Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. If the Senator will yield, we are hopeful Senator Wellstone will have an amendment. I do not think he will offer it today but maybe first thing on Monday about noon. It should not take much time. We can have that and then go to the Hollings proposal at 2 o'clock, I believe, on which we will have 4 hours; is that correct?

Mr. DODD. With the debates ahead of time and some votes ready, we should have business to do when Members come back on Monday.

Mr. DODD. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. DODD. I think there has literally only been half an hour or an hour of quorum calls all week. The Members have engaged in the debate. This is like the preparation of bacon and eggs. The Members are deeply committed to this issue in some ways, and we are spending the time on it. I hope next week we can complete this. We have had wonderful debate and good amendments, by the way. We have improved this bill. I think both Senator McCain and Senator Feingold would agree there have been improvements to the legislation as a result of the amendment process. I know the other issues are tremendously important and all of us care about them. This issue goes to the heart of all of those questions, as well. This will be an important debate. I thank my colleague from Kentucky and the Members who have been on the floor during the week. They have contributed to the debate substantially.

Mr. DODD. I yield back our time.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I made a miscalculation, I apologize. I underestimated their generosity. I said $100,000, if you again combined a husband and wife, each with a $100,000 annual contribution cap. The new joint annual limit becomes $200,000. I forgot the limit is per calendar year here, but an election cycle means two years, so we are talking $200,000 per election cycle for a couple. I apologize to the Americans who want to contribute $200,000. I was depriving them of an initial $100,000. An election cycle is a 2-year time period.

Mr. DODD. I thank my friend from New York. For purposes of edification, I know many of my colleagues and staffs are familiar with this, but perhaps other people may be interested in this discussion. Today, of course, we have limitations. Under current law, a candidate can receive $1,000 per election, or $1,000 for the election and $1,000 for the primary, so $2,000 is what most people do. That is per election, per individual. You then can contribute to PACs if you so desire, $5,000 per calendar year, and if you do it as a couple, of course, it is $5,000 for the individual, and $10,000 to the PAC. You can give $5,000 per calendar year to the State and local parties, you can give $20,000 a calendar year to the national parties with aggregate limits per calendar year of $25,000. That is what current law is. Every suggestion, including the underlying bill, raises that. S. 27 raises the aggregate amount. Senator Hagel, our friend from Nebraska, raises it to $75,000 per calendar year. Senator Thompson of Tennessee raised it to $75,000 and Senator Feinstein has it to $50,000 per calendar year. It is important for people to know it is per calendar year per individual. Normally, in the real world in politics, with a husband and wife, they each write checks, so take each of those numbers and double them. All Members know this. I am not stating something that is bizarre to my colleagues. That is how you do this. You ask the husband and wife, so you get double those amounts. So we are talking, in one of the more modest proposals, Senator Feinstein, that is $100,000 per calendar year, over 2 years it is doubling. As I said a moment ago, only in this world could we be talking about the hardships being imposed on us as candidates by limiting people to $100,000 to $200,000 in hard money contributions to our election or reelection efforts. The underlying purpose of McCain-Feingold is to try and reduce the amount of money in politics. Their focus is on soft money. I applaud that. I support that. What Senator Feingold said the other day is worth repeating: We need to stop assuming that there is a guarantee, almost by natural law, an assumption of exponential growth in the cost of campaigns; that that is nothing we can do anything about. I reject that idea. I realize there will be increases in costs, but as I mentioned the other day, a statewide campaign from a few hundred thousand dollars to multimillion dollars average cost of Senator races in this country, does not have to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. What Senator McCain and Senator Feingold are attempting to do, as are those of us who support what they are trying to do, is see if we can't slow this down, put some brakes on before this just becomes an absurdity where only a tiny fraction of Americans could only hope to seek a seat in the Senate or the House of Representatives. Back in the founding days of this country, we had limitations on those who could hold public office. Only white males who owned property in the 13 original colonies could hold public office. We have eliminated all of those conditions, thank God, years ago. De jure, there are no limitations on who can sit in this body except by age and citizenship, and some other problems you can't have had--you can't be a felon and run. But aside from that, we don't put on limitations. But what has happened de facto, if not de jure, is we have created a barrier for most Americans to ever think about having a seat in the House or Senate because, de facto, the cost of getting here is prohibitive. Either you have to have the money yourself, or you have to have access to the kind of dollars that would allow you to be a candidate in a statewide Senate race in the year 2001. What Senator McCain and Senator Feingold and those of us who are supporting them are trying to do is see if we can't change this assumption, this assumption that there is nothing or very little we can do about this, and we are just going to continue to raise the amount of money we can raise from individuals and groups and go to political action committees, to national parties, and State parties. Instead, we say: Enough is enough; 25 years of this exponential growth--we ought to be able to do something to slow this down. And that is what we are trying to do. S. 27 allows for increases. McCain-Feingold allows for doubling contributions, if a few instances, one being a calendar year from $5,000 to $10,000. We have the same amount as currently permitted going to national parties, and we have an aggregate limit increasing from $25,000 to $30,000 per year. How many people in this country can write a check for $30,000 for Federal officeholders? And I am told that is too low. Too low? Too low?--$30,000 a calendar year, to write checks for politicians, is too low? You would be laughed out of my State, the most affluent State on a per capita basis, if you stood and said this is too little. And that is, in effect, what we are saying. I don't think it is too little. We would do ourselves, this institution, and the political process a world of good by adopting the McCain-Feingold approach and living with it and learning how to live with the spirit, as well as the law, of S. 27. The adoption of the Torricelli amendment the other day, which I think could save millions of dollars for candidates by insisting that these television stations not charge in excess of the lowest unit rate charge, will contribute significantly to our slowing down the rising cost of campaigns. And some of the other provisions that have been introduced to allow for a more expeditious and efficient way of reporting will help as well. Before we close out the debate on this subject, I wanted to say after the first week of debate, this has been one of the more enlightening debates I have been a part of in the time I have been in the Senate. We have had very few quorum calls. We have had terrific participation by Members concerned about this issue in the form of offering their ideas and thoughts by amendment. It has been one of the better moments in the Senate in the last number of years, in my view. So I commend my colleagues for that. I hope next week will be as enlightening and as helpful as we move forward. The hope is the ultimate adoption of the McCain-Feingold legislation--as is, with some of the improvements I know my colleagues will be offering. I prefer we come along next week having made the positive changes we have made over this past week and ending up doing what some of these proposals suggest since the ideas are coming from both sides of the isle. But anybody who stands up and suggest to me that the reality-- don't try to play games by what you write--this $50,000 per person per calendar year--cannot expect to smuggle the $50,000 through as the reality. The reality is it generally is per individual and spouse, which means as a practical matter, it is usually $100,000 per family. As a result, in an election cycle of 2-years, it is $200,000. If someone thinks they are going to smuggle that past this Member as a modest request, they have another consideration to make. It is outrageous, excessive--there is nothing modest about it. It is what contributes to the feeling that so many Americans have about the political process in this country today. I look forward to the coming debate next week. It could get testy if we think these numbers are going to fly through without significant debate. Some of us Members think there are already ample limitations on contributions for individuals and ample room for people to make significant contributions in the political process. Senator Wellstone made the point last week that it is less than one- half of 1 percent of the American public who make contributions of $1,000. Mr. President, 99 percent of the American public cannot even think about that level of contribution. I know for a fact most candidates will not bother with that 99 percent of the American public and ask for their financial help. If you can get the $1,000, $2,000 and $3,000 contributions, then that is the pond you are going to fish in. You are not going to go out and raise money in $50 and $20 and $100 contributions from average citizens. I think there is something terribly dangerous about excluding average people from financially participating in the political life of America. That is what we are doing. That is the reality of it. There is not a single candidate who will bother with these people except to create some political event but not as a fundraiser. You will not be raising money from average Americans. You will be going after the big-dollar givers, and there are only a handful in this country who can make those contributions. The idea that we have to double and triple the size of that contribution limit is shameful. I look forward to the debate next week. Hopefully the majority of my colleagues will reject those unnecessary increases in hard money individual contributions. With that, I yield the floor. I did not see my friend from West Virginia behind me. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I would like to engage in this discussion. My colleague is making a very good point. Only here could we be sitting around saying that a total contribution amount of $25,000 per person annually is too low. If you take a husband and wife jointly that total amount becomes $50,000 annually, with the potential of each individual to cap his or her annual limit at $25,000 each. The most modest suggestion in other proposals, other than what is in S. 27, is to virtually double that annual amount. We are now talking about a family giving $100,000 in contributions. People are now suggesting that amount is too low. I find that stunning. What percentage of the American public are in a position to donate $100,000 to candidates a year? Or even under the current law at $25,000 annually for individuals--not that many individuals can afford to participate at that financial level. That amount exceeds the average income of a family of this country. We start talking about campaigns and moaning as politicians that we can't live in a situation where people are limited to giving us $25,000 a year. I find it stunning this is even a part of this debate. We should be focused on eliminating soft money, and yet here we are about to drive a Mack truck through the hard money, as if people understand the distinction between soft and hard money. Money is money. I want to underscore the point my colleague is making.

Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from New York.

Mr. DODD. I have no additional amendments. My friend and colleague from New York has requested 5 minutes to speak, not on an amendment but on the bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed in morning business.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. The time is yielded back.

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

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield whatever time he may need to the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend both of my colleagues. Senator Byrd of West Virginia is also a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. DODD. Senator Wyden and Senator Collins have an amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my colleague proceed as in morning business so the time will not come off consideration of the amendment.

Mr. DODD. If the Senator will yield, I want to underscore what the Senator from Arizona has said. We have considered, I think, eight amendments since we began on Tuesday. Now, we have taken a lot of time. Some of them have been lengthy debates. The amendment we are about to consider will be finished in about a half hour. It is a noncontroversial amendment, one that will add substantially to the bill. But we have about 30, at least, amendments on the Democratic side. While many amendments probably will not be offered, I don't know that yet. I underscore what the Senator said, that we need to take advantage of this opportunity. Several Members have said, ``I will do it next week.'' That crowd is beginning to grow for next week. If we only handle 8 or 10 amendments this week, I am not overly optimistic that we will be able to handle the numbers I see in 4 or 5 days next week. It will be important to pare the list down. I urge Members to do so. With that, I thank my colleague from Mississippi for yielding. I support his amendment. There are several people who want to speak on it. Senator Landrieu from Louisiana would like to be heard as well on this amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD. That is right. We urge rejection of this amendment. I am happy to yield back all of our time.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will yield back time, but I wish to read what the amendment says: Itemize all spending, internal communications to members or shareholders, external communications to anyone else by any means of transmission for any purpose on any topic that relates to any Member of Congress or person who is a Federal candidate, any political party or any political cause total. This is so broad that I can't imagine anyone, whether from a business perspective or labor perspective, would vote for this amendment. It is not appropriate to include such an over broad and vague amendment on a constitutionally sensitive campaign finance reform bill.