Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I will try to conclude quickly. Mr. President, at this time, the Federal Express Corp., according to Congressional Quarterly on October 2, 1996, had contributed, between October 17 and November 25, $200,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and $50,000 to the national Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. Specifically, the company also gave $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee and $100,000 to the Republican National Committee right before this provision was stuffed into conference committee. Now, this is the kind of democracy that we are ratifying. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the New York Times dated October 12, 1996, entitled ``This Mr. Smith Gets His Way in Washington, Federal Express Chief Twists Some Big Arms.''

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, at this point these are all the items I want to place in the Record at this time. But fortunately this debate will continue in one form or another. We will have an important cloture vote shortly on the overall bill. Tomorrow, there will be two more cloture votes. And it will continue because it is absolutely essential that we do not disgrace ourselves by going home, certainly for the 1998 elections, and even more importantly just going home at the end of this session having displayed to the American people all the abuses of the current system, the areas where the law is insufficient, the areas where there are loopholes in the law, and then to return home and say to everyone, ``You know what? We didn't do anything about it. We didn't pass a single piece of legislation.'' I don't think any of us on either side of the aisle consider that to be an acceptable outcome. I would like finally to say again to the Chair, I look forward to working to negotiate the kind of legislation that he can support. And I again thank him for his vote yesterday. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this one makes an interesting point, that is, that in addition to the various church and other religious groups, in addition to former Presidents, in addition to former Members of Congress, in addition to the hundreds of editorials by liberal papers, conservative papers, moderate newspapers all across the country that have supported McCain-Feingold and believe it has merit, that what we have discovered, Senator McCain and I, the Senator from Arizona and I have discovered, is that there are a whole lot of businesspeople that are tired of being the fall guys of this system. Under the system, even with hard money, let alone soft money, where they can be asked for hundreds of thousands of dollars, a lot of these CEO's feel like they have become the fall guys of American politics. I actually had the CEO of one of these companies, the Federal Express Co., come to visit me after last year's episode, where they were able to insert a provision into the Federal aviation bill that allowed them to not have a national union even though, as we very well know, their competitor, the United Parcel Service does have a national union, which they had to contend with recently, but they were able to place a provision in that bill, even though they had not won a vote on any occasion on the particular issue, shortly after they gave each of the two parties--I want to check my notes on this--but I believe they gave them each $100,000 of soft money just a few days--just a few days-- before this provision was inserted into the bill. When I met with the CEO, who is a tremendous entrepreneur in this country, he said he has no choice, in effect, that if this is the way the rules are set up, he has to represent his employees and his shareholders and he has to fight and make political contributions, and he has to play hardball in effect. He did. He won. You know what? During that UPS strike, Federal Express, which has that protection against such national union advocacy, Federal Express picked up something like 10 to 15 percent of UPS's market share, something they had been trying to do forever. My point in introducing this item from the business leaders is to suggest that even the business leaders, who many might associate with the other side of the aisle in many cases, are saying, we are sick and tired of being the fall guys of a system that essentially has the potential to shake them down, otherwise, they are afraid their competitor might get an edge. It is almost exactly what Mr. Tamraz said when he indicated by paying $300,000 he got the room the other people got that paid $300,000. That is access, and that is how you get in the room, and that is in effect the American way. That seemed to be what he was saying. It is pretty sad that has become the American way. Even some of the corporate leaders of this country do not want this to become what it has become, which is in effect a corporate democracy, a democracy dominated by big money, not by the average citizen's right to have their vote count the same as others. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement by Jay Lintner of the United Church of Christ calling for comprehensive campaign finance reform, and a statement from the Church Women United endorsing the McCain- Feingold proposal, and a statement by the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in support of comprehensive campaign finance reform.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that statements by Jerome Kohlberg, founder of the Campaign Reform Project, Thomas S. Murphy, and Richard Rosenberg, and a list of two dozen former and current corporate chief executive officers who have endorsed bipartisan, comprehensive campaign finance reform be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to place in the Record as well a couple of items from groups across the country that I think have independent judgment, who are not easily fooled by a media campaign in favor of a bill that would otherwise not have merit. The suggestion that this is all that is going on here is on its face absurd, it is even a little insulting. But I do not think you can say of the National Council of the Churches of Christ that they were somehow tricked into supporting something that isn't really reform. So I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement by the National Council of the Churches of Christ endorsing comprehensive campaign finance reform which includes, Mr. President, specific references to a number of the provisions in the McCain-Feingold bill and specifically references the McCain-Feingold bill asking ``legislators to oppose amendments currently being offered to the McCain-Feingold measure in an effort to kill its passage.'' I think it is an unmistakable reference to the Lott amendments. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record, and a statement by NETWORK, a national Catholic social justice group. The press release endorses the McCain-Feingold reform proposal.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an opinion piece from last Sunday's Washington Post coauthored by former Presidents Carter and Ford, who actually ran against each other in 1976, calling for campaign finance reform and the end of the soft money system.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in that letter, a number of our former colleagues from both Houses of the Congress state: We are pleased to join former Presidents Bush, Carter and Ford in expressing the hope that the current Congress enact meaningful bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation. This includes the names of people like the distinguished former Member Nancy Kassebaum Baker, former Senator from Kansas; Howard Baker, Jr., former leader and Senator from Tennessee; former Republican Senator John Danforth of Missouri, who I had the honor to serve with briefly; former Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon; former Senator Walter Mondale and former Vice President; former Senator Bill Bradley from New Jersey; former minority leader of the other body, Robert Michel; former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn; former Senator Al Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming with whom I disagreed frequently on the floor of the Senate who was among the toughest and most clever opponents you could have on the floor, but he cosponsored the McCain-Feingold bill last session after he made his retirement announcement, and he still supports it. And the list goes on. Mr. President, I do not think these folks are merely pawns of the media. These folks have been here; they have seen it; they have done it. And they know that spending a tremendous amount of your time in raising money is the corrupting of this process. And many of them, as they announced their retirements, said they were sick and tired of spending their time as Members of Congress raising money. The killing of the bill, the vain attempt to kill this bill, as it turns out, would prevent the first efforts to get our attention away from raising money and back to the business we were elected to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an op-ed piece that appeared in the July 18, 1997, Washington Post authored by former Republican Senator Nancy Kassebaum, Baker, and former Vice President Walter Mondale calling for bipartisan campaign finance reform and a ban on soft money.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to mention just a sentence from President Bush's letter, who I don't think is usually considered a pawn of the liberal media. He says: I would favor getting rid of so called ``soft money'' contributions but this principle should be applied to all groups including Labor. Of course, our soft money ban in our bill is comprehensive and includes labor. A letter from President Carter also indicates as follows: The most basic and immediate step should include an end to ``soft money,'' whether in the form of corporate or union treasury contributions to federal campaigns, or large and unregulated contributions from individuals. From President Carter. President Ford indicated in a letter: . . . the need to end huge uncontrolled ``soft money'' contributions to the national parties and their campaign committees, and to bar solicitation from ``soft money'' from all persons, parties and organized labor by federal officeholders and candidates for any political organizations . . . Mr. President, how can these three Presidents, two from the Republican Party and one from the Democratic Party, be considered pawns of a solely Democratic effort to pass campaign finance reform? On its face it is absurd to suggest a bill led by the Senator from Arizona, a strong Republican, is such a bill. But here are two Republican Presidents saying we should ban soft money. Yet, the effort to kill this bill would prevent the core element of our bill to ban soft money. Let me add, it is not just former Presidents, Mr. President, it is also former Members of this body and of the other body. Former Members of Congress have endorsed our bipartisan campaign finance reform bill and the end of soft money. I ask unanimous consent that a statement of former Members of Congress, dated September 29, 1997, be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me, first of all, congratulate the occupant of the chair for his vote yesterday. I heard his comments this morning. The occupant of the chair did the right thing yesterday. He voted for cloture and joined 52 other Senators--a Senator we had not in the past known for sure whether or not he was going to vote for cloture on any occasion, and I very much appreciate that. I realize that his words are sincere. He does, in fact, support campaign finance reform. It is important that, again, the Senator from Arizona and I signal what we have signaled in the past, and that is that we are very eager to negotiate, whether on the floor or off the floor, to make a bill that would be more palatable to Members on both sides of the aisle. I think the Senator from Arkansas has indicated some excellent ideas in the past. That is the signal I want to give, despite whatever indications one might feel from the press accounts, which, of course, all of us have to take with a grain of salt on both sides of the issue. The fact is that many of us really would like to change this system, and I believe the Senator who occupies the chair is one of them. Let me reiterate our offer, which I think we have made good on time and time again, that if modifications need to be made to pass this terribly important bill, we are ready to do it. That is how the junior Senator from Maine became such a tremendous advocate for our cause. She had some ideas that were better than ours, and we incorporated them and moved on to make the bill even better. So I look forward to working with the occupant of the chair so that, once again, he can feel comfortable voting for cloture as we continue to press this issue on the floor, which we will do until we get the result that the American people demand. Let me also suggest, this is a point that seems to be missed in this debate frequently. The Senator from Kentucky speaks frequently and eloquently about the first amendment. But the way our system is established, surely if you pass a bill in the Congress, a piece of legislation, a statute, it doesn't amend the Constitution. There is more to the process. The President has to sign the bill, and it has to go up to the United States Supreme Court, unless nobody challenges it. And I have a sneaking suspicion that somebody might challenge this bill if it became law. So what is the worst-case scenario? The worst-case scenario is that if, in fact, there is a shred of our bill that is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will say so and strike it down. They know how to do their job. If we do our job, they will do their job. That is exactly what they did in the very famous case of Buckley versus Valeo. They determined that some elements of the bill were constitutional, despite the claim of the ACLU and others that they were not, and they said they were OK. For example, having a limitation on contributions. It is, obviously, the law now, and the Senator from Kentucky cannot dispute that it is the law, that right now somebody can't give more than $2,000 in the course of 6 years to a U.S. Senate candidate in hard money. That is a limitation. The Supreme Court said it is OK. On the other hand, in Buckley versus Valeo, the Court said you can't have overall mandatory spending limits because that, in their view, would be a violation of the first amendment. So what is the threat to the first amendment of passing a piece of legislation about which we have a good-faith disagreement as to its constitutionality? I happen to think it is clear that the major provisions of our bill are constitutional. I would be the first to concede that the closest case would be the one that the Senator from Kentucky has focused most of his firepower on in this debate, and that is the issue of what I like to call phony issue ads. But I can see that would be something the Supreme Court would have to take a long and hard look at, and I think they should. That is why, Mr. President, I don't support a constitutional amendment to get this done. The first amendment is too sacred. So, I want to address your concern about the first amendment to tell you that I was, I believe, the first or second Member of the U.S. Senate to come out here and oppose something called the Communications Decency Act. People fell all over each other voting for that bill that would have censored the Internet. I came out here and said, ``Look, on the face of this, even though I am not a leading constitutional expert but I have looked at the Constitution, on the face of it, this is unconstitutional.'' Yet, I believe 84 Members of this body, including the Senator from Kentucky, voted for it, sent it up to the Supreme Court and, guess what? Unanimously that Supreme Court--of which a majority of the Members were appointed by the majority party Presidents--unanimously ruled that that was unconstitutional. Mr. President, both with regard to your concern that we be flexible and open to other people's ideas, which I think you and I have established a good record on, and with regard to the issue of the first amendment to the Constitution, not only couldn't I agree with you more, but I believe we have a lot to talk about and work together on to achieve campaign finance reform. Since the Senator from Kentucky continues in his steadfast way to make a record, which I hope one day will get before the Supreme Court-- he hopes it won't get that far--let me address a couple of other issues and put a few things of concern to me in the Record. The Senator from Kentucky has been proudly suggesting that the McCain-Feingold bill is dead, and yet we are out here today debating it again, and we will be debating it again. That is because it is not going away. It is because it is not simply a question of various elements of the media saying that the McCain-Feingold bill is a good idea. There are others who are not in the media who, I think, are not easily duped by the media who think we ought to enact some of the things that are in the McCain-Feingold bill. Let me just put a few of those items in the Record. First, I ask unanimous consent that letters from former Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George Bush endorsing a soft money ban--a soft money ban, which is the centerpiece of the McCain-Feingold proposal--be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Of course, I am not suggesting the Senator is misrepresenting anything. I am showing a change in position by an organization which the Senator from Kentucky has placed great reliance on. I am not suggesting for 1 minute that the Senator has mischaracterized the position.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes. The next sentence says: Despite this caveat, we believe that McCain-Feingold merits your support. The fact is, even though they have some concerns about this item, which I am sure any organization involved in this kind of ad may have, their conclusion, Mr. President, the conclusion I urge on the Senator from Kentucky, is that overall, they believe the bill merits support, which, of course, is the direct opposite of what the Senator from Kentucky has said for months, both on the floor and----

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield for a question.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to say what a Senator of courage the Senator from Maine is. This is a very difficult issue. The Senator from Maine, of course, is a loyal Republican, but for her to come out here and have the courage to stand up and join with us to say that this amendment would kill our bill is extremely important. I have heard her admonition as well that this must continue to be bipartisan. But the fact that she would come out here at this key moment and say that she will stand with a bipartisan effort, as she has done in the past, is not a minor matter. It is the same thing the Senator from Maine did a few months ago when everyone kept saying, ``You don't have any cosponsors; you only have two Republican cosponsors.'' It was the Senator from Maine who actually had some ideas that were better than our ideas, and we added them to the bill and improved it. Let me add both my personal and professional gratitude for the commitment of the Senator from Maine to reform. We in Wisconsin like to think that we are the greatest reform State, but Maine sure gives us a challenge.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this again is another editorial indicating that people around this country know very well that what is going on here is not an opportunity to freely and fully debate and amend this bill but an attempt to narrow it down to one issue--and I am not saying it is not an important issue--but to narrow this whole issue down to one issue having to do with union dues, which could be easily resolved. If everybody took a look at the McCain-Feingold provision, a provision that codified the Beck decision, a provision we placed in the bill after much negotiation, it says if you are a nonunion member and you do not want your dues to go to a political campaign, we can refund that. We codified what the Supreme Court said in that. Our concern is that the majority leader's amendment goes well beyond that, knowing full well it would make it impossible for a real bipartisan bill to come out of this body. Mr. President, if this were a proposal offered by a Democrat, and it had as its central premise the idea that the Federal Government should be regulating the internal functions of a voluntary organization, such as the Christian Coalition or the National Rifle Association, you can bet those on the other side would be beside themselves. Mr. President, that is what a labor union is. In fact, if you read the Beck decision, as I did again today just to be sure, that whole decision is about the fact that the Taft-Hartley Act said they were not going to permit any more closed shops in America. So if you do not want to be a member of a union, you do not have to be but there would still be union shops. And that is because under that legislation, under that law, a union is a voluntary organization. If members of a labor union do not approve of the collective bargaining activities or the political activities or any other activities of the union, they have the right to use the democratic process to change those activities. They can run for office within the union. They can build coalitions and seek leadership posts. And of course, Mr. President--and this is a point that has been glossed over far too often in debate--if the individual wants absolutely nothing to do with the union, he or she has the option of quitting or not joining the union in the first place. Union membership is not mandatory. It is voluntary. But as the Democratic leader has pointed out, this provision, this amendment is not about reform. I am afraid it is a little more about the last election. The sponsors of this proposal have come to the conclusion that all of the problems in our campaign system can be traced to the political activities of just labor unions. Who believes that? Clearly, labor unions are participants, but they are only one kind of participant and by no means the greatest participant when it comes to the kind of money that has been spent in recent elections. The Senator from Arizona and I have come to a different conclusion. I know the Senator from Arizona believes passionately that the spending by organized labor has to be controlled with regard to elections, but he and I have come to the conclusion that to simply say that unions alone are the problem does not really measure the problem. We have concluded we should craft a reform proposal that affects both parties--that affects both parties--in a fair and equal manner. We have concluded that corporate America is just as much to blame for our campaign system as labor unions or anyone else. That is the point here. There is plenty of blame to go around for everybody. Democrats are responsible, Republicans are responsible, corporations are responsible, labor unions are responsible, groups that are trying to divide us in this country are responsible. Everybody can and should accept part of the blame for this disastrous system. What we are trying to do, what the Senator from Arizona and I are trying to do, is to get this nonsense to come to an end. Instead, we are being told by the supporters of the Lott amendment, apparently that when the Ford Motor Co. takes the money of its shareholders and makes a $500,000 soft money contribution to a political party, that is perfectly fine; but if the United Auto Workers makes a similar soft money contribution to a political party, that is not OK. That has to be what the authors of this amendment are suggesting because they are not suggesting that we treat them in the same way. Of course, the other problem with the amendment is that it appears to be offered under the mistaken assumption that the underlying McCain- Feingold proposal would have no impact on labor unions. Mr. President, that is just false. The Senator from Arizona and I have worked hard to make sure that in a fair manner the activities of unions and other organizations that seem to distort the political process are affected. First of all, the bill bans all union and corporate soft money contributions to the parties. We ban it across the board. That includes all union soft money. But it also includes if it is done by the Ford Motor Co. In short, Mr. President, under McCain-Feingold it will be illegal--illegal--for a labor union to use the dues of its members or nonmembers--members or nonmembers--to make a soft money contribution to political parties. So what is the problem if the dues can't be used for soft money, I say to my colleagues, whether union member or nonunion member? Where is the evil that we are not correcting? Second, the McCain-Feingold bill provides that no organization, whether it is a labor union, a corporation or any other organization, can use unregulated soft money to fund those phony attack ads against candidates that are disguised as so-called issue ads. That is because of our concern that if we only ban soft money, all the money will flow into phony issue ads and you will end up with the same situation. That is a very significant restriction on the way in which unions participated in the last election, probably even more significant in terms of dollars than the soft money restrictions. Again, it would be illegal, Mr. President, illegal under McCain- Feingold for a union to use the dues of its members or nonmembers, either one, to run those political ads attacking or supporting candidates that are not raised using hard money and properly disclosed during the 60-day period. Mr. President, the third provision in this bill is one that is actually aimed only at labor unions. The other two really take care of the problem. The issue of phony issue ads and soft money are the big- ticket items with regard to union or corporate spending, but the third provision is aimed directly only at labor unions. Mr. President, it does exactly what the folks on the other side of the aisle have been calling for for years. It codifies the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Beck decision. This provision requires unions to notify nonunion members that those individuals are entitled to have their agency fees reduced by the amount the union spends on political activities. Mr. President, as you can see, the unions have every right to participate in our political system, and are taking a number of hits already under this bill. Our point is they should not be singled out as the only ones to be limited in this regard. Unfortunately, that is not enough for the sponsors of this proposal. I fear they want to cut unions out of our political process completely. Some Senators have said they do not believe anyone in America should have to contribute involuntarily, Mr. President, to any political campaign. But what would happen if you applied that principle to corporations and other organizations, as well? Say I am living in Eau Claire, WI, and I own several shares of stock in AT&T. I assume that money I have invested in that corporation was being used to grow that company and improve its market share. That is what I would hope the company would do to protect my dollar, to do their fiduciary duty to their stockholders. Would I be surprised to learn my money is being used to finance a $500,000 soft money contribution to a national political party? Sure I would. Would I be informed of that contribution? Would AT&T have to get my permission before they use my money for that purpose under the Lott amendment? Absolutely not. Unions have to do it but AT&T doesn't have to do it. So much for fairness under this amendment. Another telling indicator of the true purpose of this proposal, I am afraid, is the timing. If these union activities are such an affront to our democratic system, I want to repeat, why wasn't S. 9, a bill introduced on the first week of our Congress, brought to the floor before this point? The senior Senator from Oklahoma introduced this bill on this matter on the very first day of the session back in January. It was one of the highest priorities of the Republican leadership. Why hasn't it been marked up, even in committee? The answer is clear. It is serving a different function. Its function here is to fill up the tree, as we say, and prevent other amendments and perhaps to kill the bill. Mr. President, I am afraid this is not about the role of labor unions. It is too much about partisanship. The majority leader stated a week ago Friday his intention was to create a situation where the Democrats would be forced to filibuster campaign finance reform. Those on the other side know that the passage of this amendment will trigger such opposition. I am disappointed that some have concluded that the purpose of this debate should be to see which party can get the other one to kill campaign finance reform. The Senator from Arizona and I have been working hard on ensuring that this proposal is fair to both parties. We have made compromises. We have attempted to craft a bill that would give both parties credit, together, for passing campaign finance reform. Make no mistake, whether it was truly intended to do this or not, the proposal before the Senate today in the form of the Lott amendment would kill campaign finance reform. The vote on this proposal would be the vote to determine if we pass meaningful campaign finance reform this year or not. We know the vote will be close. We know it will come down to one or two Senators. So I hope, regardless of every Senator's personal feelings about how much we should do with regard to unions specifically, my colleagues will recognize this is not a vote about restricting labor unions but a vote to kill campaign finance reform. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky is fond of quoting Mr. Broder, a leading columnist and expert on these kinds of issues in the country. But he lays out pretty clearly the fact that this is not simply another piece of legislation that happens to come up as the first and potentially only amendment on the campaign finance reform bill. He clearly lays out some of the political and other considerations that are involved in bringing up such a poison pill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial dated October 1, 1997, from the New York Times entitled ``Trent Lott's Poison Pill,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Senate bill 143 from the 102d Congress was offered by the Senator from Kentucky. It was not a group of people that had to sort of pull together to support the leader on this. Mr. McConnell, the Senator from Kentucky, was the lead author, and then other Senators, distinguished Senators, agreed with him--Senator Dole, Senator Simpson, Senator Packwood, Senator Cochran, Senator Domenici, Senator Murkowski, Senator Roth, and Senator Hatfield; but the lead author of the bill was the Senator from Kentucky. And the bill banned soft money. Mr. President, it specifically provides for the ban of soft money which the Senator from Kentucky has denounced as an unconstitutional part of the McCain-Feingold bill. So this notion that somehow the Senator from Kentucky was not supportive of this kind of concept, at least at that time, does not seem to withstand scrutiny. Mr. President, I would also like at this time to spend a few moments talking a little bit about a very important item, and that is the proposal before us offered by the majority leader. That represents, to me, an attempt to put the onus of the entire campaign finance issue just on organized labor. That is the substantive impact of this proposal. But I am afraid the proposal is, in the end, going to serve a larger purpose, if it prevails. The majority leader made it pretty clear that was his purpose. The purpose of the proposal, it seems to me, is to kill the McCain-Feingold bill. I know the majority leader has said that that is not the case. But I am not the only one who believes this is a poison pill. Just about everyone who has looked at this feels this is an attempt to kill this bill by insisting that Senate bill 9 be brought up at this time. The Senator from Kentucky said that Senate bill 9 was a very important bill; that is why it was No. 9. I understand the rules around here. The leaders get to introduce about five bills each they consider to be a top priority. Senate bill 9 was one of those top priorities of the Republican leadership. Why then, if it was such a top priority, did they wait almost until the end of this entire year, the end of this entire session, to bring it up? If it was so important, why wasn't it given the importance that it supposedly had? Others agree. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from the New York Times entitled ``The Swing Senators'' of October 5, 1997, be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, that editorial identifies clearly the belief of most Americans that the purpose of this amendment is not necessarily to simply resolve this issue, although I am sure Members on the other side of the aisle, many of them, feel strongly about it, but it is to kill the McCain-Feingold bill. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the USA Today, dated October 6, 1997, entitled ``Squabble over union dues a pretext to stop reform'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. The article, of course, lays out the arguments about the issue of union dues. In fact, as is the practice of USA Today, they give an opportunity to the majority leader to respond within the article. But the subheadline sort of says it all. ``As in the past, those in power are trying to kill campaign-finance reform without taking the rap.'' Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Washington Post by David S. Broder entitled ``Campaign Finance: A `Poison Pill'* * *.''

Mr. FEINGOLD. When the Senator from Kentucky was putting items in the Record, I was letting him go. I will be available for questions in a moment. All I can say, Mr. President, is this is not the only measure we put in the Record. What is striking is that even the Weekly Standard believes that this issue has gone very high on the list of issues. Every measure that is being taken now does indicate a tremendous growth in the concern about this issue. I would be fascinated to hear more about exactly why the RNC changed its data on this. I will try to take a look at it later. I do not know why they indicated that it was incorrect. Somehow the Weekly Standard got the impression that this issue was on the move. On that point they are right. Mr. President, I would also like to note with regard to the statement of the Senator from Kentucky about the American Civil Liberty Union's position on this bill, yes, the American Civil Liberties Union has expressed concerns about the bill. I want to remind the Senator from Kentucky that the ACLU was wrong when they litigated the Buckley versus Valeo case. They did not win all the points that they litigated in that case. In fact, some of the individuals that the Senator from Kentucky has just cited were among those who litigated that case and lost. So, yes, they litigated it. They had their day in court. And they were wrong. In fact, the ACLU, an organization which sometimes I am criticized for agreeing with, happens to be dead wrong with regard to a release that they just put out entitled ``Revised McCain-Feingold Legislation Would Trample on Americans' First Amendment Rights.'' Mr. President, I would like to just quote a sentence from that release to show how reckless some people are being about describing this bill. The quote says this: McCain-Feingold imposes a 2-month, 60-day blackout before any Federal election on any radio or television advertisement that mentions any candidates for Federal office. Mr. President, that is not true. The bill does ask that certain rules apply during that 60-day period that do not apply outside of that period, and the rules are that you must use hard money limits and disclosure in order to do it, but there is no blackout, there is no prohibition. Mr. President, there isn't a single advertisement that you could possibly come up with that is barred by this bill. That is not what the bright line test is. In fact, it is very troubling to see an organization for which I have such high regard in terms of their professionalism, in terms of their ability to mount legal arguments, to see somebody actually say that the bill does something it clearly does not do. You cannot prohibit advertisements. You cannot say that people cannot say things. What you can do, I believe, and I believe the Supreme Court will support this, is during the electioneering period, which the Supreme Court has talked about, you can require that certain kinds of messages be disclosed in terms of who is making them and also that the money that is used and raised for it be under certain kinds of limits. That is all it does. I think the ACLU is in error with regard to that provision. Mr. President, I would also like to place in the Record at this time Senate bill 143 from the 102d Congress. The other day there was a spirited conversation between my friend, the Senator from Kentucky, and the Senator from Arizona which centered around the fact that the Senator from Kentucky has cosponsored legislation that did a couple of things that he has now said on the floor are unconstitutional. In particular, Mr. President, the point was made by the Senator from Arizona that the Senator from Kentucky had cosponsored a bill that bans soft money. The Senator from Kentucky responded by saying: Well, you know, sometimes you sign on to a bill that you're not comfortable with, and you want to participate in a joint effort. I understand that. Some of that experience has occurred for me with regard to this bill where I am not happy with every provision. But I do need to have printed in the Record, Mr. President, Senate bill 143. I ask unanimous consent that that be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I understand that some would feel that the poll was inaccurate, and that is what the RNC says. I also know they would have a strong desire at this point to----

Mr. FEINGOLD. Without conceding that the information from the Senator from Kentucky is the correct information, I have no objection to the letter of Mr. Nicholson being inserted at this time.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Senators on both sides have been very generous with the time today. I will try to keep it brief. Beyond the disclosure and enforcement, we also do something about the fact that we all know that incumbents have an advantage under the current system. Our system says that if people agreed to limit their personal spending to $50,000, they would be able to continue to receive help from their parties in the form of coordinated expenditures; otherwise, not. That could be a deterrent to an advantage for an incumbent or perhaps a very wealthy individual who is trying to obtain a Senate seat through spending a great deal of money. Our bill simply bans Members of Congress from sending out taxpayer- financed mass mailings under the franking privilege during the calendar year of their election. This is a major advantage that incumbents have over challengers. Again, if you wipe out the bill, you wipe out McCain- Feingold, you haven't just addressed the one or two matters the other side identified as a problem, you have wiped out these reforms as well. Finally, Mr. President, with regard to the issues of soft money and what I like to call ``phony issue ads,'' I have noticed that throughout this debate Senators on the other side have focused their attention primarily on trying to claim that our provisions with regard to express advocacy are somehow going to be struck down by the Supreme Court. Of course, in that regard, what I say is, in the worst-case scenario if our provisions are unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will strike it down and it won't go into play. But what I have noticed is that at the same time that this constitutional argument has been advanced we hear virtually nothing anymore about the fact that our bill bans soft money. Where has the argument gone that banning soft money is unconstitutional? It appears to be gone. There is no challenge to our claim and our ability to demonstrate that 126 constitutional scholars believe this is not only constitutional but essential. With that, Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that there is a great deal to this bill that would be destroyed if we do not avoid this filibuster. In that regard, I want to say that I listened with great interest earlier to my colleague as he discussed the decision this morning of the Supreme Court to deny certiorari with regard to the FEC. The fact is, Mr. President, the claim of the Senator from Kentucky that the Supreme Court struck down some kind of decision is just not true. The Supreme Court simply chose not to take up that case, just as it chose in the past not to take up the ninth circuit case that makes almost the opposite decision. There is a conflict between the courts. The Supreme Court, at some point, may have to resolve this. Maybe they will have to resolve it when acting on the McCain-Feingold bill. But what is clear is it was neither striking down of a provision, nor was it a huge moment. It was nothing but the Supreme Court saying we are not going to take this up right now. I recognize the pressure that is behind the effort to kill this bill. I recognize the temptation to try to make something of a decision that is simply not there. But to suggest that this is a major decision or a precedent that has something to do with what the law of the land is is simply not true. The Court didn't even offer an opinion. They just said: we are not going to take up this first circuit case. Mr. President, I listened with great interest earlier today to my colleague as he discussed the decision this morning, of the Supreme Court to deny cert--without opinion--in the case of Maine Right to Life versus the FEC. I think it is essential to put this silent decision into its proper perspective, lest it be given weight it simply does not deserve. Mr. President, there are any number of reasons, ranging from the facts of the case to the simple fact that they can only hear so many cases in a given year, which might lead to the Supreme Court denying certiorari in any case. The Supreme Court's unwillingness to consider the appeal of this case is no more dispositive on the issue of express advocacy than was a similar decision to deny cert some 10 years ago in FEC versus Furgatch. In Furgatch, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that context is relevant to determining what constitutes express advocacy. In Furgatch, the court found that there was no doubt that the ad in question asked people to vote against President Jimmy Carter. The court also gave weight to the timing of the ad, noting that it occurred within 1 week of the election. Further, they were not issues based, but attacked the candidate directly--for personal qualities. On October 5, 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for cert filed by Mr. Furgatch. Mr. President, today we have heard that a similar decision of the Supreme Court--without comment, leaving in place a first circuit decision that held the FEC's regulations regarding voting records and voting guides were invalid, should be construed as to signal the end of the debate on campaign finance reform. Now we can debate the merits of the Maine case and the Furgatch case and we may or may not reach a mutual opinion of what those cases mean. However, what is not in dispute--in regard to either case--is that the silent decision of the Court is not necessarily a substantive affirmation of the lower courts. Such a conclusion is simply not appropriate. There may be any number of reasons--the exact reason we will likely never know--why the Supreme Court passed upon the Furgatch case and on the Maine case this morning. If we start inferring substantive approval to every lower court case the Supreme Court refuses to hear, we will be left with a patchwork of rulings and laws which defy any thread of continuity or precedential value. Mr. President, before we impute too much importance to the denial of cert this morning in order to avoid comprehensive reform, I think we in this body should take a long hard look at our role in this process. We have an opportunity to address the very issues of Furgatch and Maine Right to Life and rather than hide behind the silence of the Supreme Court we should accept our responsibility and do just that. My colleague, from Kentucky argues that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional despite the fact that legal scholars find otherwise. The rejection of cert today means that the decision of the first circuit remains in effect in that circuit, just as Furgatch remains controlling in the ninth. The two are in conflict and yet, the Supreme Court has elected to pass on both. If the decision today, as my colleague from Kentucky argues, means they support the first circuit, what does that mean in the ninth circuit--that it is no longer good law? Of course that is not what it means. What it means is that we have a conflict which will remain unresolved unless either the Supreme Court moves to resolve the conflict, or we, the legislative body make the law clear. We have no control over the Supreme Court--although I would note that many in the Congress have been attempting to exert some control over the courts in the past months--but we do have, in this body, an opportunity to resolve this impasse ourselves. This issue before this body remains the same as it has from the outset--will we reform the campaign finance system of this Nation. Nothing the Supreme Court said--or didn't say-- this morning changes that fundamental fact. We should debate the constitutionality of this legislation and I welcome that debate. We should not, however, hide behind the silence of the Supreme Court as an affirmation of either position in this debate. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. It has been an interesting debate. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from New Mexico. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in our debate today we have talked about a number of things. Again, you might think from the discussion that there was only one provision of our bill, the McCain-Feingold bill, and that provision had to do with the issue of express advocacy. Of course, that is a very important aspect of the bill. Not only are we confident of the constitutionality of those provisions, but we know it is one of the very important issues that has to be resolved if we are going to deal with the problem of big money in politics. If you listen to the opponents of this bill you can swear that is all McCain-Feingold is. But there are 25 other provisions that our opponents choose to ignore, because not only are they essentially noncontroversial provisions, they are the very provisions that, for example, the Senator from Montana was just talking about. A number of Senators today said on the floor, why don't we do full disclosure? What I want to say to my colleagues, Mr. President, if you kill the McCain-Feingold bill, you will be eliminating a number of very key new provisions that will provide exactly the full disclosure that Members of the other side have been calling for. In other words, our bill does disclosure and more. So, why all this talk about why don't we do full disclosure of campaign contributions? The bill greatly enhances disclosure. Instead of simply saying that contributions over $200 per person be reported, the McCain-Feingold bill as modified requires all contributions over $50 to be reported. The McCain-Feingold bill provides the most immediate disclosure possible by requiring that candidates file electronically with the FEC. It is no longer sufficient to just file a big stack of papers every 6 months and make people go through them. This will require computer reporting and immediate public access to this information on a daily or weekly basis so the connection between contributions and votes can be plainly seen. That is real disclosure. I can't imagine a fuller disclosure than that, unless we went to absolute zero which I would be happy to do in terms of contributions. The bill also requires--you don't hear about this from the other side; they want to pretend somehow the bill is just about issue ads-- the bill requires groups and parties running independent expenditures against candidates to disclose these expenditures to the FEC. So, more information, more disclosure, more transparency, with regard to independent expenditures. The bill requires that the Federal Elections Commission make campaign finance records available on the Internet within 24 hours of filing. The bill requires the campaign to collect and disclose all required contributor information. Right now, under the current law you can do something apparently that is called making your best effort to figure out who is the person that made the contribution and what their profession is. Our bill, the McCain- Feingold bill, requires all such information be obtained upfront. The bill also bars campaigns from depositing campaign contributions over $200 into their campaign accounts until that information has been disclosed. This is the disclosure that Senator after Senator who is against our bill has called for. What they have never mentioned is that it is in the bill. If you kill McCain-Feingold, you are killing all of these disclosure provisions. And there is another one that my constituents in Wisconsin have called for, and that is to simply require political advertisements to carry a disclaimer identifying who is responsible for the content of a campaign ad. Time and again, I have heard my constituents say they are sick and tired of all the negative campaigning, and they find it particularly irritating that the people who run the ads aren't even required to say who they are, who is doing the ad. This is disclosure. This is what it is all about when it comes to letting the American people have the information they need and deserve to evaluate what is happening with money in politics. Yet if you listen to the debate by our colleagues on the other side of this issue, you could swear there is no disclosure. I have not heard a single idea regarding disclosure that goes beyond this. This is full disclosure, Mr. President. Kill McCain-Feingold, you kill these disclosure provisions. The same thing goes for stronger provisions with regard to enforcing our laws. All afternoon, Senators came to the floor and said ``We don't need new laws. We need to enforce our current laws.'' I happen to agree that we should more carefully and clearly enforce our current laws. I don't think that does it by itself, but what it does do is indicate a seriousness about any violations that have occurred. I agree. But it has become clear in the middle of the scandals and the allegations that some of the provisions in our statutes need some shoring up so that enforcement can improve. What do we do about enforcement? What does McCain-Feingold do about enforcement of the law that would be eliminated if the filibuster succeeds? If McCain-Feingold is defeated, not only would our efforts to deal with phony issue ads and that are really express advocacy ads be defeated but all of these strengthening provisions would also go down. One provision prohibits foreign nationals from making any sort of contribution or donation to candidates or parties. After all the talk on both sides of the aisle about foreign contributions distorting our political process--a concern which I share--do we want to kill campaign finance reform, and with it eliminate a provision that would prohibit foreign nationals from making any sort of contribution or donation to candidates or parties? We need to strengthen that law. The filibuster would kill it. Mr. President, this bill some would like to kill strengthens current law, making it absolutely clear that it is unlawful to raise or solicit campaign contributions from Federal property, including the White House and the U.S. Congress. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of talk by Senators today about the need to deal with that problem. This bill makes sure there are no excuses for those who would pretend whether they are in the White House or in an office of a Congressman or Senator, that somehow there is a way to get around it and actually raise money from your office. Our bill takes care of that. Killing it destroys it. The bill increases the penalty for knowingly and willfully violating Federal election law. The bill permits the Federal Election Commission, for the first time, to conduct random audits at the end of a campaign to ensure compliance with Federal election law. The bill bars Federal candidates from converting campaign funds for personal use such as for a mortgage payment or country club membership. Yes, it bars minors, those under 18, from contributing so that we don't have 3-year-olds giving $1,000 contributions anymore which is perfectly legal under current law. Those who would defeat and filibuster McCain-Feingold would wipe out all of these new enforcement provisions and leave nothing.