Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, upon the conclusion of the time of the Senator from Florida, what is the regular order?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I inform the Senator from Minnesota, we only have a total of 16 minutes remaining. Mr. McCain would like some time. If the Senator would like to speak for 3 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I reserve the time. I yield the remaining time I have to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me take this opportunity to thank all of the cosponsors and all the supporters of this bill, especially the senior Senator from Arizona who came here with the idea for this legislation I guess it is now 4 years ago. I thank everyone for their efforts in the past but, more importantly, for their continued efforts in the future, including this year, on trying to finish the job. So I have a feeling of gratitude, not only for what we have done but for what we will accomplish before we are done. Let me take the very brief time I have just to refer to a statement by the Senator from Idaho which I think really sums up this whole issue. He just got done saying on the floor that the current campaign system is ``a system that works very well.'' He said, ``The campaign finance system is alive and well, as it should be.'' That is what the Senator from Idaho said. Well, if you agree with that statement, I guess you will want to vote against cloture. But that is not what the American people believe. They think this system is broken. And it is not just a few people who are corrupting the system, it is the system that is corrupt, and we have to do something about it now. So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture. The time has come for the additional eight Senators to allow the majority of both Houses of the Congress to send this bill on to the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time is remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from Arizona requires.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I think this is a very significant letter that undercuts this, frankly, false notion that the soft money ban and some of the other key provisions in our bill are unconstitutional. I am delighted now we have worked out the logjam on time and that the distinguished Senator from Arkansas is here to continue his remarks on this issue.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. In light of that, I wonder if the Senator from Minnesota has any additional remarks. I am prepared go forward, if he does not. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of criticism of our bill during this debate on constitutional grounds. The Senator from Kentucky said once again yesterday something that he has said many times. He expressed his opinion that there is ``absolutely no way'' that our bill will be held constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. And obviously I disagree with that analysis. Our bill has been carefully crafted to be consistent with the Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo. The only way to find out who is right, of course--because you cannot call up the Chief Justice and ask him for advice or his opinion--the only way is by passing this bill, and allowing a court challenge to take place. I and other supporters of the McCain-Feingold bill are ready to defend this bill in court, and I sincerely hope that we will have a chance to do so. The Senator from Kentucky does have one group on his side that does specialize in the first amendment, the American Civil Liberties Union. And he is fond of reminding us that the ACLU, ``America's expert on the first amendment,'' as he likes to say, opposes our bill. Let me say, I have a great deal of respect for the ACLU in many areas. In fact, I may have agreed with them on more issues over the years than the Senator from Kentucky. But I think it is worth pointing out two things with respect to the ACLU's position on campaign finance reform. First, the ACLU is on record many times as opposing the Court's decision in Buckley that limitations on campaign contributions are constitutional. In other words, the ACLU disagrees with the Court's ruling in Buckley. The ACLU believes, for example, that limitations on soft money donations to political parties would be unconstitutional. But that is an opinion that is by no means in the mainstream of constitutional thought. In fact, as we have noted many times over the last year, we have a letter signed by 127 law professors who wrote to Senator McCain and to me and gave their opinion that a soft money ban would be fully consistent with the first amendment and the Buckley decision and therefore would be constitutional. Senator McConnell once said it would be easy to find 127 law professors of his own to say that soft money cannot be banned, but so far no such letter has ever materialized. Senator McConnell has been completely unable to come up with a list of constitutional scholars that would suggest that we cannot ban soft money, and I doubt that he ever could. Second, there is a serious split within the ACLU itself. One of the most interesting and significant developments in this whole debate occurred just this past June during the House debate on campaign finance reform when a group of former leaders of the ACLU released a statement on their opinion of the constitutionality of the House version of the McCain-Feingold bill. Mr. President, this isn't just one, if you will, disgruntled former leader of the ACLU. This statement was released by nine former leaders of the organization. They include every living person who has served as president, executive director, legal director, or legislative director of the ACLU for the past 30 years, except for one person who is currently in Government service and is not free to express his opinion. That is quite a thing--all of those former ACLU officials indicating they do believe that this bill is constitutional. Let me just read from the letter of June 19, the statement of persons who have served in the American Civil Liberties Union in leadership positions supporting the constitutionally of efforts to enact reasonable campaign finance reform. They say: We have devoted much of our professional lives to the ACLU, and to the protection of free speech. We are proud of our ACLU service, and we continue to support the ACLU's matchless efforts to preserve the Bill of Rights. We have come to believe, however, that the opposition to campaign finance reform expressed by the ACLU misreads the First Amendment. In our opinion, the First Amendment does not forbid content- neutral efforts to place reasonable limits on campaign spending. We believe that the First Amendment is designed to safeguard a functioning and fair democracy. The current system of campaign financing makes a mockery of that ideal by enabling the rich to set the national agenda, and to exercise disproportionate influence over the behavior of public officials. Later in the letter the same individuals said, . . . even within the limitations of the Buckley decision, we believe that significant campaign finance reform is both possible and constitutional. We support elimination of the ``soft money'' loophole that allows unlimited campaign contributions to political parties, undermining Congress's effort to regulate the size and source of campaign contributions to candidates. We believe that Congress, for the purpose of regulating the size and source of federal campaign contributions, may treat a contribution to the political party sponsoring a federal candidate as though it were a contribution to the candidate directly. We also support regulation to the funding of political advertising that is clearly intended to affect the outcome of a specific federal election, but that omits the magic words ``vote for'' or ``vote against''. We believe that Congress may draft a narrowly tailored provision regulating the funding of so-called ``issue advertisements'' that mention one or more of the candidates, appear shortly before the election, and are geographically targeted in an obvious effort to affect the outcome of a specific federal election. These individuals conclude by saying: We believe that the current debate over campaign financing reform in the House of Representatives and the Senate should center on the important policy questions raised by various efforts at reform. Opponents of reform should no longer be permitted to hide behind an unjustified constitutional spokescreen. I ask unanimous consent that the full statement of these nine former members of the ACLU be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask that the time be equally divided with regard to the quorum call.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Under the unanimous consent agreement, I understand, as long as there are not opposition speakers present, that we can go forward without that being charged against our remaining time. Is that correct?

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the Senator 30 additional seconds.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that we be permitted to use that time just prior to the end of the debate.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am about to put in a quorum call. I am going to ask unanimous consent that we be able to use our remaining time near the conclusion of this debate. We have how much time remaining?

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in light of the fact that we have very limited time remaining, I ask that any time under subsequent quorum calls not be charged against our time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I again am grateful for the comments of the Senator from Maine and for her support. I am also delighted to be able to yield time to someone who has been deeply involved in this issue, both as a supporter of our legislation and one of the original supporters of the legislation, but who also of course is intimately familiar with the problems that have occurred because of the campaign finance scandal--the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee. At this point I would like to yield 20 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me first strongly concur with the remarks of the Senator from Michigan. We have to proceed on this issue. We will proceed on this issue this year until we get the job done. I am grateful for his strength and leadership on this. I am pleased now to be able to yield some time to the distinguished junior Senator from Maine, who brings many important qualities to this issue, but the two that I will list at the top are her extremely genuine commitment to this issue and her courage. It is a difficult thing to be a part of this bipartisan issue. I see her involvement as being absolutely central to the fact that we are even here today still discussing it. With that, I yield 12 minutes to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. FEINGOLD. That is correct.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I did not propose a prior unanimous consent; the only unanimous consent I propose is I control the time after 12 noon and prior to 1:45 on our side.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in light of something I was informed of after I put in my request, I withdraw my unanimous consent request and I simply yield an additional 2 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent I control the time on our side.