very well. It is a voluntary provision. It does level the playing field. I, too, over and over again over the past week and a half have expressed my concerns and worry about the direction we are going. I made the point the other day that we are shrinking the pool of potential candidates for public office in this country. At the founding of our Nation, back more than 200 years ago, the only people who could seek public office and could vote were white males who owned property. Pretty much those were the parameters. Of course, we abandoned those laws years ago. Nonetheless, that restricted the number of individuals, obviously, who could seek a seat in the Congress--the Senate or the House--or a gubernatorial seat. Unfortunately, what has happened over the years, particularly in the last 25 years or so, is we have created new barriers to seeking public office. The largest of those barriers is the cost of running for public office, the cost of raising the dollars, and the cost of getting your voice heard. One of the reasons that has occurred, and one of the difficulties we have had, is because of the Supreme Court decision back in 1974 that said money is speech. Justice Stevens, to his great credit, in a minority opinion in that decision, said money is not speech; money is property. He was exactly right. But the majority of the Court held otherwise. And because of that decision, we have been plagued with our inability to come up with a structure that would slow down and provide some ability to manage what has become a reckless system, in my view, that is only available to those who can afford to ante up and enter it. There are those, obviously, who will be able to emerge in this process, even though they do not have the financial resources. But the problem is those are going to become more the exceptions than the rule. That is my great concern and worry; there will be fewer and fewer people, who have great ideas, great ambition, great energy, a great determination to do something, who can even think about holding or running for a seat in the Senate or the House of Representatives. We have taken the concept that is included in the Harkin amendment and applied it to Presidential contests--not exactly, but at least the notion of public financing. Every single Presidential candidate for the last 25 years has embraced public financing for Presidential races. Even the most conservative of those candidates has taken the public moneys in order to try to keep down the cost of running for the Presidency, and that is an expensive undertaking. It has not made it inexpensive to do it, but I would suggest, in the absence of those provisions--and it is a voluntary system--President Bush, the present occupant of the White House, did not take public moneys during the primary season, but when it came to the general election, he did. There will be reasons you will hear of why he did, but the fact is, by doing so, he accepted limitations on how much would be spent in those races. Ronald Reagan, to his great credit, one of the great heroes of the conservative movement, accepted public moneys in both the primary and the general election, as has every other candidate. But what Senator Harkin has offered, and those of us who are supporting him--while not applying that same set of rules--is the same philosophical idea.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DODD. Two hours. If we need a little time for some reason--obviously, Members may want to be heard--I presume we will follow some rule of comity.

Mr. DODD. I inquire of my friend and colleague from Kentucky, I presume if we need some additional time, as Members come over, we can let it flow. Two and a half hours, is that what we have agreed to on this amendment?

Mr. DODD. How much time does the Senator from Iowa have remaining on this side?

Mr. DODD. No public financing, but the notion that we have public controls, in a sense, limitations on how expenditures are made, if you are faced with challengers who are going to spend unlimited amounts of their own personal resources in order to be heard. I happen to believe, as I said a moment ago, that money is not speech, anymore than I think this microphone that is attached to my lapel is speech or anymore than the speaker system in this Chamber is speech. Those are vehicles by which my voice is heard; it is amplified. You can hear me better than you would if I took this microphone off and the speakers were turned off. If I spoke loud enough, you might hear me, but in the absence of those technological assistances, my voice would be that of any other person without the ability to have it amplified. Money allows your voice to be amplified. It is not speech. It just gives you a greater opportunity to be heard. So I fundamentally disagree with the Court's decision on the issue of money being speech. In fact, the notion of free speech in American politics today is, as one editorial writer in my home State of Connecticut said, an oxymoron. There is nothing free about political speech in America today. It belongs to those who can afford to buy it. That is what it is. There is nothing free about it. So this amendment really does give us an opportunity to control the expenditure side, which is tremendously valuable. As some have said repeatedly over the last several days, we may not get back to this subject matter again, considering how difficult it was to get here. It may have been Senator Dorgan who made the point we owe a debt of gratitude to our colleagues from Arizona and Wisconsin, Senator McCain and Senator Feingold, for insisting that this debate be part of the public agenda this year; and that if their opponents, or even some of their supporters, are accurate, it might be another quarter century before we come back to this debate again, and then the appropriateness of the Harkin amendment is even more so. Because if we do not come back to the expenditure side of this, at some future date our successors in these seats will be looking at campaigns that are double and triple and quadruple the amount we are spending today. If you look at what we were spending 25 years ago--the Senator from Iowa and I arrived on the very same day in the Halls of Congress; both a little leaner and had a little more dark hair in those days----