Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Can I answer the Senator, since he asked the question?

Mr. HATCH. Let me answer the question. The fact is, we are equal with regard to both corporations and unions. We don't include any ideological groups because when you give to the Sierra Club, you know the causes they advocate. You have a right to give. You are not forced or compelled to contribute to these organizations. But when people join unions or are forced to join unions because of the laws that we have, they are forced to pay fees to unions. Most of the union members probably don't know what the union dues are used for, especially with regard to politics or things such as an effort in 1996 to legalize marijuana in California, for instance. The Teamsters contributed $195,000 to that effort in union dues to support that effort. How many working families want their hard-earned money to be used for marijuana legalization? I think that they have a right to know this kind of information. Disclosing expenditures is constitutionally different from disclosing contributors to ideological groups which the Supreme Court has said we should not do. Disclosing expenditures does not implicate free association. It is important to differentiate between expenditures and contributors. The difference is, union members are forced to pay dues.

Mr. HATCH. Let me restate that.

Mr. HATCH. It is true in nonright-to-work States. People are forced to join the union and forced to pay dues. They don't have to stay in the union, I agree. They can quit if they give up their jobs.

Mr. HATCH. If I could just finish my comments, something that they can do in this computer age without an awful lot of difficulty, and something I believe the corporate world can do without an awful lot of difficulty is provide disclosure. Tell me what is wrong with disclosure. To me, that is the only thing that will make our process more fair, more honest, more decent. Disclosure helps everyone equally to know how their money is spent. I believe that everyone should be entitled to know what political speech they are supporting. Disclosure is what honesty and fairness in politics is all about. Why would anyone fight against disclosure? Fairness is all I am asking for. I am not asking to stop any of this. It has been admitted basically that unions do the work for the Democratic Party.

Mr. HATCH. Does the Senator have a question because I think I have the right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. That is another argument for another day. The fact is, I don't think anybody in their right mind is going to say that people are not compelled to pay union dues in nonright-to-work States, if they want the job and they want to work in a union business. It is that simple. Nobody doubts that. I don't have any problem with that. That is the way the law is. But to say they can spend 100 percent of the money for only one party and not disclose it seems to me to be a bad process, especially when Democrats have suggested: Well, if you don't make the corporations disclose, why should you make the unions? I am saying let's make both of them disclose. Let's be fair so there is no imbalance. The imbalance is in the fact that the only two things the unions don't care about are TV advertisements and radio advertisements. They can do all these other things: Get out the vote, voter identification, voter registration, mass mailings, phone banks, TV advertisement, radio advertisements, magazine advertisements, newspaper advertisements, outdoor advertising, leafleting, polling, volunteer recruitment and training, and most of their employees are union salaried, full-time political operatives, all working for one party, and at the same time this McCain-Feingold bill limits the Republican Party, which has no outside organization doing this. It limits hard dollars to no more than $1,000 per contributor. Talk about imbalance. In other words, the two groups that you would hope would be fully in the political process--the two political parties--are the ones that are left out, while we ignore all this other stuff. Talk about imbalance. The McCain-Feingold bill is imbalanced. What is even worse, in my eyes, is that the one thing they impose on unions and others is TV advertisements and radio advertisements within 30 to 60 days of the primary and general elections. Think about that. That says they don't have the right to speak during that time which, under Buckley v. Valeo, shows that directly violative of the first amendment. Here we have the media and everybody else arguing for this. My amendment does one thing. It doesn't stop the unions from doing this. It doesn't say you are bad people, you should not do this. It says you need to disclose what you are doing so that all members of the union know what political ideologies they are supporting with their dues. That includes 40 percent of them who are basically Republicans and whose moneys are all going to elect Democrats, people who are basically contrary to their philosophical and political viewpoints. All I ask is that there be disclosure. But to even it up, since the Democrats have raised this time and again, I would require disclosure in the corporate world, too--disclose what the money is used for regarding politics. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. In right-to-work States, that is not the case.

Mr. HATCH. I would like to answer. The National Rifle Association is made up primarily of blue-collar Democrats. In all honesty, that is why there hasn't been a lot of mouthing about gunslinging because Al Gore found in the last election that he had offended an awful lot of Democrats. I think that is why he lost West Virginia.

Mr. HATCH. If I may take back the floor.

Mr. HATCH. It does all these things----

Mr. HATCH. I am happy to.

Mr. HATCH. They basically help the Democratic Party, and they will continue to have the right to.

Mr. HATCH. Sure.

Mr. HATCH. Wait. The last point I was making was, and union-salaried, full-time political operatives. You can say that is our fault. Let's assume that is so. The fact is, we do not have anybody doing that. It is totally unregulated. That is the guts of the political process. If we are going to regulate, let's regulate everybody, not just the parties. And the parties themselves ought to be given greater leeway than this bill gives them. The only thing that McCain-Feingold regulates is the thing that the unions care about the least; that is, TV advertisements and radio advertisements. Look, I give a lot of credit to the Democrats. I give a lot of credit to the unions. There is no question that is why they won the last election in the Senate and had more people elected than Republicans. Because they were getting out the vote like never before. They did voter identification like never before. They did voter registration. They did mass mailings. And they did phone banks. They did TV advertisements, radio advertisements, magazine advertisements, newspaper advertisements, outdoor advertising and leafleting, polling, volunteer recruitment and training, and had union-salaried, full-time political operatives all over this country. That is their right. Why do we take all those rights away from the Republican Party? You can't just answer by saying that is the Republicans' fault because they are not paying the same homage to the unions that the Democrats do, and I have to say we are not, in the sense of doing everything that they want done, because not everything they want done is right. All my amendment does is require disclosure to the union members and corporate shareholders. I am not even asking for priority in this area. I am not asking for any equality with regard to all the things the unions do for Democrats that make them not care about the parties not being able to raise soft money. The unions do it all for them, and that is all soft money. Now, I had some strong words with my colleague from Massachusetts earlier in this debate, and they were meant in good taste and in good humor as well. But I feel strongly on this issue. This amendment will give ordinary workers the opportunity to have a meaningful voice in how their political contributions are used. I held a union card. I understand this. Organized labor is not a monolithic entity, but too often the leadership of these unions act in a monolithic fashion when it comes to elections. This amendment tries to level the playing field for both unions and corporations. All it requires is disclosure.

Mr. HATCH. Not of members, but only of expenditures.

Mr. HATCH. You can't compare those to the unions.

Mr. HATCH. The Supreme Court has ruled in cases that you cannot require disclosure of membership lists. I don't personally have much problem with disclosure of moneys that have been put into the process, but not the names.

Mr. HATCH. If I could finish making my point, and then I will be happy to yield. The unions are the principal get-out-the-vote force in the Democratic Party. Keep in mind, 40 percent of union members are Republicans, yet almost 100 percent of the money that unions raise helps get out the vote for Democrats. That does not seem like a fair process, but that is the way it is. But that money could only be hard money to the political parties, meaning they are severely hampered in getting out the vote. No. 2, voter identification. The unions do that beautifully for Democrats. I do not know of one Republican that a union has worked for to help identify Republican voters. I am sure there is one or two, but the fact is the vast majority--almost 100 percent--of their money goes to help Democrats. That is their right. Why aren't the Democrats scared about what the McCain-Feingold bill will do to the Democratic Party? Because the Democratic Party does not have to worry about all of this because the unions do it for them? Most of the employees of the unions are dues-paid political operatives. They are very good, the best in the business. I respect them. Volunteer registration: The Republican Party has been limited to hard dollars--$1,000 a person--in order to get out voter registration. The unions do it for the Democrats. And, by the way, there is not one word in McCain-Feingold to regulate that, or to require the same requisite on the unions that they require on the Republican Party. The Democratic Party can get by because the unions will do it for them. Even though they have the same rules as the Republican Party, the Republican Party does not have a group like the union movement doing get out the vote, voter identification, voter registration, mass mailings, phone banks, magazine advertisements, newspaper advertisements, outdoor advertising and leafleting, polling, volunteer recruitment and training, and a whole raft of other things, including-- --

Mr. HATCH. The main case was the NAACP where one of the Southern States tried to get them to disclose their membership list and the Court said they didn't have to do. They are a legitimate organization. I am not asking the unions to disclose their membership lists either, nor am I asking corporations to disclose their shareholder lists, although anybody who looks at a corporate filing can figure that out. If disclosure requirements applied equally to the Sierra Club, to NARAL, and to other groups, disclosure might not be a bad thing for all of them. I would not be pushing for disclosure of members in nonprofit foundations because the Supreme Court has already ruled on that. But now we are talking about real players in the political process, not peripheral organizations. The fact is, many members of the NRA are Democrats. They are just offended by some of the phony demagoging that has been done about guns through the years. They are tough on crime. That is another debate. With regard to the right-to-life community, I have to admit that they support both sides, but they support people who are pro-life, just as the pro-choice groups support the people who are pro-choice on both sides.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have listened to these comments about the imbalance. McCain-Feingold is balance. It brings balance. Let me give you an illustration. McCain-Feingold regulates what unions care about least. Think about it. It regulates get out the vote. It regulates two things: It regulates television advertisement within 60 days. It regulates radio ads for a candidate--not a party--within 60 days of a general election, or 30 days of a primary. It does do that. That is technically unconstitutional on its face. But it does do that. Television advertisements and radio advertisements are all McCain-Feingold does with regard to what the unions are interested in. These are the two things they care about least. What they really care about and what we ought to be concerned about, if we want fairness, and if we don't want one side to have an advantage over the other, McCain-Feingold ought to cover all get out the vote activities. That is probably one of the most important things in the political process today, if not the most important thing. Voter identification, McCain-Feingold does not do anything about that. Voter registration, nothing. Mass mailings, nothing. Phone banks, nothing; magazine advertisements, newspaper advertisements, outdoor advertising and leafleting, polling, volunteer recruitment and training, union-salaried, full-time political operatives. And look, I do not have any problem with that in the sense that unions have a right to do whatever they want to do in advancing their issues in the political process. And I would fight for their right to do that, as I have in the past. But the only people whose rights are infringed upon by the McCain-Feingold bill happen to be the Republican Party because the unions do all of this for the Democratic Party.

Mr. HATCH. I understand your side has copies.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HATCH. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.