Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, the Senator from North Carolina asked if I will yield.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, how can we close our eyes to the appearance of corruption that this enormous fundraising effort provides? How can we close our eyes to the appearance of corruption that the double givers list that I have shown on this floor a number of times represents? Mirage Resorts is now on the list. Companies give hundreds of thousands of dollars to both political parties--hundreds of thousands of dollars to both political parties. What game are they playing here? The Senator from Kentucky said on the floor last week, ``Well, they have a right to be duplicitous.'' Actually, Madam President, they are not being duplicitous. We all know they are giving to both sides. They are just playing by the rules as we have set them up. They are not doing anything that is dishonest. They are simply trying to cover their bases. Surely, the Senator from Kentucky doesn't think when AT&T gives a big contribution to the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee that it won't give money to the Senator from New Jersey's Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee as well. We all know why they do it, too--because in the candid words of a lobbyist, ``They know which side their bread is buttered on.'' Both sides--the bread is buttered on both sides. They play both sides of the fence so they can get their calls returned and their positions heard. That, my friends, is on its face an appearance of corruption. And if we are so caught up in this fundraising game that we can't see it, the disenchantment the public feels in its elected officials is well warranted. Last week, the Senator from Kentucky suggested that press reports about the connection between campaign donations and legislative actions arise from the desire of newspapers to sell more copies or talking heads to get air time. But the newspapers didn't create the appearance problem. We did. I am reminded of what the great Senator, Robert La Follette, from my home State of Wisconsin, said in response to those who argued that the press of his day--the early 1900s--was somehow spreading hysteria about the power of the railroads over Congress. La Follette said: It does not lie in the power of any or all of the magazines of the country or of the press, great as it is, to destroy, without justification, the confidence of the people in the American Congress. . . . It rests solely with the United States Senate to fix and maintain its own reputation for fidelity to public trust. It will be judged by the record. It can not repose in security upon its exalted position and the glorious heritage of its traditions. It is worse than folly to feel, or to profess to feel, indifferent with respect to public judgment. If public confidence is wanting in Congress, it is not of hasty growth, it is not the product of ``jaundiced journalism.'' It is the result of years of disappointment and defeat. Years of disappointment and defeat--that is what the American people have had as the soft money system has grown and Congress has done nothing about it. The system of soft money looks corrupt. Indeed, it is corrupt. And it makes us, as its beneficiaries, look corrupt. There is no other way to put it. There is an appearance of corruption. There is an appearance of cravenness. There is an appearance of a smug confidence that the American people will not laugh out loud in disgust at the assertion that there is no corruption near. There is an appearance of something terribly, terribly wrong that we refuse to fix. If that offends people in this Chamber, so be it. We had better get rid of this system so they won't be offended anymore because I am not going to stop talking about it until we do. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, an article that appeared in the Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill on September 29. Here's another great headline: ``Why 30 top Democratic lobbyists attended GOP chairman's bash.'' This article reports however, that 30 top Democratic lobbyists attended a fundraising dinner for a Republican committee chairman at the home of Democratic super-lobbyist Tommy Boggs. I bring this article to the attention of the Senate not to cast aspersions on any Senator. My interest in this article is in the views of lobbyists on fundraising, and the appearance it creates for the public that reads about it. Let me quote from the article: ``Indeed, it would be tantamount to political suicide for Democratic lobbyists--or Republican lobbyists for that matter--who specialize in the [the issues] that are the focus of [the chairman's] committee and the lifeblood of their corporate clients, if they desert him in his hour of need.'' Here are a few quotes in this article from lobbyists who were questioned on the irony of Democratic lobbyists making contributions to a powerful Republican chairman of a Senate committee. One said: ``In situations like this, I tend to be a strong fan of incumbency.'' Another said, ``Most lobbyists know which side their bread is buttered on.'' And this is what a staffer on the House side had to say: ``Any time you have a chairman of [a committee] running for reelection, and you're lobbying . . . issues before the committee, you risk having your issue blown out of the water if you don't contribute to his campaign. The game in this town is to support the incumbent. Mr. President, I don't suggest that these lobbyists bearing gifts have swayed or will sway a chairman on substantive issues, but they sure are trying. And I have avoided using the Senator's name because I don't think he has been swayed. But we all have to admit that these kind of comments create a perception, an appearance, that campaign contributions are given because of the effect they will have on policy. Madam President, let me anticipate a question by the Senator from Kentucky. Most of the fundraising in these articles is hard money fundraising, isn't it? It is all legal under our system. Thousand- dollar checks to candidates are permitted under the Federal election laws, aren't they? The answer, of course, is yes. But what strikes me is the obvious appearance of corruption that is present when a lobbyist specializes in throwing fundraisers for candidates or when members of Congress solicit even these relatively small donations from people with an interest in legislation, especially on the eve of a crucial vote. Madam President, can there be any doubt that an outrageous appearance of corruption arises when the same Members of Congress are involved in raising hundreds of thousands of dollars of soft money in a single phone call for the political parties? As Justice Souter said just a few weeks ago at the oral argument in the Missouri case--``Most people assume, and I do certainly, that someone making an extraordinarily large contribution gets something extraordinary in return.'' That brings me to another exhibit in our legislative record of the appearance of corruption--a story that appeared yesterday in the Washington Post about the effort that the Democratic party--my party-- is making to raise soft money in order to retake the Congress. According to the article, the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee increased its soft money fundraising from $5.1 million in 1994 to $16.6 million in the '98 cycle. It is now going after the really big givers with an innovation called Team 2000. The Post story describes Team 2000 as ``[A] new club for $100,000 and over donors who would be feted by the party at exclusive events, including a weekend of clambakes and sightseeing.'' The article describes the wooing of Steven Wynn, owner of Mirage Resorts in Las Vegas, who gave a $250,000 contribution to the DCCC in May of this year. The article indicates that Wynn is angry about the impeachment of the President and with the Republican failure to stop the antigaming crusade of a Member of the House. Incidentally, this information is not included in this particular article, but I have learned that the Mirage Resorts gave an identical $250,000 amount to the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee in July of this year. So I guess Mr. Wynn got over his anger and realized that he had better play both sides of the fence, as many big soft money donors do. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent this Washington Post story be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, this article reports that former Representative Bill Paxon, who retired last year, has signed with the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld. Akin Gump is one of the powerhouse lobbying firms in Washington. Its partners include big name Democrats Robert Strauss and Vernon Jordan. Paxon is not a lawyer, so his title is ``senior advisor.'' What that means is that he will be a lobbyist and ``rainmaker'' for the firm. Apparently, Akin Gump, a firm known for its Democratic Party ties, hired Mr. Paxon to ``mend fences'' with the Republican Party. And how does Mr. Paxon do that? According to this article, the main thing he does is raise money for Republican Members of Congress and the Republican Party. The National Journal reports that Paxon has helped host 20 fundraisers for the Speaker of the House, the House majority whip, the assistant majority leader in the Senate, and other Republican office holders. He has also raised more than $250,000 for an NRCC dinner, and another $150,000 for a Republican House-Senate dinner this year. He has raised over $100,000 for Presidential candidate George W. Bush. Let me quote from the article: Not surprisingly, NRCC chairman, Tom Davis of Virginia, is a huge Paxon fan. ``Bill is still a very integral part of the culture over here,'' said Davis, who talks to Paxon a couple of times a week. ``He's been helpful in building bridges to groups. I consider him a right arm up here.'' The article reports that Mr. Paxon participates in a weekly meeting that lobbyists hold with Majority Whip DeLay and meets regularly with Speaker Hastert. The article continues: Paxon's fundraising skills, plus the experience he gained during five terms in Congress, have seemingly proved magnets for new business. Although he is barred by ethics rules from lobbying on Capitol Hill until next year, Paxon said he offers clients a cornucopia of other services. Madam President, let's leave aside the revolving door problems in Mr. Paxon participating in weekly meetings that Mr. DeLay holds with lobbyists. Can there be any question that that is an appearance problem? Here we have a former Member of Congress whose stock in trade is raising big money for congressional leaders and candidates. Do we really blame the public for thinking he is getting special treatment for his clients? Mr. Davis calls him an integral part of the culture over here. Just what kind of culture is this? Certainly not the kind of culture I would be proud to tell my children and grandchildren about. Certainly not a culture that we should nourish and preserve for the future of our democracy. He is a right arm for the congressional leadership? The public might be excused for asking: Just who is the right arm for whom in this relationship? Exhibit B. On October 5, the day before the House considered the Patients' Bill of Rights, according to press reports, officials for Cigna, Blue Cross-Blue Shield, and Aetna held a $1,000 per plate breakfast fundraiser for the Speaker of the House. Press reports the next day said that 15 or 17 health insurance industry lobbyists attended the event. Atlanta Constitution columnist Tom Baxter wrote the following: The condition of the political ground could be judged by the keen attention of all the television networks to a breakfast fund-raiser this week at which insurance lobbyists arrived with checks for Hastert and others. Not that such scenes aren't common these days, but the timing made this a photo-op for campaign finance reform. Indeed. I remember seeing reports on the national TV news about this event. And I thought to myself: ``what can the average American watching on TV think about this scene?'' ``How can anyone not think this is wrong?'' Actual corruption? We will never know. The appearance of corruption? Without a doubt. The headline of this AP news story tells it all: ``Insurers Give Speaker Thousands on Eve of Vote.'' I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that this article from the Bergen County Record on this fundraiser be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, in a few minutes, the Senate, for the first time--let me reiterate that--for the first time, the Senate will go on record on the central issue in this debate: Should the Senate ban soft money? It is a simple question that has a simple answer. And soon, finally, we will see where each Senator stands. The fact that our current campaign finance system has created an appearance of corruption justifies Congress acting to ban soft money. In fact, if we don't act, we create the appearance that we don't care about corruption. Creating a legislative record of the appearance of corruption is critical because the Supreme Court has held that not just actual corruption but an appearance of corruption is adequate reason for the restrictions on the speech represented by campaign contribution limits. Madam President, this is the central misunderstanding or flaw in the opposition's position. They have premised everything in this debate on the idea that you have to show individual Senators who are guilty of corruption. Well, of course, that isn't the standard at all. That isn't the law. Let me quote from the Supreme Court's opinion in Buckley v. Valeo because this is a crucial concept that opponents of reform often seek to ignore. The Court said: Of almost equal concern as the danger of actual quid pro quo arrangements is the impact of the appearance of corruption stemming from public awareness of the opportunities for abuse inherent in a regime of large individual financial contributions. Madam President, I really don't think there is any doubt that our current system presents the appearance of corruption. And it isn't just soft money. We see it every day in the newspapers, and we hear it on television talk shows. It is portrayed as common knowledge, conventional wisdom, on radio talk shows that the votes of politicians are bought and paid for by special interests. When the Senator from Kentucky stands up and says that ``people contribute to our campaigns because they agree with what we are doing,'' I am sure he is sincere, but the public thinks there is something more than general feelings of support or like-mindedness at work when somebody hands over hundreds of thousands of dollars. Let me give some examples of news stories in just the last three weeks that drive this point home. All of them make it perfectly clear to me, and I think to almost any American, that political donations are generally a way of attempting to buy influence and access. All of them add to the record that there is an appearance of corruption out there that justifies the Congress taking action to ban soft money. Madam President, if this applies to hard money contributions, it surely must apply far more easily and obviously to soft money contributions. Exhibit A is a story from the National Journal of October 2, 1999. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I have no objection to either request.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I assume this is off the time of the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. FEINGOLD. With that understanding, I have no objection. I want to be sure that we are not adding additional time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I understand I am to speak for 20 minutes following the speech of the Senator from Nebraska. Or does he have additional time?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Can the Senator recall any other occasion in which the Senate has voted up or down on the question of whether to ban party soft money?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts has been waiting a long time. I will yield to him in 1 minute. But I want to make a quick point with regard to speech comments by the Senator from Colorado. He and I had a good discussion the other day about this issue. I enjoyed it. But he said that a soft money ban would be unfair to the Republican Party. And this very much reflects the comments of the Senator from Kentucky, who has made similar comments, that a soft money ban would somehow unfairly limit the ability of the Republican Party, as opposed to the Democratic Party. I find this very odd, since the comments this weekend of the chairman designate of the Democratic National Committee, the mayor of Philadelphia, Ed Rendell, who is the chair of the DNC, who said in a column, or was quoted in a column by David Broder: ``If the Republicans pass McCain-Feingold, we would be shut down,'' Rendell said. So both parties apparently think it is the end of the line for them if we ban soft money--but only for one of them. I ask, how is it possible, since this whole soft money thing only happened 3 or 4 years ago in terms of the vast amounts of money? We certainly had political parties before this--pretty good political parties. How can both parties be right? How can the Senator from Colorado be right and Mr. Rendell be right? The fact is, both parties have become addicted to soft money, and they do not want to give it up. There is no reality to the notion that the parties will be crippled or any particular party would be severely harmed by the soft money ban. Mr. President, I wanted to make that point. At this point, since we are roughly trying to go back and forth, I hope the Senator from Massachusetts could proceed.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me clarify what the Senator from Arizona is attempting in moving to table the Reid amendment. I would ask the Senator from Arizona, when we take this vote on tabling, will you regard this vote on the Reid amendment as a true test of the question we have been asking our colleagues, and that question is, Are you for or against soft money? Would the Senator from Arizona regard that vote as a procedural vote or a vote up or down on the question of whether you are for or against soft money?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator from Arizona yield for a question?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask that I may follow after Senator Hagel.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator for bringing us to the point where finally we can have an up-or-down vote on soft money.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Again, I ask a further question. I appreciate that answer because I think the problem we have had is we have not had a chance to get to the question of whether you are for or against unlimited contributions. For year after year, it appears that--and I ask the Senator from Arizona to confirm--we keep trying to get to this vote, but we never seem to be able to get right at it; the bill is pulled or a tabling motion is made on the overall bill or something, a cloture motion is filed. It is amazing, after 5 years, we have never gotten to this. But apparently we are about to. Let me ask one other question, if I could, because the Senator from Oregon consulted me on this. Senator Wyden, who does not limit himself to supporting our efforts, has been, in my mind, one of the strongest advocates of campaign finance reform in this body. He has been creative and has a number of interesting ideas of his own that I like very much. He asked me--and I certainly think you will answer the same way I did-- whether or not, after this motion is disposed of one way or another, Senators will still have the chance to amend the bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, I have the distinct honor of submitting a resolution that commemorates one of the great vessels in our naval history and her crew members. I am joined by the senior Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl. Mr. President, the U.S.S. Wisconsin is one of four Iowa-class battleships, the largest battleships ever built by the Navy. The four vessels, the Wisconsin, the Iowa, the New Jersey and the Missouri, served gallantly in every significant United States conflict from World War II to the Persian Gulf war. At 887 feet, the Wisconsin carries a 108-foot, three-inch beam with a displacement of 45,000 tons. Her armor includes 9 sixteen-inch guns, 20 five-inch guns, 80 40-millimeter guns, and 49 20-millimeter guns. The 16-inch guns can lob shells roughly the weight of a VW Beetle to distances of up to 24 miles. The recoil of these might guns was so great that the deck had to be built of teak wood because steel plating would buckle from the stress. She was designed for a crew of 1,921 sailors, but she carried as many as 2,700 sailors during World War II and the Korean war. Mr. President, the U.S.S. Wisconsin was built in Philadelphia and commissioned on 7 December 1943, exactly 2 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor. From the moment President Roosevelt selected the name of the vessel, Wisconsin citizens took an immediate interest. School children volunteered to christen the battleship. Some folks even recommended christening the Wisconsin with water from the Wisconsin River, instead of champagne. In the summer of 1944, she underwent sea trials and training in the Chesapeake Bay. On 7 July, the Wisconsin departed from Norfolk, VA, on her way to war with the legendary Adm. William F. ``Bull'' Halsey and his 3rd Fleet. As U.S. Marines and infantry began their island-hopping strategy toward the home islands of Japan, Wisconsin sent her shells hurling with deadly accuracy into the Philippines. And coincidentally enough, the Wisconsin's first commander, Captain Earl E. Stone, was born in Milwaukee and attended the city's public schools and the State university before his appointment to the Naval Academy. The Wisconsin then joined the 5th Fleet under another legendary commander, Adm. Raymond Spruance, and helped silence Japanese resistance on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and then joined in the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Soon thereafter, the U.S.S. Wisconsin became part of Fast Carrier Task Force 38. She joined in attacks in the Philippine Islands, Saigon, Camranh Bay, Hong Kong, Canton, Hainan, and the Japanese home islands. After the Japanese surrender, the Wisconsin headed home with five battle stars to her credit. One amazing fact about her World War II service is that the Wisconsin didn't lose one crewman or get hit. She spent the summer at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard where she underwent an extensive overhaul. Following a 2-year stint as a training ship, she returned to Norfolk and joined the Atlantic Fleet Reserve Fleet for inactivation. By July 1, 1948, she was taken out of commission and mothballed. However, the Korean war reawakened the Wisconsin and her sister battleships. She departed Norfolk on October 25, 1951, bound for the Pacific where she became the flagship of the 7th Fleet. When the Korean war broke out, future Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, Jr., served as the Wisconsin's navigator and extolled her ``versatility, maneuverability, strength, and power.'' During the conflict, she covered troop landings; fired upon enemy troops, trains, trucks, and bridges all along the Korean coastline; and attacked important North Korean ports in Hungnam, Wonsan, and Songjin. In April 1952, she steamed toward Norfolk with another battle star. Upon arriving in Norfolk, Wisconsin received her second overhaul at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. Following a number of peacetime and diplomatic voyages showing the flag, she returned to Norfolk on June 11, 1954 for a brief overhaul before taking her role as a training ship. On May 6, 1954, she was cruising off the Virginia Capes in heavy fog when she collided with the destroyer U.S.S. Eaton. Wisconsin returned to Norfolk with extensive bow damage, and a week later found herself back in the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. Shipyard workers fitted a 120-ton, 68-foot bow section from the unfinished Iowa-class battleship Kentucky. Working round-the-clock, Wisconsin's ship's force and shipyard personnel completed the operation in just 16 days. On June 28, 1956, the ship was ready for sea. Wisconsin steamed from Norfolk five more times before heading for Philadelphia and deactivation in 1958. She remained on inactive status until 1986, when she was towed to Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Mississippi. In 1988, the U.S.S. Wisconsin was re-commissioned for a third time. In 1991, she led the Navy's surface attack on Iraq during the Gulf war with the first-ever use of cruise missiles in battle. Now, Mr. President, she is decommissioned and will soon be berthed at Nauticus, the National Maritime Museum in Norfolk, VA, where she will serve as a floating monument and an educational museum. I wish she had found her final port in the great State of Wisconsin, but getting her there simply isn't possible--she's just too big. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will help me and the senior Senator from Wisconsin honor this great ship with a commemorative stamp.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if I can respond briefly, I cannot think of a more helpful remark than what the Senator from Nebraska just said. What he is talking about--and this is his nature--is to actually get something done. Not just posture but actually accomplish something. I am grateful because that is the discipline we are going to need when we start voting next week.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska for his question. I first compliment him. Not only has he, obviously, done a good job when he was in the role of being a leader for our political party committee, which involved fundraising, but he has always been an ardent supporter of campaign finance reform at the same time. He knows very well because he was involved. The fact that people do not have a lot of money can keep them out of politics. It almost kept me out of politics. That is the reason I got involved in this issue in the first place. I certainly was not aware of what soft money was at that time. In answer to the Senator's question, this clearly is not comprehensive reform; Shays-Meehan is not comprehensive reform. But when we get to the point of simply banning soft money, we should take the opportunity. In specific answer to his question about what happens when these amendments come up, all I can do is tip my hat and say let's follow the example of the other body which, on two occasions, has shown us what to do. You have to be willing on some occasions to vote against a good amendment in which you believe--I am even prepared, if necessary, to vote against a bill that has my name on it--if you believe the reason for putting that amendment on is to destroy the chance to pass a reasonable and appropriate bill. They had to do that in the House. Members had to vote against amendments that had to do with disclosure, almost an indisputable principle. They had to vote against other amendments they liked very much in order to make sure they could pass a reasonable bill, such as the Shays-Meehan bill, that included a number of important provisions. We have to be ready to do the same thing. I believe in some cases, I say to the Senator from Nebraska, the amendments that will be offered will be helpful and do not threaten our ability to win, but in some cases I think they are poison pills and we need to work together to defeat them. I am confident we have a majority of people in this body who are reformers and understand the importance of taking the vote you have to take in order to win this battle.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we have had an excellent debate so far. I am pleased to have an opportunity to make a few comments essentially in summary on what we have covered. We have been debating an amendment. In fact, we have been debating two amendments. We have been debating two alternatives, both of which I like very much. One of them is the original version of the McCain- Feingold bill, which is very similar to the Shays-Meehan bill that has been offered, and the other is essentially the underlying bill, the approach of simply banning soft money. We think that is well worth doing if we can get nothing else out of the Senate. I want to make it very clear. I, like my leader, the Senator from South Dakota, also support comprehensive reform. It is even a little bit amusing to me because I remember we had the first version of the McCain-Feingold bill. And when the decision was made to make it a little bit lighter in order to get more support, there was outcry by some that we had abandoned comprehensive reform. What is now the Shays-Meehan bill was said at that time not to be comprehensive, but today the Shays-Meehan bill is being called comprehensive reform. It is not comprehensive, I am the first to admit; not only that bill, not only our bill, but any of the bills that have been offered, including the original McCain-Feingold bill. I prefer public financing. So the question isn't: Is this bill comprehensive reform? There is no comprehensive reform being offered on the floor of the Senate in this debate. The question is whether we are advancing the cause of campaign finance reform in a meaningful way with these different alternatives. I think either alternative, Shays-Meehan or the McCain-Feingold soft money ban, does advance the cause of campaign finance reform. Then there are only two questions in deciding which approach to follow at this point in this Senate. The first question is: Can it pass? Can the legislation get over the filibuster in the Senate? The second question, and it is as important as the first question, maybe more important: Is it worth it to pass the bill assuming we can do it? That is the issue we have to address. On the first question, what can be passed in this body? I would love and have fought long and hard for years to be able to pass a bill through this body that includes not only a ban on soft money but that also deals with the phony issue ads that almost every American knows are campaign ads. But unlike the Senator from New Jersey, I have taken the time to sit down individually with every Republican Senator who has not supported our side in the past, who I thought might support our side on a pure soft money ban or some other alternative. I asked each Member what they want to see in a campaign finance reform bill. I did this largely with the help and special extra effort not only of Senator McCain, but also the Senator from Maine. This was a process we undertook in May and June and that continues today. I believe these Senators were being sincere with me. Some said they would not support anything and enjoyed the conversation. Some told me maybe there was a way they could support a stronger bill. The underlying theme from these conversations was whereas they couldn't support the provisions having to do with phony issue ads, many of them were open to the possibility of simply banning soft money. Some said: Let's ban soft money and do a couple of other things, too. There was a thread that came through all of these conversations. I can say to my colleagues with absolute certainty: I don't believe there is any scenario where the phony issue ads issue can be dealt with in this body on this piece of legislation. We cannot get 60 votes for it. And if we don't get 60 votes, the efforts in the House a few weeks ago that were so admirable are wasted. The House passed a bill that has both the soft money ban, and good provisions dealing with the phony issue ads. If we don't pass a bill in the Senate at all, we all know the process. This isn't Nebraska; it is not a unicameral legislature. There are two Houses. If we can't get a bill out of this body, there can't be a conference; or if the House can't agree to the Senate position, we can't have campaign finance reform. As great as the Shays-Meehan approach or the original McCain-Feingold approach is, I guarantee, I know we can't get 60 votes for that approach in this Senate at this stage of the process. It is fair to ask whether or not we can pass the soft money ban. We don't know for sure. But we do know this: This long, difficult battle has been won, one piece at a time. We are going to win it. The claim originally was, we only have a few supporters. Then the claim was, we just have Democrats and Senator McCain and Senator Thompson; we don't have a third Republican. Then Senator Collins came on board. Then Senator Specter came on board. Then they said, there are only 49 votes; you don't have a majority, so you can't win. Then we were very fortunate to gain the support of three Senators--Senators Snowe, Jeffords, and Chafee, and we had a majority in the Senate. Then they said, you can't get 60 votes. Fair enough. We know we need 60 votes, if people want to play the game that way--and it is the way it is often played in the Senate to win. For the last year, we have needed eight votes; we need eight votes. Because we had made the decision to listen to our Republican colleagues who were willing to listen, to try to just do a soft money ban if we can't do anything else, we now only need seven votes, as the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, has cosponsored the McCain-Feingold bill to ban soft money. Now it is seven. Maybe in a couple of days it will be five or three or two. The point is, in this game we lose and lose and lose and lose until we win, and we only have to win once. That is what legislating is all about. We can win. We must find out whether it is possible to win by finding out how many Members of this body answer the following question with a yes or a no. The question is, Are you for or against party soft money? Do you think people should be able to give unlimited contributions to the political parties, $100,000, $250,000, $500,000, $1 million--even though corporations and unions have been prohibited from doing that for decades in the United States? That is the question. Are Members for soft money or are they against soft money? Are they for a system of legalized bribery or against a system of legalized bribery? That is the question. I do believe there is no contest, no question as to which approach is most likely to break the filibuster. It is the approach of simply banning soft money. That leads to the second question, and this is the excellent exchange we had with Senator Torricelli today. It was all about whether it will make a difference, whether it is worth it, whether it will do anything at all if we are able to only ban party soft money. It is a fair question because I don't think there is any doubt there will always be attempts to avoid the ban and have the money flow to other sources. But my belief that it would make a huge difference to ban party soft money in this process is not some kind of utopian version. It is not some kind of a millennial fervor about being able to sever the connection between money and politics. I believe that is eternal. There will always be some connection between money and politics. The question is whether we can do something to close an outrageous loophole that has caused America to not have a campaign finance reform system at all--which is exactly what the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, has said on many occasions. That is the question. Is it worth closing this loophole? Senator McCain said it well. We may have to do more. Even this attempt may in 10 years be void. It is similar to tax reform. Nobody thinks when we do tax reform, as we did in 1986, that it is forever. It works for a while and we have to come back and do it again. That is why the Senator from Arizona said we don't adjourn permanently. Problems recur. Thomas Jefferson even said we should have a revolution every 20 years. Surely, it is not such a bad thing if we have campaign finance reform attempted every 20 years. I do think it is worth it. The reason I think it is worth it is because of the staggering figures I think many Americans are not aware of which are demonstrated on this chart. Do the American people know the kind of money that is being given to the political parties in this country, in a country that is supposed to be based on the principle of one person, one vote? How can they believe they are operating under a system of one person, one vote when enormous contributions can be given by corporations, unions, and individuals that make a farce out of the Watergate era reforms? These figures bear repetition. In 1992, 52 people gave over $200,000 to one of the major political petitioners. That is a lot. But by 1996, 219 people had given over $200,000. What about over $300,000? In 1992, only 20 people had given $300,000 to the major political parties. That figure sextupled--120 people instead of 20 gave in 1996 that amount. What about those who gave $400,000? These aren't groups that represent a bunch of individuals. These are one individual or one union or one corporation, each giving $400,000. Thirteen entities or persons did that in 1992, but in 1996 it was 1979. Finally, $500,000, a half a million dollars--people or corporations or unions giving a half a million dollars to one of the political parties: there were 9 people or groups who did that in 1992; by 1996 it was 50. I can just imagine what that figure is going to look like in the year 2000. It will be enormous. In a system where people are supposed to generally have their votes count the same, some people get to give these unlimited contributions to the national political parties. To tie this into the debate from yesterday about the issue of corruption and the appearance of corruption, I reminded my colleagues after the exchange here that the test that the Supreme Court has put forward as to whether you can ban contributions or limit contributions is whether there is corruption or the appearance of corruption. All I needed to do to drive this point home was to open up the newspaper this morning and on the front page of the Washington Post see this headline: Microsoft Targets Funding For Antitrust Office. Apparently Microsoft and their allies are not seeking to directly affect the litigation that is being conducted with regard to Microsoft by the Justice Department at this time; what they are trying to do, according to this article, is cut the overall funding for the Justice Department's Antitrust Division. In this context, if somehow things don't look right, there is the ever present possibility that there would be an appearance of corruption. It just so happens on the plane out here, next to my seat there was a copy of Forbes magazine and the Forbes 400. I read the whole thing. I found out to be in the Forbes 400 now it is not enough to have half a billion dollars. You are not on the team if you're only worth half a billion. You get kicked off the Forbes 400 list. You have to have $620 million to be on the Forbes 400 list. Who do you think led that list? Who do you think was the lead in the whole thing? It was the Microsoft executive, of course, and Mr. Gates himself is so much more wealthy than the next wealthiest person that it is absolutely staggering. One chart in the magazine article showed five or six people and how their wealth was greater than the wealth of various countries. They put the picture of the head of the person next to the wealth of the country. In this context, where Microsoft wants the Justice Department's budget cut, to have a scenario where corporations and unions and individuals can give unlimited amounts of soft money certainly creates the potential for an appearance of corruption. I have no idea what Microsoft's or Bill Gates' actual contributions are, and I am not suggesting that they are making those contributions to influence the funding of the Justice Department. But for us to create a scenario where Mr. Gates could give unlimited amounts of money rather than the old $2,000 of hard money, or a Microsoft PAC could give more than $10,000, to just have it be unlimited I believe almost inherently, as the Supreme Court would say, creates an appearance of corruption that is bad for Microsoft, bad for the Justice Department, and bad for our country. We have never permitted this in the past. We have never permitted corporations to give this kind of money. We have never permitted unions to give this kind of money. Essentially in the last 5 years, one way to describe this: This kind of negative influence of money and politics, which will always be there, has gone from the retail--$2,000, $10,000-- to the wholesale side. We now have the wholesale purchase of public policy, or the appearance thereof, in this country. I will simply quote from a Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial from October 13, 1999. This summarizes this very well, the fact that it is worth it to prohibit corporations and unions and individuals from giving unlimited contributions to the political parties. The editorial says: Later this week, when the Senate tries again to pass campaign-finance reform, opponents will argue that Congress shouldn't abridge the right of citizens to express their opinions through their checkbooks. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republicans' legendary fund-raiser from Kentucky, told the Washington Post this week: ``Somebody needs to protect the right of Americans to project their message.'' This is a plausible argument in a society that values free speech. Except that some of the people with the biggest checkbooks say it's a load of bunk. Listen to Rob Johnson, corporate vice president for public affairs at Cargill Inc.: ``Even if money doesn't buy influence, it is perceived to buy influence. That perception erodes peoples' confidence in their government and their willingness to participate in the electoral process.'' Consider Marilyn Carlson Nelson of the Carlson Companies, or James Porter, a vice president at Honeywell. Both are active in the Committee for Economic Development (CED), a New York study group of influential corporate executives. After researching the cost of political campaigns, the CED concluded last summer: `Candidates spend an inordinate amount of time fundraising, reducing the time they spend communicating their ideas to constituents.'' If these powerful executives--the very people who might benefit most from checkbook politics--can see the corrupting influence of money in campaigns, it's astonishing that the Senate cannot. And yet reform will almost certainly die in the Senate this month, for the third time in as many years. Though a promising bill just passed the House and has majority support in the Senate, reformers cannot muster the votes to break a GOP filibuster. The point is not that big donors always get their way. Populists can point to the occasional victory--the recent House vote on patient' rights, for example, or President Clinton's veto of the big GOP tax cut. The point is that big money has taken politics out of the hands of citizens and delivered it into the hands of cynics. Promising candidates refuse to run for office because they can't face begging for cash. Talented incumbents shirk their legislative work to raise money for the next campaign. Citizen volunteers drop out of politics because the old forms of participation--pounding lawn signs and calling neighbors-- have given way to slick direct mail and vicious TV spots. Voters eventully understand that politcs no longer belongs to them. The bill that comes before the Senate this week--a whittled-down reform written by Republican John McCain of Arizona and Democrat Russell Feingold of Wisconsin--wouldn't revoluntionize politics. It would merely ban ``soft money,'' the unregulated form of contributions that has spiraled out of control in recent years. But banning soft money would at least be a start toward healthier politics. Alas, that start must likely await another year, and a Congress with more courage. After three fruitless years, the reform effort has grown demoralizing. And yet the marathon debate is useful--it brings new critics to their feet, whets the outrage of intelligent citizens, and drives the obstructionists to ever more desperate tactics. This is a good statement of why it is worth it to ban this kind of outrageous abuse of our American democracy. Justice Souter said it very well at the oral argument in the Shrink Missouri Government PAC case just a few days ago; which I had a chance to attend. I know this was just a comment from the bench. We don't know what the ruling will be. But Justice Souter described exactly what these giant contributions have to mean to almost any American. He said: Most people assume, and I do, certainly, that someone making an extraordinarily large contribution gets something extraordinary in return. I am sure the Court will take notice, if we ever get to that point, that many Americans share that view, and it is very significant that one of the great Justices of the Supreme Court took notice that it gives him the feeling there is an appearance of corruption in this system. To finally respond to the point the Senator from New Jersey made, the Senator from New Jersey said--I don't know what his historical basis for this is, but it is an interesting comment: ``We only get a chance once every 10 years to do campaign finance reform.'' He said that is why we had to do the Shays-Meehan approach rather than the soft money ban. But this is what I know to be true. Not only is it worth it to ban soft money, but if we don't take this opportunity to at least ban soft money, there will be no campaign finance reform at all during the 1990s. The opportunity to have any campaign finance reform will have been destroyed by Congress after Congress after Congress. This is our chance to break down this system that is destroying anybody's sense that there is a system of one person one vote in the United States anymore. This is a chance. This is the one we must take. This is the one on which we must have a yes-or-no vote early next week. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I want to make one comment, if I could, in response to that. Excuse me, to the Senator from Utah. Let me again thank you and, of course, reiterate, I helped write those provisions in Shays-Meehan. I would love to see them passed. It would do more than the bill we are now proposing. But the notion that it isn't worth it, if that is all we can do--and that is something we disagree on and we will debate in a few minutes, I hope--the notion that it isn't worth it to ban these giant direct contributions to the parties, as well as the various attempted ways to try to get around the ban, which we seek to do, to not do that, to suggest that not doing that alone isn't worth it and it is worse than the status quo, to me, is absurd. Let me reiterate, I do support the language of Shays-Meehan. But the question that is crucial is whether or not it is at all possible to get 60 votes for that. I suggest stopping this is well worth doing. I thank the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I would be delighted to have some sort of an investigation of whether or not that is a different organization and has no connection with the party. But if the Senator has some concerns about how we drafted this, if he thinks we need to take the language and tighten it up--I think it is pretty tight--but we would be delighted to try to make this tougher. You are right. We shouldn't let anybody do this by ruse. What you described is a ruse.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I think, in the scenario you described, there would be a heck of a case to suggest there is indirect coordination. What you have just described is an obvious scenario.