Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I will yield.

Mr. FEINGOLD. As soon as I am done, I will be happy to yield momentarily to let that happen. Let me quote what was said by this publication that is certainly no friend of the McCain-Feingold bill and, frankly, no friend of campaign finance reform. The article indicated that: Republican senators got an unwelcome jolt last week at one of their usually uneventful . . . lunch meetings--a poll that showed they were in deep trouble. The poll, conducted by the Republican National Committee during the first week of September, gave the president his highest positive rating ever--almost 65 percent. And then it goes on to state: That was not the worst of it. For the first time this year, the numbers showed that more Americans wanted Democrats to control Congress than Republicans, and that Democrats were ahead on the ``generic ballot'' for November 1998. The point I want to emphasize is the following statement: But what really rattled the Senators was that, when asked what issues they cared most about, Americans had moved one new item into the first tier along with the old standbys of crime, education, and the like. The new issue: campaign- finance reform, which had moved from 2 or 3 percent in previous polls to double digits as the number one issue of concern. Mr. President, I know that the Senator from Kentucky wants to dispel this poll. I will yield to him in a moment to do so. But I just want to emphasize, in addition to the more independent polls that the Senator from Arizona has already cited today, that even a poll that was presented to the Republican National Committee indicates that campaign finance reform is a matter of very top concern to the American people at this time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I was about to read into the Record the statement from the Weekly Standard which I wanted to highlight.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield for a question.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to highlight what was said in here. It indicates----

Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes, Mr. President. My point exactly. We have tried to adjust this bill to address the concerns of organizations and groups that the Senator from Kentucky has identified. That is our point. Senator McCain and I don't believe we have all the answers. In fact, neither of us love the bill. That is how we were able to come up with a compromise. We heard the concerns of the NEA. We addressed their concerns. They support us now. They no longer support the Senator from Kentucky. A further attempt that has been made on this issue is to suggest that the American people don't care about this issue, if you look at a poll or any other measure of public opinion that this isn't important to them that we change this big money system. The Senator from Arizona has already done a fine job today of helping to dispel that. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a publication from the very conservative publication the Weekly Standard from September 22, 1997, entitled ``Republicans Get Some Very Bad News.''

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield for a question.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I guess I am delighted to see this kind of a headline, because I am not surprised. Most lobbyists do oppose campaign finance reform and the McCain-Feingold bill, because these folks are the folks I have come to regard, not as bad people, many of them are very good people, but as people who have basically become the Washington gatekeeper. They are the ones that control the campaign contributions now. If a local individual, if a local organization back home wants to contribute to your campaign or give you support, when they are part of this organization that has a lobbyist in Washington, they need to call Washington. So it is no surprise that the lobbyists oppose our bill. They are one of the most important forces against our bill, besides the unfortunate fact, of course, that every single Member of the Congress was elected under the current system. But even some of these groups that are represented by lobbyists have changed their minds. The Senator from Kentucky has made a great deal of the fact that the National Education Association, he has said, opposes McCain-Feingold. There was a time when their leadership did appear with Senator McConnell and indicate some opposition to some aspects of the bill. But as Senator McCain and I said from the beginning, we want to address various concerns of other Senators and organizations, and we have made some changes. Our bill is now supported by the National Education Association. I would like to have printed in the Record a letter of October 1, 1997, from Bob Chase, the president of the National Education Association, in which he states: On behalf of the 2.3 million member NEA, we urge you to support real campaign finance reform and to reject legislative attacks on unions that are currently being presented in the guise of reform. NEA is supportive of the revised McCain-Feingold bill that was offered on the Senate floor on September 29. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I first thank my leader, Senator Daschle, not only for his kind words but for his important reiteration of the offer he has made. It is an unusual offer. The offer is to have S. 9, the so-called Paycheck Protection Act, come up as its own bill and relinquishing the right that Senators always have, which the Senator from Kentucky knows very well, to filibuster. In other words, it would be guaranteed an up-or-down vote. I think that is a significant offer that raises the real issue of whether we are talking about something that is, in fact, an attempt to destroy this McCain- Feingold campaign finance reform bill, which I think it clearly is. Mr. President, I would like to also put a few items in the Record, as the Senator from Kentucky has done. First of all, you see a lot of headlines when you work on an issue like this. Some are good; some are bad. Sometimes you see ``McCain-Feingold bill is dead.'' That was the litany for some time. Once in a while you see a headline you almost like, even though it isn't intended to be favorable. This one I like from The Hill, a Capitol Hill publication, of the other day, October 1, which informs us ``Most Lobbyists Oppose McCain-Feingold Bill.'' I ask unanimous consent that this article by Mary Lynn F. Jones be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Doesn't the ACLU also take the position that the Buckley case was wrong?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if I may, I have a couple of questions relating to the letter itself I would like to ask, and then I will be happy to yield for those questions, if I could, just with regard to the comments the Senator was just making. If the Senator will yield for a question, does the Senator realize that the person who put the letter together, Mr. Burt Neuborne, New York University Law School, was the former executive director of the ACLU?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator from Kentucky acknowledge that the notion of a bright-line test with regard to issue advocacy is not the same as some of the other approaches?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I am about to ask a question--are not identical to those in the bill last year. In fact, I would ask the Senator from Kentucky if he is aware that the provisions we have just put in the modification are different than any that we have introduced before?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I recognize the comments of the Senator from Kentucky. Let me just go back to a question, in fairness. The fact is that the provisions that we have placed in the bill, the modified bill, with regard to the issue of candidate advocacy versus issue advocacy are not identical----

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. It was a unanimous decision, 9 to 0. The U.S. Senate, including yourself, voted overwhelmingly for something that in my view, was unconstitutional on its face. What was the downside of it? What happened? What happened was that the law was struck down, isn't that right?

Mr. FEINGOLD. The answer is yes. I believe there were only 16 Members of the Senate--I happened to be one--who did not think it was constitutional, who thought it was a violation of the first amendment to start censoring the Internet. Does the Senator recall how the Supreme Court disposed of the Communications Decency Act?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his courtesy and I will have a couple of brief questions for him on a very interesting discussion that the Senator from Arizona and Kentucky had. I ask the Senator from Kentucky if he voted for the Communications Decency Act, which was sent up to the Supreme Court?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Can we safely assume the two signatories with a good Kentucky background know what they are talking about?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, does the Senator from Kentucky consider Lawrence W. Knowles, University of Louisville School of Law, qualified to discuss these issues?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I understand, but my question is, Don't you believe that this Court would strike down the provisions you criticize?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I assume the Senator has no doubt that this Supreme Court will strike down the provisions in our bill he is talking about, isn't that right?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me first thank my friend, the Senator from Georgia, for his kind remarks, but more importantly for his steadfast support on the issue of campaign finance reform. The first thing that the Senator from Georgia did when he became a Member of this distinguished body was to cosponsor our legislation. But he didn't stop there. He has been out here every single time we have had to fight the battle. And I know he will be again. I thank very much the Senator from Georgia for his support. I also want to thank my colleagues, Senators Levin, Lieberman, Dorgan, Collins, and, of course, Senator McCain for taking the time on what is usually a quiet Monday to have a very intense debate to continue this discussion on campaign finance reform. Mr. President, one of the most important tactics that has been used already in this debate is to single out a couple of provisions of the McCain-Feingold modification and to suggest that they are the entire bill. It happens that the provisions that have been discussed--the issues having to do with express advocacy, and a couple of others--are very important provisions, but you would swear that they were the whole bill. That is because it is virtually impossible to criticize or attack the rest of the bill. Let us remember what is included in the entirety of the McCain-Feingold modification--the bill that we introduced today. First of all, it completely bans soft money. We have heard virtually nothing on the floor effectively criticizing banning these $100,000, $200,000, and $500,000 contributions that have clearly undermined our political process and made a mockery of the fact that for almost a century corporations have not been allowed to give contributions to campaigns directly, and for almost half a century labor unions have not been allowed to give contributions directly to campaigns. Our bill bans that, and the other side apparently has dropped their concern about that. There is also virtually no discussion of the fact that our bill strongly improves the provisions having to do with disclosure of information about campaign contributions; and strengthens the hand of the Federal Elections Commission so it can do its job; so we can enforce the current laws--the very argument that we have heard the majority leader and the Senator from Kentucky make. ``Why don't we enforce the current law?'' Why no comment about the series of important provisions in our bill that do exactly that, that improve disclosure and improve enforcement? Why no comment on the lowering of contribution limits from $200 to $50? If somebody gives $100 to a candidate, we think this ought to be reported. Why no comment on the fact that our bill strengthens the hand of the Federal Election Commission by tripling the penalty for knowing, willful violations of Federal election law? This is exactly the kind of provision that the other side claims we should have and yet fails to mention it is part of the bill. Why no mention of the fact that our bill does provide for electronic filing with the FEC on a daily basis of campaign contributions so that the public does not have to wait and the media do not have to wait for 6 months to find out whether a contribution occurred in close proximity to a vote? Our bill provides for that. Our bill provides that the FEC would make campaign finance records available on the Internet within 24 hours of their filing. The bill also strengthens the hand of the Federal Election Commission by permitting the FEC to conduct random audits at the end of a campaign to ensure compliance with Federal election law. We are strengthening the hand of enforcement under the current law. Why no discussion at all of the fact that our bill, in addition to the other issues, makes it absolutely clear that campaign contributions cannot be used for personal purposes? You cannot buy a new suit with campaign contributions. You cannot finance various family activities or mortgage payments or country club memberships. Some of this has been done in the past. Why no comment on the fact that our bill tightens up on that? Why no reference to the fact that the McCain-Feingold bill requires political advertisements to carry a disclaimer that clearly identifies who is responsible for the content of the campaign ad? Do you know what really irritates my constituents in Wisconsin? It is all those negative ads and the fact that the candidates who put them out make sure that they are not identified, that people do not know who made the ad? The McCain-Feingold bill says if you want to say it, you can say it, but how about letting us know you are saying it. The other side completely ignores this provision that I think would be of great appeal to many members of the public. Why doesn't the other side say anything about the fact that the McCain-Feingold bill bans the practice of using mass mailings under the franking privilege in an election year? We get rid of that. We get rid of that incumbent protection provision in current law that allows Senators to send out thousands, tens of thousands, of items at public expense, at Government expense when they are running for reelection. We get rid of that. I happen to not do these mailings anyway. A number of Senators do not do them anyway. But we get rid of that in an election year. But no comment whatsoever from the other side. Our bill also clarifies, which is long overdue, that it should be absolutely unlawful to raise any money or solicit any money on Federal property, whether it be in the White House or whether it be in the Capitol or whether it be in one of these Senate or House office buildings. We do know that even Members of Congress have already said that they have done that. This bill makes it clear that there are no excuses for doing that in the future. No reference from the other side except for a brief one to the fact that we do begin in this bill to voluntarily provide an incentive to candidates to limit their spending. Our bill, as we introduced it today as a modification to the underlying bill, says that if you contribute over $50,000 of your own personal money to a campaign, you can do that, but you shouldn't be able to get the large party-coordinated expenditures to assist you. We do that. We have provisions relating to clarifying contributions regarding money contributions from foreign nationals. All of this is in the bill. They are very good provisions. But yet, in an effort to distort what this bill is about, the focus has been on only one or two provisions rather than the heart of the bill. Mr. President, I should like to summarize the debate today by pointing out that all of this emphasis on a couple of items in the bill to the exclusion of the rest of the bill is merely a prelude to the three principal arguments that our opposition has raised thus far as we have debated the issue on Friday and today. The first argument has been the primary argument in the past, but it is flagging. The argument that our bill will be deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court just is not having the same luck it has had in the past. The senior Senator from Kentucky recently said on one of the national news shows with reference to me, he said: Russ has got no constitutional experts with any credentials who will say that this is going to be upheld in court. That was on Fox News Sunday, September 14, 1997. Not one constitutional expert, the Senator from Kentucky said, would support our view that the basic provisions of the bill are constitutional. That was an unfortunate claim because 1 week later we were able to release a letter signed by 126 constitutional experts across this country representing 88 different institutions, including those in Kentucky, saying just the opposite--126 constitutional scholars specifically said that the ban on soft money and those provisions that relate to providing voluntary incentives to candidates to limit their spending are perfectly constitutional within the ruling of the Supreme Court 20 years ago in Buckley versus Valeo. It is hard to read this chart because there are so many of them, because 126 of the leading constitutional experts in this country say that this constitutional argument is wrong. In fact, the constitutional argument is nothing but a smokescreen because it has been shifting from month to month. First, it was the claim that the PAC ban was unconstitutional, even though the Senator from Kentucky knew very well that we had a backup provision because of that concern which he himself had introduced in the past. The Senator from Kentucky had proposed the very provision that he said was unconstitutional. So then he shifted to saying that banning soft money was unconstitutional. Well, that is not working out very well after 126 constitutional scholars say just the opposite. There is no credible argument under current law that banning that kind of contribution is unconstitutional. There simply is no credible authority who believes that. So the Senator from Kentucky shifts again. He says that providing voluntary incentives to candidates to limit their spending is unconstitutional. But that is the very thing that Buckley versus Valeo laid out as a mechanism by which you could limit spending voluntarily. So now the Senator from Kentucky seems to have dropped all of these constitutional arguments and all he has left now is to try to say that our attempt to clarify the meaning of express advocacy is unconstitutional. Well, he is wrong about that, too. But as he admitted in the Chamber today--and this is critical--in the worst-case scenario, in the very worst-case scenario, if he is right and we are wrong, the Supreme Court will simply strike that provision down. Our bill is severable. What does that mean? It means that if the Supreme Court determines a provision is unconstitutional, they can sever that provision, leaving the rest of the bill intact. That's exactly what the Court did in the landmark case of Buckley versus Valeo, where the Court said you can't have mandatory spending limits, and it severed that from the bill, but the Court did say you could have contribution limits, which is what we have had for 20 years. This is where PAC's are limited to $10,000 per campaign, where individuals are limited to $1,000 per individual. So the fact is that these constitutional arguments, if they are right, in the worst-case scenario, will simply be dealt with by the Supreme Court doing their job. Now, why can't we do our job and let the Supreme Court do their job? Where was the concern of the Senator from Kentucky about this when he voted for the Communications Decency Act, saying that it violated the first amendment? And the Supreme Court voted 9 to nothing: No, you can't do that. It was taken care of, it was struck down. It is not a law. So, this is a smokescreen. Mr. President, 126 constitutional scholars have already said that the basic provisions of our bill are constitutional. So, the constitutional argument is flagging. So the opponents of reform, who I think sometimes can also be known as the filibusterers, go to a second tactic, that is killing the bill by trying to force a filibuster. Today, not surprisingly--the majority leader had his choice of any amendment he could offer. That is his right. He could offer a substitute amendment, a whole new bill, he could offer a simple amendment having to do with certain kinds of contributions or aspects of soft money or FEC enforcement--he could choose any amendment he wanted. What did the majority leader choose? And what did he use to fill up the tree? He used a provision specifically and harshly directed at labor unions. The majority leader, and I do appreciate his letting us have this bill come to the floor, came out here and said that that choice, to be the first item we debate, was not intended as a poison pill. What does that mean? What it means is, he is saying he didn't pick that amendment as a way to cause a filibuster. But this does not square with what the majority leader said last Friday. He was quoted in the Wall Street Journal, saying ``I set it up so they will be filibustering me.'' That is what I am talking about. He had his choice. He came out here, he purposely offered a strong antilabor amendment, he set it up in the hope that he would force Members on the other side of the aisle to filibuster the bill so that he and his colleagues would not be blamed for killing it. How can you say that's not a poison pill, if your very statement was that you set it up so the other side would filibuster? That is the definition of a poison pill. Let no one mistake this. This is an intentional effort to kill campaign finance reform. Why, if this concern about this issue was so great, was it not brought up earlier? This is S. 9, that he has brought up. It is a bill I believe offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. Why was this not brought out to the floor earlier? Why is this the item that we lead with, if it is not intended to destroy campaign finance reform and make sure somebody else gets blamed for it? It is a poison pill. It's a more dangerous attack than the flimsy constitutional arguments. It does run the risk--it does run the risk of destroying the bill, and everyone should know that when we vote on the poison pill antilabor amendment, that is exactly what it does. Most of the time that has been taken up on the floor of the Senate by those who seek to kill this legislation has been devoted to a third attempt. That third attempt is to make the public believe that this bill somehow creates a giant Government bureaucracy that is going to regulate their speech. If I could just show a copy of the bill--the problem with that is, in the past, when folks have tried to argue that a bill is a huge Government bureaucracy bill, they hold up the bill. They hold up the President's budget: 2,000 pages. They hold up the health care bill and they weigh it on a scale. But this is not going to work with the McCain-Feingold bill. It is only 55 pages. It is pretty hard, the way lawyers write, to set up a giant Government bureaucracy in 55 pages. But that is what they want folks to believe. They want folks to believe that somehow we are creating a new world of campaign financing that will change the way things are done in this country and will change the ability of members of the public to speak their mind in an election. I think it is just the opposite. I think what the current system is, I think the status quo, that the Senator from Kentucky defends so vigorously, is so at variance with the system that I grew up to believe in that it is shocking. I think we have come so far from the notion of one person one vote; so far from the notion that every child born in this country could grow up to serve in the House or serve in the Senate, or perhaps even be President, that it is an embarrassment. Look at what Mr. Tamraz said recently about this system and how he apparently gamed it. He said, before the Governmental Affairs Committee on September 18, 1997, in response to a question--the question was a very direct question: Was one of the reasons that you made these contributions because you believed it might get you access? That's my question. Mr. Tamraz' response was very straightforward. He said: Senator, I'm going even further. It's the only reason--to get access, but what I'm saying is once you have access, what do you do with it? Is it something bad or something good. That's what we have to see. When I heard that comment from Mr. Tamraz I just couldn't help but think how far we had come from the America that I was brought up to believe in. Maybe I was naive, growing up back in Janesville, WI, but I really believed it when my parents told me that, ``You may not be the richest kid in town, you may not be the most powerful person in the town or in the State or in the country. But every American has the same vote. Your vote counts the same as a Rockefeller's.'' That was the name we used in those days. So, when you look at the story of what has happened in the last 30 years, I can't help but reflect that when I was 7 years old and John F. Kennedy was running for President, the way that we would sort of observe a Presidential campaign was not just through the television. There were a few television sets. You could go out to the Sauk County 4-H fair. There was a little Democratic booth. Just a few feet away was a little Republican booth. And there was a little ribbing going back and forth. You know, those booths have not moved an inch in 37 years. They are in the exact same place they always were. That is where the campaign was, people talking to each other. Nobody said anything about raising money. I'm sure they had to fund their campaigns, but that was not what the news stories were about. I'm sure the Senator from Utah, who is on the floor, would agree with me, that that was not the nature of the discussion, who had the most money to win an election in those days. Then, as I got into my teen years, the civil rights movement came upon us, the Vietnam war, the beginning of the environmental movement, the women's movement--so many political movements; on the other side of the political spectrum, the great concern that arose about law and order in this country. These were the great discussions of our time, as well as others. I recall some kind of conversation about Howard Hughes giving some money to both Presidential candidates, but it was sort of an odd story, an esoteric story. ``What is going on? Why would this rich fellow, a recluse, give all this money to Presidential campaigns?'' It was not the stuff of public life. It was not the news, who was giving what money to what political party. In fact, the gentleman who used to hold this seat before I did, a couple of Senators back, my friend Gaylord Nelson, told me recently that in his distinguished career in Wisconsin politics as a Member of this body for 18 years, he never once made a phone call to raise money. He never once picked up the phone and said: Hey, I'm running for reelection, can you give me some money? I suggest that those were the good old days. What the Senator from Kentucky is trying to defend is a new world, where not only are Senators expected to make phone calls almost every day to raise money for their campaigns, but where Senators and others are encouraged to call up people and ask them for $100,000. This is not the system that I grew up with. This is not the system that led the late Robert Kennedy to refer to politics as an honorable profession. Then, in high school, the people used to rib me a little bit. I guess I was a little bit too open about my desire to go into politics. Some of them would say, because I talked so much I would be a good politician, and other comments like that. But the one thing they never said to me was, ``Russ, if you want to go into politics you have to go out and make $10 million first; that there is an opening ante, there is an opening fee, that you must be a millionaire.'' That we are, in effect, recreating here in Washington the House of Lords, which we freed ourselves from over 200 years ago. Nobody ever said that to me. Politics was still church dinners and Rotary clubs and the State fair and all those things that one may regard as corny. But the fact is, it was a pretty good system. This is a lousy system; a system where somebody pays $300,000 to get in a room to be with his competitor who has paid $300,000, a room that none of us could ever get in. That is a lousy system. I was still under the perhaps naive belief, in 1982 when I sought election to the State senate in Wisconsin, my first race for public office--I was under the illusion that money wasn't important. Thanks to the good laws of the State of Wisconsin it wasn't terribly important. I had no money, but the State law provided that if I could raise $17,000, the State would match it with $17,000 if I agreed to a $34,000 limit and that that would be a reasonable amount for a campaign voluntarily. That's what I did. I wrote to every relative I had. I wrote to a few former professors and teachers of mine. They all sent in a few dollars. We had $17,000 by August, and we went out and campaigned. I went to the Sauk County Fair, walked in parades, and had some very civil and nice debates with my opponent. I do remember a brief moment, though, at the end of that campaign when one of the senior Democratic officials in the State called me up and said, ``Russ, you're going to lose if you don't borrow $10,000 for the last few days.'' I said, ``I can't do that. I'm just not going to do that to my family.'' He was almost right, because I only won that election by 31 votes out of 47,000. It was the closest election in the history of the Wisconsin State Senate. But the fact is, it was reasonable--$35,000. It was something I could at least think about as a person of average means. Now the same races in that same district, just 15 years later, cost something like $250,000, $300,000 just for a Wisconsin State Senate seat that pays somebody some $35,000 to $40,000. But yet I still believe, because I won by the slimmest of margins, that running for office was not equal to having a lot of money. I got a bit of a rude awakening, Mr. President, in 1987 when I started thinking about running for the U.S. Senate. I thought I had amassed a decent record over the years as a Wisconsin State Senator, and I wanted to run against the incumbent senator. But as I went around the State gradually for several years trying to build a grassroots organization, I wasn't asked what I had done in the State Senate; I wasn't asked what I had done before I was in the State Senate; I wasn't asked what my views might be. Almost every single encounter, whether with the media or with a potential supporter, was, ``Russ, this is fine and good and you seem like a nice young fellow, but where are you going to get the money?'' ``Where are you going to get the money, Russ?'' ``How can you possibly think you have a right or an opportunity to run for the U.S. Senate unless you are independently wealthy or if you are well connected to Washington?'' That was the message I was given over and over again. Anybody who knows the kind of race I went through--I had a lot of good fortune, obviously, because I am standing here--that was my biggest problem. I wasn't considered credible because I wasn't wealthy. That didn't feel to me like what my parents had told me. That didn't feel to me like the assurance that I would have a fair chance to compete with everyone else simply because I am an American citizen. It felt really bad. Maybe it made me work hard. Maybe it made me stay the course. It got particularly difficult when I would go to a group with whom I had a good relationship; for example, the independent bankers, a group with whom I have a very good relationship. I always admired their independence in Wisconsin. And I said to them, ``Could you give me some support for my race?'' They said, ``Well, we think you have done a good job, but we have to check in with Washington.'' There is a guy in Washington who makes this decision. Then when I checked in with some of my friends in the labor unions, whom I probably do support on many, many issues, I thought they would be able to decide at the local whether or not they would want to back me. But, no, they had to check in with Washington, with the Washington gatekeepers who want to kill this bill. That is what I learned about the system. Of course, partially because my two primary opponents were both very well-heeled and attacked each other that I wound up winning the primary. They used their money to make each other look pretty bad, and I wound up winning the primary because I was the other guy who was running. And that gave me momentum to win the final election. As I stand here with these colleagues I admire greatly, sometimes I wonder, am I the last person of average wealth and income who will ever serve in this body? Is the door going to slam on people who actually worry about making ends meet, people who actually worry about their mortgage payment, as I do? Am I the last person who is not a millionaire who will be invited to serve in this institution? I don't think that is the way it will end up, but I can tell you this, if we don't pass a reform like the one we have before us today, it will be. I cannot in good conscience look at a high school senior today, as I was in 1971, and say, ``You know, it would be great if you pursued a political career; it will be wonderful; just learn the issues, work with people, show people that you are a natural leader.'' I can't just leave it at that. If I am being honest with a young person, I would have to say, ``And you better darn well come up with $10 million or nobody is going to take you seriously.'' That hurts my image of America that I have to say that to a high school senior today. The opponents of this bill have absolutely no answer for those high school students. They say somehow that free speech in America means that they don't matter, it means that they can't participate, it means that they don't have the same right that everyone else does to run for an office in the House or Senate and have some kind of a belief that they can prevail. Each of us, I suppose, wants to tell our own story of how we got here, as I just did. It is a great honor to serve in this body. Less than 2,000 Americans have ever done so. I appreciated it when the majority leader the other day spoke to some of his concerns when he was running for office. This is the only issue where all the Members of the Senate are experts, because we have been through it and we know. But the reason I am involved with this bill is that the senior Senator from Arizona had the courage to come to me and say, ``Look, we've got to do something to change this system, to put aside our partisan differences.'' We just decided that we couldn't live with a country where a Presidential candidate would begin his campaign, make the high point of his announcement for President the following statement: I have the most reliable friend you can have in American politics and that is ready money. That was a leading comment in an announcement for President of the United States. I don't remember either John F. Kennedy or Richard Nixon leading their campaigns in 1960 with that comment, on anyone else. That is a tragic commentary on where we have come over the years. So that is what this really comes down to. You have heard the constitutional arguments and have seen them fall. You see already an attempt to bring a ``poison pill'' out on the floor to kill this bill by making it too harsh for either side to accept and destroy its bipartisan nature. You have heard the effort to distort what this bill really does by suggesting that somehow our bill will create a large governmental involvement in free speech. The fact is, it is this system that is destroying free speech. It is a system where people can give hundreds of thousands of dollars of unregulated money or give huge contributions or fundraisers of hard money to candidates that cut the average person out of the process. This is the corporate democracy that we have come to. So, in the coming days, we will hear more of the efforts of our opponents to take each little piece of the bill and indicate that there is a problem here or a problem there. Of course, that is the purpose of the debate. But we are ready, Senator McCain and I, to negotiate to solve some of the real problems. But what we will not tolerate is the suggestion that we should do nothing. Our opposition has no alternative. They have no answer to the careening role of money in American politics. They just want to kill this bill and get back to the business of running elections. Mr. President, there will be much more to say on this bill. All I can say is that we will not allow this debate to become mired in the minutia of important issues that ultimately would be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. We will come back again and again to the central point that this is still a country of one person-one vote, not $1 million-1 million votes. And it is still a country where every high school student should at least be able to think or dream about participating in the process without having to become a multimillionaire first. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his candid answers and say I have great confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court. They are perfectly capable of handling this provision. Our job is to pass a law so they can take it up and they can strike it down if they don't like it. That is the approach we take here when there is a good-faith disagreement about a constitutional provision. Surely there are good- faith arguments on both sides, and the right body to resolve it is the Supreme Court.