Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, was the objection finalized or did the Senator withhold?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator withhold his objection?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me join in the comments the Senator from Nevada made about the presentation of the Senator from Illinois. I know he thought long and hard about this. I am grateful, not only for his decision on this but also for the rationale and presentation he made. I thank him for it. I appreciate very much the way the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Thompson, kicked off the debate on our side. He made some very powerful points about how this issue of severability and nonseverability relates to the separation of powers and issues of judicial restraint. What I would like to do is use my time to talk about what this means for our effort to do something about the campaign financing system in our country. Mr. President, the Senate is being asked to agree to an amendment that would make two provisions of this bill ``nonseverable'' from one another. What does ``nonseverable'' mean? What does it mean for this bill? And what does this vote mean for the cause of reform? My friend John McCain has said that nonseverability is French for ``kill campaign finance reform.'' That is a pretty good short definition. But in simple legal and practical terms, the addition of this kind of nonseverability clause means that the soft money and Snowe-Jeffords provision, title I and title II of the bill, would become a single integrated unit for purposes of constitutional scrutiny, that its many separate sections would all stand or fall together if any part of it is challenged in court on constitutional grounds. So, if this amendment passes, and the bill passes into law in a form that includes this amendment, and some time later a federal court finds one provision of either the soft money ban or the Snowe- Jeffords provision to be unconstitutional, then both of those provisions will be struck down, and it will be as if we had never passed a campaign finance reform bill at all. Our bill contains an explicit severability clause, added only for emphasis. We pass hundreds of bills in each Congress, and each of them is deemed implicitly to be comprised of severable parts, unless it contains ``nonseverability'' language. Two weeks ago we passed a bankruptcy bill, that ran on for hundreds of pages. I thought it was a bad bill, I wish it were not about to become law. Still, I understand that if some part of its hundreds of pages is struck down on constitutional grounds, the rest will stand. The same is true of nearly every bill we have passed or will in the future pass in this body. In fact, I am informed that during the last 12 years only 10 bills have been introduced, let alone passed, that contain a nonseverability clause. It is incredibly unusual. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that even without a severability clause, the presumption is that Congress intends for each provision of a bill to be evaluated on its own merits and severed from the bill if it is found to be unconstitutional. In Alaska Airlines v. Brock, for example, the Court said: A court should refrain from invalidating more of the statute than is necessary . . . Whenever an act of Congress contains unobjectionable provisions separable from those found to be unconstitutional, it is the duty of the court to so declare, and to maintain the act in so far as it is valid. That is the general rule. In order to overcome that presumption there has to be specific evidence that Congress would not have passed the constitutional provisions without the unconstitutional provisions. Senator McCain and I have drafted a bill that we believe is constitutionally sound. My record is not the record of a legislator who is casual about the first amendment, but some people, out of legitimate concern, and some other people, seeking strategic advantage in their effort to kill reform, have raised first amendment questions about the Snowe-Jeffords provisions of the bill, which would place restrictions on the use corporate and union treasury of phony issue ads run on radio or TV within 60 days of general election. Similar questions have been raised about the Wellstone amendment that extends the Snowe-Jeffords restrictions to issue ads run by independent groups. We knew that our bill would face this scrutiny and we drafted the Snowe-Jeffords provision with care and respect for the right to political speech, but if we, or the author of a successful amendment to our bill, has missed the constitutional mark, there are federal courts to rule on the question. Ultimately, under our system of government, there is a Supreme Court to give the final word about the constitutionality of any part of our bill that may be challenged. And if the Supreme Court says that some piece of our bill is unconstitutional, that's the last word, and we would have to accept that. But this amendment goes much farther. It would mean that if the Supreme Court finds a defect in the Snowe-Jeffords provision, and strikes it down, then the soft money ban will be invalidated as well. This makes no sense. It respects neither the proper rule of the Court, nor the proper role of the Congress. We have a Congress to pass laws, in this case a set of laws. We have a Supreme Court to tell us when one of those laws is unconstitutional and must cease to have effect. I try to avoid cliches in debate, but here I must implore my colleagues, don't vote for an amendment that obliges this Senate and the Court to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In this case, the bathwater is the Snowe-Jeffords provision that we have always known will face a constitutional challenge, and while we believe there is a strong argument for it being upheld, we cannot state with any certainty that it will. But the most important provision in our bill, the baby in our metaphor, is the soft money ban. The sponsor of this amendment knows that he will never get the Court to say that the soft money ban is unconstitutional. He holds out hope that Snowe-Jeffords will be found to be constitutionally flawed, so he pins his hopes on the extraordinary, mechanistic and, in this case, cynical device of non- severability. It is his only chance, because he knows he can't beat reform in the Congress, and he knows he can't possibly beat the most important part of it in the courts, not in any analysis on the merits. So I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I add these words of caution: If you vote for this amendment, you are voting to place in peril the most important reform measure in this bill. If you vote for this amendment, you vote for a gross departure from ordinary legislative procedure. If you vote for this amendment, you vote to distort the usual proper role of and relationship between the courts and this Congress. If you vote for this amendment, you vote, and will be seen to vote, for maximizing the chances of the enemies of reform to prevail against the decisions of this Senate and against the will of the American people. I must also point out to those of my colleagues who have told me privately, or have stated in public that they support a ban on soft money but cannot vote for the bill because they believe the Snowe- Jeffords amendment is unconstitutional, you should vote against this amendment. If you would vote for a bill that includes a soft money ban and no provision on issue ads, you should vote here to preserve the option for the Supreme Court to uphold a soft money ban and strike down the Snowe-Jeffords amendment. I made this clear in the last few days. I believe this is the vote. This vote is the ultimate test for the Senate in this debate on campaign finance reform. It might be called the campaign finance reform test. The American people are standing by, waiting to see whether this body will pass or fail that test. Do not let them down my colleagues. There are no makeup exams. This is the vote that will decide if we are going to be able to get rid of this awful soft money system--to really get rid of it, not just pass a bill in the Senate, not just pass a bill in the House, not just have the President sign it, but actually have it survive a court challenge and become the law of the land. Before yielding the floor, I ask unanimous consent a letter sent to our Democratic colleagues of the Senate by Representative Meehan and Representative Frank of the other body on March 22 be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield an additional 10 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to speak in support of the provision originally crafted by the distinguished Senators from Maine and Vermont, Senators Snowe and Jeffords, and in opposition to the DeWine amendment. When the debate on campaign finance reform reached a stalemate in the fall of 1997, Senator Snowe and Senator Jeffords first came together to draft this language, and it has been a vital contribution to reform effort. I thank them both for their continued dedication to closing the issue ad loophole which, next to soft money, is surely the most serious violation of the spirit of our campaign finance laws. Snowe-Jeffords gets at the heart of the issue ad loophole. Right now wealthy interests are abusing this loophole at a record pace. They are flouting the spirit of the law, there is no question about it. They advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate, even though they don't say those ``magic words,'' such as ``vote for,'' ``vote against,'' ``elect'' or ``defeat.'' These ads might side-step the law, Mr. President, but they certainly don't fool the public. One recent study decided to see how the public viewed sham issue ads. They wanted to see if people thought they were really about the issues, or whether they were about candidates. The results were definitive. Take a look at this chart, which cites the results of a study conducted by David Magleby at Brigham Young University. Nearly 90 percent of respondents in the study thought that phony issue ads paid for by outside groups were urging them to vote for or against a candidate. People didn't need to hear the so-called magic words to know what these ads were really all about. That was just as true for issue ads paid for by the parties as it was for ads paid for by outside groups. Party soft money ads were just as clearly crafted to influence the voters. When respondents reviewed party soft money ads, 83 percent ranked those ads as ``clearly intended to influence their vote.'' And this is perhaps even more interesting, more respondents thought the parties' ads were intended to influence their vote than the ads paid for by the candidates' campaigns. The party ads, the sham issue ads paid for with soft money, were more obviously advocating for or against a candidate than the ads the candidates made themselves. That is a great example of how soft money and the issue ad loophole have come together to warp the current campaign finance system. As you can see in this next chart entitled ``Political Party Soft Money Ads Overtake. . .'', party spending on soft money ads has now overtaken candidate spending on ads in the presidential race. You can see on this chart how this shift has taken place between the 1996 and 2000 elections. The parties are now spending phenomenal amounts of soft money on sham issue ads. Again, on this chart, you can see how party spending on ads has overtaken candidate spending in the race for the Presidency, and dwarfs spending by outside groups. And here is the kicker: None of these party ads mention party label, but all of them mention the candidate. They mention the candidate because they are advocating for the election or defeat of that candidate. And yet the law says that doesn't count. This doesn't make sense. The magic words test is completely helpless to stem the tide of sham issue ads, ads from the parties, ads from unions or corporations, or ads from outside groups that are acting on behalf of those unions or corporations. We need to close the loophole, and Snowe-Jeffords does just that. Here is how Snowe-Jeffords navigates the difficult political and constitutional terrain of this debate. Here I am talking about the original Snowe-Jeffords provision, before adoption of the Wellstone amendment. The first thing that the provision does is define a new category of communications in the law--we call them electioneering communications. These electioneering communications are communications that meet three tests: First, they are made through the broadcast media--radio and TV, including satellite and cable. Second, they refer to a clearly identified Federal candidate--in other words, they show the face, or speak the name of the candidate. And third, they appear within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary in which that candidate is running. The original Snowe-Jeffords provides that for-profit corporations and labor unions cannot make electioneering communications using their treasury funds. If they want to run TV ads mentioning candidates close to the election, they must use voluntary contributions to their political action committees. We believe that this approach will withstand constitutional scrutiny, because corporations and unions have long been barred from spending money directly on Federal elections. The Supreme Court upheld the ban on corporate spending in the Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce case. It noted that a Michigan regulation that prohibited corporations from making independent expenditures from treasury funds prevented ``corruption in the political arena: the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas.'' According to the Court, the Michigan regulation ``ensured that the expenditures reflect actual public support for the political ideas espoused by the corporations.'' We are merely saying through this provision that that actual public support, shown by voluntary contributions to a PAC, must be present when corporations and unions want to run ads mentioning candidates near in time to an election. The Snowe-Jeffords provision goes on to permit spending on these kinds of ads by non-profit corporations that are registered as 501(c)(4) advocacy groups, by 527 organizations, and by other unincorporated groups and individuals. But it requires disclosure of the spending and of the large donors whose funds are used to place the ads once the total spending of the group on these ``electioneering communications'' reaches $10,000. A few things should be noted about the disclosure requirement that entities other than unions and for-profit corporations are subject to if they engage in these kinds of electioneering communications. The disclosure is not burdensome; it simply requires a group placing an ad to report the spending to the FEC within 24 hours, and to provide the name of the group, of any other group that exercises control over its activities, and of the custodian of records of the group, and of the amount of each disbursement and the person to whom money was paid. Second, disclosure is triggered by spending a total of $10,000 or more on these kinds of ads. So a small group that spends only a few thousand dollars on radio spots will never have to report a thing. Third, the disclosure of contributors required is quite limited. Only large donors--those who contribute more than $1,000--must be identified, and they must be identified only by name and address. And a group that receives donations for a wide variety of purposes, including some corporate or labor treasury money, can set up a separate bank account to which only individuals can contribute, pay for the ads out of that account, and disclose only the large donors whose money is put in that account. The net result will be that the public will learn through this amendment who the people are who are giving large contributions to groups to try to influence elections. And if a group is just a shell for a few wealthy donors, then we will know who those big money supporters are and be much better able to assess their agenda. On the other hand, if an established group with a large membership of small contributors wishes to engage in this kind of advocacy, it need not disclose any of its contributors because it can pay for the ads from small donor money that has been raised for the special bank account for individual donors. Mr. President, I believe that these disclosure provisions will pass constitutional muster. The Buckley case, it should be remembered, rejected limits on independent expenditures but upheld the requirement that the expenditures be disclosed. Rules that merely require disclosure are less vulnerable to constitutional attack than outright prohibitions of certain speech. The information provided by these disclosure statements will help the public find out who is behind particular candidates. This disclosure can help prevent the appearance of corruption that can come from a group secretly spending large amounts of money in support of a candidate. Some have argued--the Senator from Kentucky among them--that even these reasonable disclosure requirements violate the Constitution. They cite the case of NAACP v. Alabama from 1958. That is a very important case, and one with which I fully agree, but the conclusion that the Senator from Kentucky draws from it, with respect to the Snowe-Jeffords provision, is simply wrong. In the NAACP case, at the height of the civil rights struggle, the state of Alabama obtained a judicial order to the NAACP to produce its membership lists and fined it $100,000 for failing to comply. The NAACP challenged that order and argued that the first amendment rights of it members to freely associate to advance their common beliefs would be violated by the forced disclosure of its membership lists. It pointed out many instances where revealing the identities of its members exposed them to economic reprisals, loss of employment, and even threats of physical coercion. The Court held that the state had not demonstrated a sufficient interest in obtaining the lists that would justify the deterrent effect on the members of the NAACP exercising there rights of association. Snowe-Jeffords is totally different from what the State of Alabama tried to do in the NAACP case. Snowe-Jeffords doesn't ask for membership lists, it asks for the very limited disclosure of large contributors to a specific bank account used to pay for electioneering communications. Most membership groups won't have to disclose anything if they receive sufficient small donations to cover their expenditures on these type of communications. Contributors to the groups that don't want to be identified can simply ask that their money not be used for the kind of ads that would subject them to disclosure. And finally, the disclosure requirement can be avoided altogether by crafting an ad that does not specifically refer to a candidate during the short window of time right before an election. The Supreme Court has shown much more willingness to uphold disclosure requirements in connection with election spending than opponents of Snowe-Jeffords have been willing to recognize. In the Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, a 1981 case, for example, the Court struck down a limit on contributions to committees formed to support or oppose ballot measures. But the Court noted specifically, and I quote, ``the integrity of the political system will be adequately protected if contributors are identified in a public filing revealing the amounts contributed; if it is thought wise, legislation can outlaw anonymous contributions.'' It is worth noting that the opinion in that case was by Chief Justice Warren Burger and the vote was 8-1. The dissenter, Justice White, thought the limit on contributions should be upheld. In U.S. v. Harris, the Court upheld disclosure requirements for lobbyists, despite the alleged chilling effect that those requirements might have on the right to petition the government. And, of course, the Buckley Court upheld disclosure requirements for groups making independent expenditures. Now it is of course true that the Court will have to analyze the disclosure requirements in Snowe-Jeffords, and the type of communications that trigger it and determine if they pass constitutional muster. I will not proclaim that there is no argument to be made that the provision is unconstitutional. But to say that there is no chance that this provision will be upheld is just not right. There is ample constitutional justification and precedent for this provision. That conclusion is supported by a letter we have received from 70 law professors who support the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold bill, including the Snowe-Jeffords provision. This is what they write with respect to Snowe-Jeffords: [T]he incorporation of the Snowe-Jeffords amendment into the McCain-Feingold Bill is a well-reasoned attempt to define electioneering in a more realistic manner while remaining faithful to First Amendment vagueness and overbreadth concerns. . . . While no one can predict with certainty how the courts will finally rule if any of the these provisions are challenged in court, we believe that the McCain-Feingold Bill, as current drafted, is consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence. As the Brennan Center for Justice wrote in an analysis of Snowe- Jeffords: Disclosure rules do not restrict speech significantly. Disclosure rules do not limit the information that is conveyed to the electorate. To the contrary, they increase the flow of information. For that reason, the Supreme Court has made clear that rules requiring disclosure are subject to less exacting constitutional strictures than direct prohibitions on spending. . . . There is no constitutional bar to expanding the disclosure rules to provide accurate information to voters about the sponsors of ads indisputedly designed to influence their votes. The opponents of our bill speak with great disdain of the Snowe- Jeffords provision and act as if it is certainly and indisputably unconstitutional. Now I will not pretend that there are not difficult constitutional issues raised, but I simply do not think it is accurate to say, as our opponents do, that there is no hope for this provision before the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court is going to decide this issue, that we know for sure. All the lower court decisions in the world on state statutes that don't have a bright line approach as Snowe-Jeffords does, don't mean much of anything. The Supreme Court has not yet addressed this issue; if we enact this bill, it undoubtedly will. It is important to note that Snowe-Jeffords contains provisions designed to prevent the laundering of corporate and union money through non-profits. Groups that wish to engage in this particular kind of advocacy must ensure that only the contributions of individual donors are used for the expenditures. Anyone who opposes this provision must defend the rights of unions and corporations using their treasury money, not just citizen groups like the National Right to Life Committee or the Christian Coalition, or the Sierra Club, to run what are essentially campaign advertisements that dodge the federal election laws by not using the magic words ``Vote For'' or ``Vote Against,'' or to finance those ads through other groups. Second, they must argue that the public is not entitled to know, in the case of advocacy groups that run these ads so close to the election, the identities of large donors to group's election-related effort. Many opponents of McCain-Feingold have trumpeted the virtues of full disclosure. I have at times doubted how serious they were about disclosure because they would never acknowledge the important advances in disclosure already included in our bill. I have discussed here the original Snowe-Jeffords provision. The Well- stone amendment, in effect, broadens that provision to cover ads run by corporations and unions. I voted against adding that amendment. I thought and still think that it makes Snowe-Jeffords more susceptible to a constitutional challenge, but it passed when many Senators who oppose the bill and the Snowe-Jeffords provision voted for it. In any event, the Wellstone amendment was written to be severable from the remainder of the Snowe-Jeffords provision. That gives even more significance to the vote we will have today on severability. But if we win that vote, Snowe-Jeffords will survive even if the Wellstone amendment is held to be unconstitutional. Let me again commend Senators Snowe and Jeffords for crafting a provision that treats labor unions and corporations equally. Rather than try to give one side or the other an advantage, this provision tries to bring back some sanity to our system by recognizing that both sides have played fast and loose with the spirit of the election laws by running ads that claim to be about issues, but are really candidate specific campaign ads.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the DeWine amendment. I believe the Senator from Ohio raises serious and legitimate issues about the Snowe-Jeffords amendment. The fact is, to put it in plain terms for the people around the country, they are being subjected to ads that about everybody knows are really campaign ads. They are what many people call phony issue ads. They know very well they are not just issue ads. What Senators Snowe and Jeffords have done is to try to come up with a formula to get at the heart of the problem, to have the Supreme Court have an opportunity for the first time in many years to look at legislative language from the Congress, to ask the question: Are these ads that are supposed to be protected under the first amendment or are they really electioneering ads that everyone would concede have to be subject to some kind of regulation in order for there to be fair elections in this country? That is the question. The only way we can find the answer to the question is to pass a bill. We cannot call up Chief Justice Rehnquist and say: Say, if we did this, would it be constitutional? We are prohibited from asking for those kinds of advisory opinions. I believe this is constitutional. I believe it is very carefully crafted with a very strong respect for the difficult first amendment questions that are involved. But I do think it would be held constitutional. I expect some of the Justices might find it is not constitutional. But that is not how the Supreme Court works. It does not have to be unanimous. The question is, What do a majority of the Justices believe? I believe a majority of the Justices who see these ads on television would conclude, as I do, that they are not issue ads but that they are really campaign ads and are appropriately regulated in this manner. For that reason, I believe this is an extremely valuable addition to the bill. It is the second big loophole in the system. No. 1 is the soft money loophole. No. 2 is the phony issue ads. And that is exactly what the distinguished Senator from Maine and the distinguished Senator from Vermont are opposed to. I thank the Senator from Maine.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senators who took the lead in the negotiations, especially the Senator from Tennessee who, again, has had so much to do with this reform, and the Senator from California. They were extremely skilled at bringing us together. I thank Senator McCain, Senator Cochran, who was part of the effort, Senator Feinstein, Senators Dodd, Levin, Schumer, of course, Senators Reid and Daschle, Senators Nickles and Hagel, who were all involved. I join in the remarks of the Senator from Connecticut. This particular amendment doesn't move in the direction that fits my philosophy. I believe we should stay where the levels are, as do many of my Democratic colleagues. I very regretfully came to the conclusion that we had to do it. I realized if we are going to get at the No. 1 problem in our system today, the loophole that has swallowed the whole system, as Senator Thompson has said, we had to make this move. I am grateful that we were able to keep the individual limit increase to a reasonable level. Although I would prefer that it not be indexed, I will note, at least we won't have to hear anymore that it isn't indexed for inflation because it is. So the next time Senators have to deal with this issue 20 years from now or 30 years from now, at least that very troubling and persistent argument will not be there. I thank all my colleagues and look forward to the vote on the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I strongly urge the body not to table this effort of Senator Feinstein and Senator Cochran. It is much more restrained than the alternative. My personal view is we shouldn't increase the limits at all. I don't think we need to. I realize the majority of the body believes that is something that has to happen. I understand it will happen. Senator Feinstein has tried to craft a reasonable compromise between the different views, actually bring us together, and help us pass a bill. I urge my colleagues, at least on this vote for tabling, to vote no to table. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I simply note that a motion to table does not mean one is prepared to vote for the underlying amendment. It means one is not prepared to table the amendment. I know, in fact, there are some Members interested in the negotiating process and looking for alternatives.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I move to table the Thompson amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, should we achieve our dream of passing this bill, there are just four or five Senators who are said to be responsible for it. One of them is Senator Fred Thompson. So I regret that this amendment is too high and I have to oppose it. His attitude and his spirit on this bill has been stalwart, and I am grateful to him. It is necessary, though, that I have to move to table the amendment at the appropriate time. I will do that after his remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Thompson amendment. The fact is, the Senator from Tennessee was one of the very first persons to get involved in the McCain-Feingold effort. I am grateful for the years of hard work he has put into our effort to try to reform the campaign finance system. We have always had a disagreement about this issue but a polite disagreement. Now the issue is finally joined. I understand many Members of this body believe it is appropriate to raise the hard money limits. I have said many times that there must be some flexibility on this issue. I have said, half seriously and half kiddingly, that I am willing to go up as much as $1,001 per election for the individual limit. I prefer we not even do that. When I say that, of course, at this point in the difficult process of bringing this bill together, I don't really mean that that is as far as I am willing to go, as much as I regret it. This is an area that now has to be opened to negotiation, and there have already been several days of discussions about this subject. That said, I don't think a significant increase in the limits is warranted. In the 2000 election, according to Public Citizen, roughly 232,000 people gave $1,000 or more to Federal candidates. That is just one- ninth of 1 percent of the voting-age population. An elite group of donors don't just dominate the soft money system, frankly; they actually dominate the hard money system as well. To most Americans, $2,000 is still a large sum of money. That is when an individual can give to a single candidate $1,000 in the primary and then another $1,000 in the general election. If we talked about average Americans getting a tax cut for that amount of money, we would say $2,000 is a very sizable tax cut. Somehow when we talk about the same sum in the context of political giving, we act as if this is a small figure. As I have said, I understand that raising the hard money limits does have to be a part of a final stage of this debate, even though I am reluctant to do so. If we can agree on an increase that doesn't jeopardize the integrity of the McCain-Feingold bill as a whole, I will support it. I am afraid that this amendment, well-intentioned as it is, simply raises the limit too high by raising the individual limit to $2,500 and by doubling the other contribution limits, including the aggregate limit, the total amount that people give. That is why I must oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. I understand that because this bill bans soft money, those of us who would prefer to leave the limits at their current level may have to compromise. I say to all my colleagues, increasing the individual limit by 150 percent is just not a compromise we should make. Such a small number of Americans can afford to give what the limits even allow now-- quite often it is given the nickname of ``maxing out,'' giving the maximum--that a vote to increase the individual limit to $2,500 does mean putting more power in the hands of an even more concentrated group of citizens, and few Americans have the wherewithal to give those kinds of contributions. A recent study by Public Campaign found that Senate incumbents in 2000 raised on average nearly three times as much as their challenges did from donors of $1,000 or more. It is likely that raising the hard money limit will give incumbents an even bigger advantage than they already have now. So whatever increase we might support, we need to consider that aspect of this very seriously. We should carefully consider any measure that increases an incumbent's advantage, which I am afraid is already so strong in our Federal elections. I am afraid the Thompson amendment does just that. On this point, the Supreme Court has said Congress may legislate in this area in order to address the appearance of corruption. There is another appearance that is important here, and that is how the bill we are trying to craft as a whole appears to the public at large. That is very important. This bill started out, with the good help of the Senator from Tennessee, as a straightforward effort to ban soft money and address the phony issue ad problem. We quickly added an amendment that raised individual limits when a candidate faces a wealthy opponent on the first day of the debate. Now we are looking at a doubling of most of the contribution limits for all campaigns. If we keep going in this direction, as others have said, pretty soon this bill starts to look as if it is aimed at raising limits and really protecting incumbents rather than addressing the problem of corruption. We need to pay attention to that perception because our goal here is to reestablish the American people's trust in government, not to drive people further away. I am afraid the Thompson amendment doesn't just increase the individual limit to 150 percent; it doubles every other important hard money limit as well. For example, the aggregate of what an individual can give to individual candidates would increase from $25,000 a year to $50,000 a year. So in the course of an election cycle, a couple--if there happens to be a couple involved--could give $100,000 in contributions. Now I was just talking about how $2,000 is a lot of money to most Americans. Well, $100,000 is, of course, a staggering sum to most people. I think it is too high to have the name ``reform.'' This bill is about lessening the influence of money on politics. It is not about increasing it. If we are going to raise the limits at all, we must do everything we can to act in good faith with all the American people, not that tiny number of Americans who can afford to open up their checkbooks and max out the candidate. We have to do everything we can to look out for the Americans who could not even dream of writing a $1,000 check to a candidate, no matter how much they supported what that candidate stood for. Although I know important negotiations are underway, this is why raising the limits has to give this body pause, because every time we act to empower the wealthy few in our system, we really do a disservice to our Nation. I believe the soft money ban in this bill does a great service to the Nation by ending a system that allows completely unlimited contributions from corporations, unions, and individuals to flow to the party. The soft money ban helps empower the average voter in this country, and that is why it is the centerpiece, the bottom line, the reason to be of the McCain-Feingold bill. With this bill, we are getting rid of hundreds of millions of unregulated dollars. So I am willing to consider a modest increase in regulated dollars. But this amendment goes too far. I oppose raising the hard money limit 150 percent when only one-ninth of 1 percent of the voting-age population gives $1,000. Increasing this figure by 150 percent would give an unprecedented new level of access to those who would continue to max out under the new limit. I must urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I do hope the Members of this body can work together to reach an increase that will be palatable to both sides of the aisle. I mean that sincerely. If we can't come to an agreement, this bill will be seriously jeopardized. This body has made laudable progress in the course of this debate. I have never been more proud to be a Member of the Senate. I say to my colleagues that we have come too far to let this reform debate stall, even over an issue as tough as this one. I hope we can come to an agreement on this issue that I can support. Until that time, I do have to oppose the Thompson amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. This last quote from a Washington lobbyist is common sense and the new, emerging conventional wisdom. These three items make a few things clear. The old conventional wisdom about the opposition of the business community to real reform is wrong, and it is giving way to the common sense of the movement for reform. To those who will strive on this floor to beat back the reform America demands, I say, listen to these business leaders who are saying that they realize that the corrupt system in place does not serve their interests, or our country's. Listen to the corporate executives who say they are tired of the constant fund-raising and the feeling that they are being shaken down. Listen to this veteran lobbyist, and others like him, who are at the center of the current system and can't stand its rotten influence any longer. And if you oppose reform, listen to the common sense of the American people who today can take heart that the old conventional wisdom about the chances for reform is passing away, along with your remaining allies in this fight. I can't think of anything more illustrative of the very issue that the U.S. Supreme Court asked us to consider in these situations. Is there an appearance of corruption? When the business leaders and the CEOs of this country believe they are being shaken down and that they are being intimidated into giving these contributions, at a bare minimum, this is the appearance of corruption that the U.S. Supreme Court has identified as the basis for legislative action in this area. Exhibit 1 Top Executives and Civic Leaders Back Plan That Includes Soft-Money Ban As the Senate begins to debate campaign finance reform, the Committee for Economic Development (CED) today sent every Senator the names of 307 prominent business and civic leaders who have endorsed its sweeping reform plan, which includes a soft-money ban. About 100 new executives have joined the effort since the Senate last considered reform in October 1999. ``As reform nears, the inside-the-beltway cottage industry is scrambling to oppose action,'' said CED President Charles Kolb. ``But this list provides real evidence that a growing number of business leaders want reform. They don't fear reform, but think it's desperately needed. They are the leading funders of campaigns, and they're tired of being hit up for ever-increasing amounts of cash. They know the sysem-- or lack of one--is hurting the business community and our democracy.'' The endorsers include top executives of Sara Lee, John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, State Farm, Prudential, H&R Block, ITT Industries, Motorola, Nortel Networks, Hasbro, the MONY Group, Chubb, Goldman Sachs, Boston Properties, and Saloman Smith Barney. They also include the retired chairmen or CEOs of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, AlliedSignal, Bank of America, GTE, International Paper, Union Pacific, General Foods, Monsanto, Time, CBS, Fannie Mae, Dow Chemical, Texaco, FMC, and BFGoodrich. Other prominent Americans on the list include a former vice President, former Republican Secretaries of Defense, Treasury, and Labor, a former Senator and Republican National Committee Chairman, and a former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman. CED, the leading business group advocating reform, has officially endorsed the legislation offered by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, which the Senate will debate next week. The CED proposal calls for a ban on soft-money contributions, increased individual contribution limits (to $3,000), partial public financing for congressional races, and voluntary spending limits. ``Business executives support reform in roughly the same numbers as the rest of the nation's voters,'' Kolb said, pointing to a poll of top corporate executives of the nation's largest corporations that The Tarrance Group conducted on behalf of CED last year. According to the survey, 78 percent support reform, and 60 percent back a soft-money ban. (Importantly, 57 percent of those from companies that recently made soft-money contributions support a soft-money ban.) Many business leaders have called the current system a ``shakedown'' and half of the poll respondents said they fear adverse legislative consequences if they don't give.

Mr. FEINGOLD. A piece on the op-ed page of Monday's Washington Post entitled ``Why this Lobbyist Backs McCain-Feingold.'' It was written by Wright Andrews, a long-time lobbyist, and a successful lobbyist, who has used this system to the advantage of his clients, but has finally said: ``enough is enough.'' According to the conventional wisdom, Mr. Andrews is an unlikely advocate for reform. Not long ago, he was the president of the American League of Lobbyists, so it is fair to say that he was the lobbyists' lobbyist, but he seems to be a man of common sense as well, and there is what he had to say. He writes: [A]s a Washington insider, I know that on the campaign finance front, things have mushroomed out of control. . . . I know that lobbyists, legislators and the interests represented increasingly operate in a legislative environment dominated by the campaign finance process, and its excesses are like a cancer eating away at our democratic system. . . . [M]illions of Americans are convinced that lobbyists and the interests we represent are unprincipled sleazeballs who, in effect use great sums of money to bribe a corrupt Congress. Mr. Andrews has put his finger on something. This system, especially soft money, taints everybody who is involved with it. Big money changes hands, things get done in Washington, and the American people think it is only common sense to conclude that corruption abounds. Mr. Andrews seems to understand, as the American business community now understands, that the appearance of corruption is just as bad for our democracy as actual corruption, because the American people don't see the difference. Mr. Andrews candidly admits that he and his clients have used money, within the system, to get legislative results. He continues: Campaign-related contributions, and expenditures at today's excessive levels increasingly have a disproportionate influence on certain legislative actions. Unlimited ``soft'' money donations and ``issue ad'' expenditures in particular are making a joke of contribution limits and are allowing some of the wealthiest interests far too much power and influence. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Andrews' op-ed be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Business leaders have common sense and they are changing the conventional wisdom about the need for real campaign finance reform. Look at the second item, the results of a poll of hundreds of senior executives conducted for CED. In the poll leaders of companies with annual revenues of $500 million or more overwhelmingly supported the provisions of our bill, including strong support for a soft money ban. The poll, conducted for CED by the respected Tarrance Group included these findings: three in five top business executives back a soft money ban; 74 percent say business leaders are pressured to make big contributions. Half said they ``fear adverse consequences'' if they refuse to contribute; more than 80 percent said that corporations give soft money for the purpose of influencing the legislative process. And 75 percent say that their contributions work--it gives them an edge in shaping legislation; 78 percent of business leaders agreed that the current system is ``an arms race for cash that continues to get more and more out of control''; and 71 percent of executives in big companies say that all of these big dollar contributions are hurting their corporate image. Business leaders believe that they are victims of a system that allows them to be shaken down. When asked why their companies give, the most frequent answer, from 31 percent, was ``To avoid adverse legislative consequences''. Twenty three percent say it is to buy access to the legislative process.'' As a result, a full three-fifths of senior business executives said that they support a complete ban on soft money. That number was about the same, 57 percent, even in those companies that have been recent soft money givers. Those findings are grim but they shouldn't surprise anyone who has thought about the political environment businesses in America now face. Business leaders have had enough. They have abandoned the conventional wisdom about the benefits of this corrupt system, and they are beginning to lead the call for reform. I ask unanimous consent that a release summarizing the results of this poll be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I was candid with the Senator that I would be opposing the amendment even though I agree with the principles, and I will use some of my time to speak about the bill generally. I think the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely the right policy. I have always believed completely in public financing, and the mechanism proposed in this amendment is the way we should go. I have also taken note of the enormous amount of interest around the country in moving toward public financing in a number of States. Senator Kerry is right; this is a new beginning on this issue. It is not an old issue that has died. It is a rebirth that is occurring across the country, and the Kerry-Biden amendment is an important step in that direction. When Senator McCain and I began this process, coming to the final stages of trying to debate this bill, we agreed we would vote together on all amendments to make sure we show we are unified and that this will continue to be a bipartisan issue. So it is particularly painful for me to have to vote against this amendment, but it is not because I do not think it is the wave of the future and the ultimate solution to this problem. All the McCain-Feingold bill does is close an enormous loophole that has made a mockery of our campaign finance system. It is the idea and principle behind the Kerry amendment that is ultimately the direction we have to go as a country in campaign finance reform. I hope we can get started on it the day after we get this bill through. I want to talk about one other issue to which the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, alluded. The time has come to talk about commonsense and conventional wisdom in the business community. It is common sense to declare our campaign finance system is broken and needs to be fixed. It is conventional wisdom, however, to say members of the business community must surely and monolithically oppose changes to the campaign finance reform system that has made influence available to them. The common sense is right, but the conventional wisdom is wrong. Let us take a look at three items in last week's news. First, we see the release of a list of names of 307 of our most prominent business leaders who have pledged their support for the campaign finance proposals of the Committee for Economic Development, CED. CED is an organization of prominent business leaders which has endorsed the McCain-Feingold bill and issued its own proposal that includes a soft money ban. This list of business leaders is a who's who of America's commerce. It includes CEOs and current or former top executives from Dow Chemical, Sara Lee, Motorola, Goldman Sachs, FMC, Prudential, and dozens of others. Here is what CED President Charles Kolb had to say: As reform nears, the inside-the-beltway cottage industry is scrambling to oppose action, but this list provides real evidence that a growing number of business leaders want reform. They don't fear reform, but think it's desperately needed. They are the leading funders of campaigns, and they're tired of being hit-up for ever-increasing amounts of cash. They know the system--or lack of one--is hurting the business community and our democracy. I ask unanimous consent that this list of business leaders and the accompanying release be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Ten minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I join in the remarks of the Senator from Arizona. I am pleased to see the distinguished majority leader on the floor, whom I have heard say on a number of occasions with regard to this process that he would not support a filibuster or an approach that would involve preventing us from getting to final passage on this bill. I appreciated those assurances, and I assume they still hold.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I focus for a moment on the State party loophole and address the new provisions of the Hagel amendment concerning party soft money. I also want to respond to the argument that the new provisions of the Hagel bill are necessary because the McCain-Feingold bill will starve the parties or will, in their minds, federalize State elections. These charges are just untrue. I talked yesterday about the Hagel amendment legitimizing and sanctioning the soft money system. I was referring primarily to the $60,000 cap on corporate, labor, and individual soft money contributions. The same can be said about the State soft money loophole, and even more so after the changes Senator Hagel made in his amendment before he offered it yesterday. The amendment codifies the FEC's allocation rules used for soft money expenditures by the State party. The FEC currently requires expenditures on certain activities including get-out-the-vote and voter registration efforts to be paid for with a combination of hard and soft money. What the Hagel amendment does is write these allocation formulas into law. It takes the soft money system started in the States and makes it permanent. We support the kinds of activities for which soft money now pays. It is not that we think get-out-the-vote or voter registration activities are somehow corrupt. Quite the contrary, we believe these activities are extremely important to the health of our democracy. But the approach of the McCain-Feingold bill is to get more hard money to the States, not to allow soft money to live on. Senator McCain and I strongly support vital political parties at both the State and national level. What we don't support is using unlimited soft money from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to elect Federal candidates. The McCain-Feingold bill doubles the amount of hard money an individual can give in hard money to state and local parties--to $10,000 per year, or $20,000 per cycle. That is a little-noted provision in our bill. To hear the Senator from Nebraska tell it, you would think that we were looking to severely restrict party activity in the States. Far from it. All our bill says is that when a State party is spending money on Federal elections, it has to be hard money. That includes voter registration activities within 120 days before a Federal election. We all know that voter registration in States helps Federal candidates. Likewise, get out the vote activity and generic campaign activity--like general party advertising--when Federal candidates are on the ballot. Those kind of activities, regardless of how laudable they are and how much we want to encourage them, assist Federal candidates in their election campaigns. So we believe they must be paid for with Federal money. Obviously, so should public communications that refer to a clearly identified federal candidate and support or oppose a candidate for that office. Does that mean that we are trying to weaken the parties? Not at all. We simply ensure that soft money raised by the states cannot be spent on federal elections. As I have said, to leave that State soft money loophole wide open cannot be considered reform. And at this point I would remind my colleagues that both parties consistently raise more hard money than soft money. It is not true that if you can't spent soft money on an activity, that activity won't take place. The parties raised more than $700 million in hard money in the 2000 cycle. The idea that we are somehow shutting down State party activities because they must now use hard money for certain activities--those connected to Federal elections--is simply untrue. My colleagues might recall that the parties did just fine without a significant amount of soft money for many years. In the 1984 election cycle, soft money accounted for roughly 5 percent of the total receipts for the political parties, and voter turnout in the 84 elections was 53 percent. In the 2000 cycle, soft money accounted for 40 percent of the parties' receipts, and voter turnout was 51 percent. Soft money does not get out the vote any better than hard money. Soft money doesn't provide some kind of magic bullet that States need to conduct get out the vote activities, or other activities surrounding Federal elections. The States just need adequate funds to conduct those activities, and McCain-Feingold makes sure that they have the money--we double the amount of hard money an individual can give to a state party and increase the aggregate annual limit a commensurate amount. We want to help state parties stay a vibrant part of our politics. And there are plenty of activities where States can spend whatever soft money they might raise through their State party. We don't attempt to exert any control over what a State party spends on election activities that are purely directed at State elections. But we do say--a million dollar contribution to the party from Philip Morris, or the AFL-CIO, or Roger Tamraz, or Denise Rich has the appearance of corruption, whether the money is used for phony issue ads attacking candidates, or voter registration.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York. We have had some rivalries when it comes to the dairy industry. I appreciate the use of the Swiss cheese analog. As a Cheesehead from Wisconsin, that is the most persuasive thing he could possibly use. Senator Schumer has brought forth the absolutely basic point. First of all, under the Hagel amendment, corporate and union treasuries will be writing direct checks to the Federal parties, something we have never allowed. Secondly, every dime of soft money that is currently allowed can just come through the State parties back to the Federal parties. No reform. Third, when it comes to the limits that are raised, both soft and hard money under the Hagel amendment, any couple in America can give $540,000 every 2 years. Finally, under the Hagel amendment, there is no prohibition on officeholders and candidates from raising this kind of money. Those are four strikes against the bill, and you only need three.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, following the remarks of the Senator from Wyoming, the Senator from New York be recognized for 15 minutes.