Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. That is satisfactory.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, I am wondering if it would be more appropriate to simply withdraw the amendment and offer it again later.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I think the Senator from Tennessee would agree with that.

Mr. FEINGOLD. That clearly would be a very different amendment. That is why I engaged in the conversation with the Senator from Delaware. The relative process of this amendment is we have been looking at this as clearly a conjunctive setup where you first have to meet the standards of Snowe-Jeffords, and then you would have to meet the standards of the Furgatch-like test. There would be two obstacles to get over in order to be able to catch one of these ads, which we like to call ``phony issue ads.'' I would be happy to consider it. The theory will not be how we work if it said ``or'', but this clearly says ``and''. The Senator from Tennessee expressed it absolutely correctly. The result will be that it will actually end up perhaps inadvertently causing more of these phony issue ads to be unavailable for our desire to try to make them honest for what they are, which is electioneering ads.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I appreciate that, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Oregon. As I look at these two Senators--Senator Collins from Maine and Senator Wyden from Oregon--there was a time when people were saying: You only have two Republicans on the bill. It was a critical moment in the history of this legislation when the Senator from Maine came on the bill. I remember when the Senator from Oregon came, and he made this his first piece of legislation he would cosponsor. It actually gave me a chance, for the first time in my life campaigning for this bill, to go to Portland, OR, a beautiful city. If I could somehow get myself to Maine for the first time, I could go to the other Portland and we could have this be the Portland-to- Portland amendment which, of course, reflects the tremendous reform tradition of both States, Maine and Oregon, in which Wisconsin joins as well. So, again, my thanks to both Senators. I yield the floor. Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I know the Senator from Illinois is coming. I will take a moment or two. I appreciate the Senator from Connecticut giving me the time so I can indicate my support for this amendment. I think I can speak for the Senator from Arizona as well. We are going to support this amendment. The Senator from New Jersey has laid out the substantive arguments very persuasively. I wish to say a word or two about how this amendment relates to our overall McCain-Feingold bill and why it is very consistent with reform. The Senator from Connecticut has already mentioned this, pretty much foreshadowing what I will say. The most important point is that the amendment compliments the soft money ban. The bottom line of our legislation is, we have to get rid of this party soft money that is growing exponentially. The reality, though, as the Senator from New Jersey has pointed out, is that in a post-soft-money world, the amount of money available for a candidate in party advertising will be significantly reduced. That is how it should be. That is what we must do. Reducing the cost of television time will have the very beneficial effect of reducing the impact of the loss of soft money on the ability of candidates to legitimately get their message out. The parties will only have hard money to spend. For that reason, it is appropriate to allow them to use the lowest unit rate as well. The fact is, this amendment can help make the legislation work. This amendment will help the parties to adjust to the new world of fundraising for only hard money, and it will help candidates have the sufficient resources to respond to ads that will still be run by outside groups. Some of the concerns about all the money that would flow to the outside groups are overblown. I don't think all the money will flow. It is false that all the corporations will give their money in that way. The fact is, there still will be these ads and people will still need to respond. The Torricelli amendment does make it possible for people to have that ability to respond through the legitimate, controlled, regulated, and disclosed hard money system. Like the soft money ban in this bill, the amendment will take our election law back to its original intent. The soft money ban reinvigorates the century-old prohibition of corporate spending in connection with Federal elections. Lowest unit rate, on the other hand, was intended to give candidates a significant discount for advertising so they could get their message out. The practice of having preemptible and then, on the other hand, nonpreemptible classes of time was not contemplated by the lowest unit rate statute. What this amendment does is bring the LUR back to what the Congress intended it to be. In my mind, it is very similar to what the soft money ban does. It takes us back to where we were supposed to be. We are talking in both cases about loopholes that have helped destroy an entire system that actually was pretty well thought out. But loopholes do occur, and this amendment helps us close them. The Senator from New Jersey already did a fine job on this. I reiterate, this is not a slippery slope. This is not the next step to free time. I wish it was. There ought to be free time for candidates. There ought to be reduced television costs, but LUR is not free time. The original McCain-Feingold bill, when Senator McCain and I first came together to work on a bipartisan basis, was about voluntary spending limits in return for reduced costs for television time. That is something we were unable to get a majority of the Senate to support. That is not what this amendment does. This amendment simply makes LUR effective and useful in practice for candidates. I thank the Senator and appreciate his very serious involvement in this campaign finance debate and, in particular, for this amendment that, as I indicated, Senator McCain and I tried for 5 years to finally get this bill on the floor. We always said we have our ideas, but we believe that if this bill is brought to the floor of the Senate, the Members of the Senate will make it a better bill. Every one of us is an expert on this issue. If we come out and have an honest, open debate as we are having now, it will get better. The Torricelli amendment is proof of that proposition.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the President of the United States, President Bush, issued a statement with regard to campaign finance reform indicating he is committed to working with the Congress to ensure that fair and balanced campaign finance reform legislation is enacted. He specifically referred to a desire to have a balance between unions and corporations in the United States. Apparently Senator Hatch's amendment is an attempt to do that. But as has been effectively pointed out by Senator Levin, it doesn't accomplish that. It isn't balanced. It isn't parity. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts pointed out when it comes to the balance between unions and business in the country, this amendment doesn't even apply to 99.7 percent of the businesses in the country. It is an interesting technique to talk about balance between unions and corporations but not include many other kinds of organizations as well. What is even more troubling is the point made by the Senators from Michigan and Massachusetts. The definition of ``political activity'' is by no means balanced between what corporations do and unions do. This needs to be reiterated. There are four kinds of activity listed. Two of the activities are activities in which at least at this point only unions participate, and a third is defined in a circular way which means that it probably doesn't apply to the kind of disbursements for television or radio that corporations do. The fourth activity refers only to express advocacy, which unions and corporations can only do through their PACs. The Senator from Michigan has it right. He said it is purely paper parity between corporations and unions. What he said is not only alliterative, it is dead right. This amendment is purely paper parity. Even the President of the United States' principles and desire that we create a balance between unions and corporations are not achieved by the Hatch amendment. I compliment the Senator from Utah for attempting to do this. On its face, the amendment is not as one-sided as some that have been offered in the past. For example, one previous amendment on this subject said that any union or corporation that charges its members dues is covered by the provision. But, of course, no corporation in America charges dues. Nonetheless, let's be serious. Is there anybody in this body who really believes that this provision will actually work? This amendment supposedly would require every corporation in America to get the permission of its shareholders before it spends money for political activities. That is ludicrous. Corporations have millions of shareholders. Their identity changes every day. The Senator from Massachusetts made this very clear--how could you possibly do this? Billions of shares of stock change hands each week--billions. Apparently, it would be necessary to get the permission of every shareholder. What about people who own shares in corporations through mutual funds? How are their rights protected? Actually the amendment says that ``without the separate, prior, written voluntary authorization of a stockholder, it shall be unlawful for any corporation described in this section to use funds from its general treasury for the purpose of political activity.'' So perhaps this provision only requires corporations to get the permission of one stockholder. But if that is what it means, if it does not apply to billions of stockholders, which would be unworkable, and only requires the consent of one stockholder, it would be a sham like the earlier proposals. I take the Senator from Utah at his word, that he is trying to be evenhanded, trying to cover unions and corporations equally. But if his proposal actually works, the Senator from Utah has singlehandedly rewritten the law of corporations in this amendment. Corporate shareholders generally have little ability to influence corporate policy and practices. The officers and directors of a corporation do that, and they are responsible and have a legal duty to their shareholders to do it. If this amendment actually works--and I am very skeptical that it does--then before this vote, corporate America should be descending on this body en masse within an hour or so. Lots of representatives of corporate America oppose this bill now, but if this bill passes, every corporation in America will oppose it. This provision would be a disaster for corporations if it works in that way. Aside from the problems with this amendment that the other speakers have very well pointed out, our Beck provision addresses the issue of the use of union dues for political purposes. The real problem with this amendment is that this is a poison pill to this bill. It fits the definition of a poison pill to a tee. If this amendment passes, reform is dead. I am confident that we will defeat it despite the herculean efforts of the Senator from Utah to cover corporations and unions equally because a sugar-coated poison pill is still a poison pill. When the sugar wears off, and it will wear off pretty quickly on this amendment, as we have seen, the poison underneath will kill this bill. It is essential for the sake of this campaign finance reform effort that this amendment be tabled.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my serious concern about the recent presidential elections in Uganda. Uganda is a country of great promise; in the past year I and many of my colleagues have come to this floor to praise the Ugandan Government and the Ugandan people for their energetic and effective fight against the AIDS pandemic. In recent years, the economy has enjoyed moderate economic growth. Most strikingly, even given the persistence of brutality like that embodied by the Lord's Resistance Army, there can be no mistaking that Uganda has come a long way from the dark days when Idi Amin and Milton Obote terrorized their citizens. This progress toward stability and an improvement in the quality of life enjoyed by Ugandans has been cause for celebration, and legitimately so. But the latest trends from Uganda are alarming. In particular, the days leading up to the March 12 presidential elections revealed a disturbing willingness on the part of the ruling party to retain power through intimidation. According to observers, the opposition was threatened with violence and arrests from state security forces throughout the campaign. Reports indicate that, in some cases, opposition supporters also resorted to violent tactics. While most observers agree that outcome of the vote would probably not have been different had the election not been marred in this manner, there can be no question that Uganda has been proven to be less democratic and less stable by these recent events, and the security of individual Ugandans wishing to exercise basic civil and political rights is not assured. It is unquestionably true that many positive developments have unfolded in Uganda over the years that President Museveni has been in office. But Uganda's success is not about Mr. Museveni. Institutions, not individuals, are the backbone of lasting political stability and development. And the movement system currently in effect in Uganda, always dubious, increasingly looks like a single-party system by another name. Its defenders will point to last year's referendum on this so-called ``no-party'' system and claim that it is the will of the people. But the deck was clearly stacked against multipartyism in last year's referendum on the movement system--state-sponsored political education courses were used to mobilize support for the Movement, and the opposition boycotted the vote. Today, in the wake of the presidential election and after long months of Uganda's involvement in the Democratic Republic of the Congo--an adventure that, while perhaps profitable for the few, is clearly unpopular with the Ugandan people--today, those of us who genuinely wish to see Uganda consolidate the successes of the past and make even more progress in the years ahead are profoundly troubled. Some in Central Africa believe that the U.S. turns a blind eye to the shortcomings of the government in Kampala. I certainly hope that is not the case, because that is not in the interests of the U.S. or the Ugandan people. I have recently had cause to reflect on the damage done by years of U.S. support for undemocratic and sometimes violently repressive regimes elsewhere on the continent. We do no one any favors when we fail to tell it like it is, when we look away from blatantly undemocratic acts because we so desperately want to encourage countries that hold great promise. It is precisely because Uganda has made such precious gains that I am troubled, for these gains will surely be wasted if the staying power of the current regime becomes the utmost priority of the government.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. One other question: Is the Senator completely opposed to the notion of having the entire bill be severable?

Mr. FEINGOLD. The reason I am asking this question--the spirit of this amendment is very positive, as I have indicated. But what I am trying to determine is whether we would have a fair chance to send a bill over to the Supreme Court where, if for any reason you were right about the constitutionality about this, the rest of the bill could still stand. Is that something the Senator is open to?

Mr. FEINGOLD. If the Senator will yield for a further question, I will tell you one thing: This certainly will shorten legislative sessions, which is a wonderful aspect, as the Senator from Nevada pointed out. Under sub (4), it refers to a separate segregated fund. I am advised that this basically would include political action committees.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Is it the Senator's intention to prohibit the lobbyist from giving individual contributions, but also PACs during this period?

Mr. FEINGOLD. One other question. I want to follow up on the scope of this amendment. I have the amendment in front of me. Under section 324, there are several different paragraphs relating to who is covered. It refers to ``any individual who, at any time during the period beginning on the first day of the calendar year preceding the contribution and ending on the date of the contribution, was required to be listed as a lobbyist. . . .'' Under section (2), it refers to ``an officer, owner, or senior executive of any person that, at any time during the period described in paragraph (1). . .'' is a lobbyist. And then in (3), it says, ``a political committee directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled by an individual . . .'' And finally, (4), a separate segregated fund. I ask the Senator how he can say it only refers to registered lobbyists when it has three other categories of people listed in the face of the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I thank the Senator from Michigan especially for his excellent remarks on this amendment, and also the Senator from Arizona. We are united in our opposition to it. I, too, as the Senator from Connecticut, find it a little bit unpleasant to oppose the Senator from Utah. We have thoroughly enjoyed working together and share quite an affection for his beautiful State and appreciate those opportunities. On this one, we really have to call this amendment what it is. It is simply another attempt to change the subject. Somehow it doesn't trouble the Senator from Utah or the Senator from Kentucky that soft money to the parties was $82 million in 1992, $260- some million in 1996, and is now approaching $500 million in the year 2000. That doesn't bother them. That is just fine. What does bother them is somehow trying to undo a reasonable balance that was created back in 1974 in the law at the time after Watergate and in the Buckley decision. The problem is not PACs. The problem isn't how PACs raise their hard money contributions. We used to think PACs were the problem. I hope the American people now realize that PACs are limited to giving $10,000. We used to think that was a lot of money. Unfortunately, given this insane soft money system, it is starting to look as if it is spare change. But that is what the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Utah want to change the subject to: Worrying about how union members and perhaps corporate entities get their people together and spend a little money in order to raise the modest amounts that can be contributed through PACs. It is a blatant attempt to change the subject. It does not relate at all to the real abuse in the system, the horrible situation where huge contributions on the very day that votes are made are given to the political parties, and then legislation passes creating an appearance of impropriety or corruption that is very disturbing to the American people. To reiterate, the 1974 act that created PACs had an explicit tradeoff. Separate segregated funds that are connected with the union or corporation can use their treasury funds for their administrative costs, but they can solicit only their members or executive and administrative personnel for contributions. On the other hand, nonconnected PACs must use their PAC money for the costs of administration, but they can solicit the general public. That was the tradeoff. That was the balance to which the Senator from Connecticut referred. As he said, this amendment would disturb the balance. That tradeoff has been a part of the law for 25 years. It is not a loophole. It is not a cesspool of soft money. It is working. It may not be perfect, but it is the very thing that, along with other things, survived after the Buckley case. We have a fairly decent, but not perfect, system of campaign financing in this country. That is what is falling apart. There is also a constitutional dimension to this amendment. The law allows corporations and unions to communicate with their members when a union or a corporation solicits members for a PAC contribution. That solicitation is a communication. We cannot interfere with that communication without running afoul of the first amendment. I would think, given the frequent speeches by the Senator from Kentucky on the first amendment, that would concern him as well. Let me say that I, as well as my lead author, Senator McCain from Arizona, oppose this amendment. It may be particularly targeted at unions because they have less money and may be perceived that way. As the so-called paycheck protection amendment, this is an attempt to cripple a labor union. It is a poison pill amendment targeted at labor unions and perhaps at corporate PACs, as well, and is not reform. Corporate labor PACs have been permitted to use treasury funds for their administrative costs since the passage of the 1974 act. As the Senator from Michigan said so well, there has been no showing of abuse of this narrow exception--the prohibition of corporate and union spending of treasury funds in Federal elections--and yet these two Senators have virtually nothing to say about the enormous abuse of the gaping loophole of soft money that has destroyed the reforms after the Watergate era. All those supporting McCain-Feingold should strongly oppose the Bennett amendment. We strongly oppose it. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. I was interested in the Senator's remark that we shouldn't act as judges here; we should act as legislators. I agree. I ask the Senator if he is aware of how infrequently legislatures, in particular the U.S. Congress, have actually had a nonseverability provision. Does the Senator realize that it is incredibly rare, something that is rather unlikely for legislators to do?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Does the Senator believe it could be unconstitutional to prohibit PAC contributions?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest that the effect of this is to unconstitutionally prohibit PAC contributions, and I would be concerned about that.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is not pleasant to oppose this amendment. The Senator from Oregon is a wonderful Senator. We have worked together on a lot of issues, in the Foreign Relations Committee, the Budget Committee, and the like. We do share a great progressive tradition in our two States of Wisconsin and Oregon. That is the spirit of this amendment. I have to agree with the distinguished Senator from Tennessee. This does raise some real questions because it doesn't apply to State legislatures. It applies to this Congress. It may make sense for State legislatures that convene for a few months every year, but it doesn't make sense for this Congress. In the year 2000, this Congress went into session in January and, as we painfully remember, did not adjourn until December. There was even a possibility that we were going to go up to New Year's Eve. So it is not realistic to have this kind of limitation that we have in States such as Wisconsin and Oregon at the Federal level. The cost of campaigns is regrettably high. Obviously, future reforms should address this problem. As has been said by other speakers, this amendment is overly broad in its attempt to prohibit congressional candidates from accepting contributions while the Congress is in session from all the following individuals or entities. It is not just registered lobbyists, as some thought when the amendment was first described. It is much more than that. It is registered lobbyists that are affected, PACs, senior executives, officers, or owners of any organization that employed or retained a registered lobbyist during a calendar year preceding the contribution. It would prohibit not just contributions from lobbyists but, as the Senator from Arizona has pointed out, contributions from executives of any company that employs a lobbyist--the executives of General Motors, of Federal Express, and every other company. It would prohibit all union and corporate PACs from contributing basically almost all year-round because, as I pointed out, we are in session so much of the year. I am afraid this amendment also gives a huge advantage to wealthy incumbents or any incumbents who have a substantial war chest. Under the Smith amendment, while challengers are unable to raise funds from those listed above throughout this very extensive time period in a year, the incumbents who have a lot of resources would be able to rely on their existing war chests or personal wealth. That concerns me as well. Finally, as the Senator from Tennessee has focused on, there is a serious question of the constitutionality of this amendment. This is one of the reasons I asked the Senator from Oregon at the beginning about whether this affected PACs. He conceded that banning PAC contributions does raise constitutional questions. It calls into question the whole bill. Of course, if the Senator from Oregon, as we proceed with this bill, is willing to work with us on making sure this entire bill is severable so that each provision can stand on its own and the Court can determine each one, that could be a different story with regard to that argument, but that is the kind of discussion we need to have. I want him to know I am eager to have those discussions. I appreciate his attitude toward reform, and I hope that in the end perhaps we can work something out relating to this, but even more importantly, he can be part of our efforts. In light of these concerns, I will urge that all those supporting the McCain-Feingold bill should oppose the Smith amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York. His comments are among the most important comments that have been made so far in this debate and, frankly, on any other debate we have had on campaign finance reform in the last 6 years. That is because he has identified the real issue. When the Senator from New York was in the other body, he was part of the solution there. He was part of the effort to get through a similar bill in the House where people did see the forest for the trees, exactly the point the Senator from New York is making. There are so many amendments that are attractive to us, including many provisions that Senator McCain and I have offered in the past, having to do with free television time, having to do with other improvements in the system that many of us would like to see. We have to keep our eye on the ball, as the Senator from New York has suggested. I don't know if he is a Mets or Yankees fan.

Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time remains?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Yankees. Keeping the eye on the ball is the final goal and the central issue. I am grateful after all these years of the frustrating process of coming to the floor and having a few speeches and a cloture vote and having to shut it down, we can have a Senator from New York talk about something real, about a process that can have an end and actually work. It will require the kind of unity and discipline of reformers on both sides of the aisle that has been demonstrated in the other body on a number of occasions. My hat is off to the Senator from New York, but also the reformers in the other body, particularly Representatives Shays and Meehan, who have shown the way. Now it is up to the Senate to do what the Senator from New York suggested. There will be attractive amendments on aspects of public financing which I would like to see that could upset the balance we have. There will be poison pill amendments to try to embarrass one particular series of interests such as unions, to try to kill the bill, and then there will be so-called alternatives, as the Senator from New York has suggested--in particular, the Hagel alternative offered by a colleague we all respect--which is, in fact, worse for the current system because it will put the stamp of approval on the soft money system once and for all. I think the Senator from New York is right. I don't think we will ever be able to change it if we adopt that kind of amendment. I am grateful to him for his work in the House, especially grateful to him for his work with a small group of Members who have been working on this for over a year, and particularly grateful for his leadership that has started today and will continue through this process of pointing out that the Hagel alternative is, frankly, worse than no bill at all. My thanks, again, to the Senator from New York for his leadership and his commitment to this issue.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in answer to the Senator from Michigan, I think that is a problem that should be addressed.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me conclude and say it is essential that those who are a part of adding these items and these new considerations to the bill be part of the solution, which is to pass this legislation without too many amendments that would actually undercut its ability to get through this body and be a good piece of public policy. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.