Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes in opposition.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Supreme Court has held very explicitly, in Buckley v. Valeo, that large contribution limits can create the appearance of impropriety and that Congress has the right to stop that appearance of wrongdoing, that appearance of corruption, as the Court put it, which can be created by the solicitation of large amounts of money by people in power from constituents who have business before them. The amounts of money which we are talking about in this amendment are simply too large. We should not be tempted. It is easier to raise money in these large amounts--we all know that--but we should not be tempted. If we are so tempted, we would be on the one hand closing the soft money loophole but on the other hand creating the same problem by lifting hard money limits to such a level that the same inappropriate appearance is created by the solicitation of contributions of this size. I commend our friends and colleagues, Senators Thompson and Collins. They have been staunch supporters of reform. It seems awkward being on the other side from them on an amendment in this area, but I think it is a mistake to adopt this amendment. I hope we will reject it.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me say I know how much Senators Thompson and Collins believe in campaign finance reform. They have been two of the real stalwarts of trying to help us get rid of the soft money loophole. So this is a disagreement in which I take no particular pleasure, to put it mildly. They have been some of the strongest supporters for campaign finance reform. I do not agree with their amendment. The limits that are created are way too high, and it is going to create some of the same problems that the soft money loophole has created in terms of the size of the contributions that will be permitted. It will not be through unregulated money, the soft money loophole, but it will be through regulated increases in the total aggregate amounts which are simply too high to create public confidence that we are doing the right thing, that we are not selling access to ourselves for large amounts of money, that we are not accepting contributions of large amounts of money from people who have significant business before the Congress. We are at an important moment in the Senate's consideration of this bill. It is a point where we are going to have to decide whether we are going to hold the line on real reform, which not only means eliminating the soft money loophole, which I think we are on the verge of doing, but also in terms of putting some reasonable, modest limits on contributions so we do not have aggregate contributions that are so large that the public will lose confidence in the electoral process. They could lose confidence, whether we call it soft money or hard money, if the amounts which flow into these campaigns, either directly or indirectly, are too large. We become addicted to large sums of money. It is easier to raise a large sum of money from a few people than it is to raise a small sum of money from many people. That is how we got started on soft money. That is why it is called soft money. And that is why regulated money is called hard money. It is hard to raise money with real limits. But now that we are close to banning soft money--hopefully--to going cold turkey on the enormous contributions that the soft money loophole has let us raise from a small number of individuals, now I am afraid we are going to be looking around for other opportunities to raise large sums of money. It is like a smoker who wants to quit who looks under the sofa cushions for a cigarette they may have dropped 3 months ago. We are looking around for someplace to still get large contributions. The categories for the amount of money that an individual can give to a party and the aggregate that an individual can give in any 1 year to candidates, parties, and PACs looks to be a very large pot of money. We have to resist the temptation--that is what it is properly called, at least for some of us--to raise the aggregate limits to sums which to the average American seem horrendously large. The Thompson-Collins amendment doubles the limits for parties and the yearly aggregate, so that one individual, under the Thompson-Collins proposal, can give as much as $100,000 in a cycle. That is $50,000 a year to the parties and candidates and PACs that the individual supports. So a couple could give $200,000 over 2 years, and it can be solicited all at one time--from you, from me, from a Member of the House, from the President, the Vice President, and the political parties--because what is before us would raise the hard money limits. It means that any of us can solicit the amounts of money which are under that aggregate or within the aggregate. That would mean, if this amendment passes, we could call up a couple and say: Can you contribute $200,000 in this cycle to our party and to the candidates we are supporting? It is too big an amount. It puts us in a position which I believe we should not be in, which is to be competing in this arena for large contributions, which have undermined public confidence in the electoral process. Too often when these large contributions have been what is being solicited--in the past with soft money, the unregulated money, but now if this amendment passes up to $200,000 a cycle per couple in hard money, usually we have gotten into the sale of access, the open, blatant sale of access. Nothing hidden about that. Just a couple of examples--one from each party because this is a bipartisan problem. First, for a Democratic National Committee trustee, which is shown on the board before us--this is for a $50,000 contribution or raising $100,000--a contributor gets two events with the President, two annual events with the Vice President, an annual trade mission where the trustee is invited to ``join Party leadership as they travel abroad to examine current and developing political and economic [trends].'' And, by the way, this same thing was used in a Republican administration-- visiting foreign dignitaries at the highest level. So this is not, again, a partisan issue. It is the sale of access for huge amounts of money. And the larger the amount of money that we permit to be solicited, the worse, it seems to me, the appearance is when access is so openly and blatantly sold for that contribution. That is what the temptation is. There is nothing illegal about this. I think it is shocking, but it is not illegal. If we raise the hard money limits to this extent, this same kind of sale of access is going to continue for the large contribution, which I think is so totally disenchanting our constituents. On the Republican side, I have a chart in relation to a RNC annual gala. This is for a contributor who raises $250,000. He or she gets lunch with the Republican--Senate or House--committee chairman of their choice. I think that is wrong. I do not know how we can stop this kind of open sale of access to ourselves for large amounts of money if we are going to increase hard limits, hard money contributions to the same extent as we see on these boards, when soft money was being used at this level of contribution to tempt people to make contributions in exchange for that access. Another invitation to a Senatorial Campaign Committee event: This one promised that large contributors would be offered ``plenty of opportunities to share [their] personal ideas and vision with'' some of the top leaders and Senators. And then this invitation read the following: Failure to attend means ``you could lose a unique chance to be included in current legislative policy debates--debates that will affect your family and your business for many years to come.'' So for a large amount of money--in the view of most Americans, an exceedingly large amount of money--people are told they can have access to people who will affect their family and their business for many years to come, and explicitly that if you do not purchase that access, for a large amount of money, you could lose a unique chance to participate in a debate which ``will affect your family and your business for many years to come.'' No American should think that because he or she cannot contribute a huge sum of money they are then going to be unable to participate in a debate which affects family and business for many years to come. Another one: This one says: ``Trust members can expect a close working relationship with all [of the party's] Senators, top Administration officials and national leaders.'' The greater these contribution limits are, the worse, it seems to me, the appearance is of impropriety, which is what we are trying to stop. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be yielded 1 additional minute.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Connecticut. Let us start with a few basic truths. We are supposed to have limits. They have been completely evaded, destroyed by the soft money loophole. The current law says no individual is supposed to give more than $1,000, or give more than $25,000 in a year totally, and because of the soft money loophole, there are no limits. That is a given. The question is whether or not we want to close the soft money loophole. It seems to me, unless we close this soft money loophole, we are going to destroy public confidence in the election process in this country, and the cynicism which exists and the impact and effect of large money on politics is simply going to grow. How do we close the soft money loophole? In McCain-Feingold we close it. We simply end the soft money loophole, not just for national parties, but also to make sure that Federal officials and officeholders and candidates do not raise money for State parties in a way to avoid our new prohibition. That is missing from the Hagel amendment. We have to be clear on that critical point because we have seen charts which say: Look, we are going to reduce the amount of soft money in the campaigns because we are going to put a cap on the amount of soft money. Putting aside the fact that this goes exactly opposite the principles in McCain-Feingold and putting aside the fact that Hagel then would enshrine soft money into our national law, it also means that unless you close the possibility and end the possibility of Federal candidates, Federal officeholders, and national parties just simply raising money for State parties in Federal elections, you leave the loophole open. What the Hagel amendment does is shift the loophole. It does not close it. It continues to allow Federal officeholders, Federal candidates, and national parties to raise the money for State campaigns and State parties that will in turn continue to use that money in attack ads and in so-called sham issue ads. It does not close the soft money loophole, it shifts the soft money loophole. That is simply not good enough. That is not campaign finance reform. That is sham reform. The other thing it does, relative to hard money limits, is it raises the hard money limits to $75,000 per year per individual which means that a couple can give in a cycle of 2 years $300,000 in hard money contributions. That is not reform. That simply says that big money, big bucks, and big contributions will continue to be solicited by those of us who are in office, those of us who seek office, and those of us who are in the national parties. That means that the role of big money in these campaigns is going to continue. I close by quoting something the Supreme Court said in the Missouri case, in the Shrink Missouri Government PAC case a year or two ago. This is what the Supreme Court said about the appearance of impropriety, the appearance of corruption created by big contributions: While neither law nor morals equate all political contributions, without more, with bribes, we spoke in Buckley of the perception of corruption ``inherent in a regime of large individual financial contributions'' to candidates for public office as a source of concern ``almost equal'' to quid pro quo improbity. The public interest in countering that perception was, indeed, the entire answer to the overbreadth claim raised in the Buckley case. This made perfect sense. Leave the perception of impropriety unanswered, and the cynical assumption that large donors call the tune could jeopardize the willingness of voters to take part in democratic governance. Democracy works ``only if the people have faith in those who govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered when high officials and their appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of malfeasance and corruption.'' I thank the Chair, and I thank my good friend from Connecticut.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the L'Anse Creuse Public Schools and their Superintendent, Dr. John R. Armstrong, for the opening and dedication of their beautiful new 999 seat auditorium. The L'Anse Creuse Public Schools have appropriately chosen to name this state of the art facility the John R. Armstrong Performing Arts Center in recognition for all Dr. Armstrong has done to support the arts, not only as the current Superintendent of the L'Anse Creuse Public Schools in Harrison Township, Michigan, but also as a teacher and principal. Dr. John R. Armstrong has served his community, state, and country in countless ways. Since graduating from Bowling Green University thirty- four years ago, he has been a dedicated teacher and administrator in the L'Anse Creuse Public Schools. However, Doctor Armstrong's passion for education and youth has led him to take an active role not just in the school system, but in his community. He has held leadership positions in many civic organizations and institutions that seek to advance educational causes such as Director of the Kellogg Math/Science Grant Program at Selfridge Air National Guard Base. In addition, Dr. Armstrong has been a board member of the Mt. Clemens YMCA, the Mt. Clemens Art Center, the Macomb Literacy Project and the Traffic Safety Association of Macomb County. Dr. Armstrong has worked extensively to increase funding for his school district. He has presided over several capital campaigns and bond proposals that have allowed this growing school district to provide an environment in which learning can flourish. While Dr. Armstrong has been superintendent, student achievement has soared, as evidenced by the fact that student's in his school district have improved their test scores on the Michigan Education Assessment Program, the PSAT, SAT and ACT at a rate that has exceeded the county, state and national averages. Just as importantly, Dr. Armstrong has worked to promote life-long learning opportunities that realize that education should not be confined within classroom walls. To that end, he has fostered cross- cultural exchanges, a co-operative art and design program with General Motors and a dialogue on issues between students and senior citizens. In addition to supporting life-long learning for others, Dr. Armstrong has led by example. Since coming to the L'Anse Creuse School District, he has earned several teacher certificates, a master's degree and a doctorate in education. The L'Anse Creuse School District can take pride in the opening of their new auditorium, and Dr. Armstrong can take pride in his long and honorable service to the students of not only the school district but of all Michigan. I hope my colleagues will join me in saluting both the L'anse Creuse School District and Dr. John R. Armstrong for their contributions to their community and the State of Michigan.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I and my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, are introducing a resolution commemorating the tercentennial of the founding of Detroit, my hometown. Detroit has contributed mightily to American history and to the freedom and prosperity our Nation enjoys. The ``Spirit of Detroit'' statue, which sits prominently in downtown Detroit, embodies a spirit which is referred to by many Detroiters. It is this spirit of hard work and determination that has helped successive generations of Detroiters realize the American Dream. From its earliest days as a frontier outpost, to its role in the epic struggle to end slavery and preserve the union, to the era of the Arsenal of Democracy, to the modern day struggle to build the Detroit of the 21st Century, this spirit has guided Detroit to greatness. While the resolution names but a few of the events and a few of the people who have made significant contributions to the Detroit story, the list is long. Countless Detroiters have stepped forward to make a difference in many facets of American life. And this year, as Detroit enters its fourth century, the city's pride in its history is only matched by its confidence in its future. As Detroit celebrates its 300th anniversary, we are proud to have the opportunity to take part in the festivities that mark this occasion and to share our pride with all of our colleagues.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Connecticut. Mr. President, yesterday we decided we were going to leave the Beck interpretation and implementation to the courts. That is exactly where that is right now. This whole issue of what is related to collective bargaining is being litigated now in the courts. This amendment goes in the opposite direction. In the Nickles amendment yesterday, we said, let's be silent on the definitions that are involved in Beck. This now puts in a partial definition, as the Senator from Connecticut pointed out, in only parts which are aimed at reducing participation and free association. That is not what we should be doing. We should keep our eye on eliminating the soft money.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in just the last few weeks, two California high schools a few miles apart, suffered the same terrible fate when troubled students opened fire on both classmates and teachers. These remind of us of the many acts of gun violence committed by young people in American schools since the attack at Columbine High School almost 2 years ago. In last week's Time magazine, an article called ``Scorecard of Hatred,'' lists in detail the many varied plans of copycat attacks since Columbine, including those planned by teenagers who, thankfully, failed in their attempts. Each of the more than 20 different attempts by young people to ``pull a Columbine,'' the phrase that some teenagers now use to describe these acts of violence, is disturbing in its own right. As a whole, these acts are beginning to become an epidemic. I often wonder why these acts of school violence are so uniquely American. The warning signs most commonly associated with teens who engage in school shootings--disturbing patterns of behavior, depression, increased fascination with violence, sometimes inappropriate living conditions--are no doubt experienced by teens in other countries. Yet, even though the gun shots at Columbine were witnessed by teens across the world, teens in other countries are not routinely committing terrible acts of school violence. Last May, on the 1-year anniversary of the Columbine shootings, there was one act of copycat violence in Ottawa in the province of Ontario, Canada. According to an article in the Ottawa Citizen, a 15-year-old boy, who was teased mercilessly by his classmates, became obsessed with the Columbine school massacre and the violent perpetrators of the tragic event. He posted pictures of the young men in his lockers and began counting down the days until the anniversary. But when the moment came, and the young boy in Canada attempted to carry out his copycat crime, instead of brandishing an arsenal of firearms, he brandished a kitchen knife. Instead of 15 dead and countless more injured, 5 people were stabbed, none with any life-threatening injuries. In Littleton, CO and Ottawa, Canada, the circumstances were similar, but the outcomes were substantially different. It seems that the one crucial difference in this and other such incidences is not religion or music, entertainment, or peer influence, it is access to guns. In most of these school shootings in the United States, our young people have relatively easy access to guns. Here are some of the examples used in the Time magazine article: two 8th graders in California were found with a military-sniper rifle, a handgun, and 1500 rounds of ammunition; a 15-year-old in Georgia gained access his stepfather's rifle; a 7th grader from Oklahoma took his father's semiautomatic handgun; a 6-year- old in Michigan discovered a semiautomatic handgun; a 17-year-old in California amassed an arsenal of 15 guns as well as knives and ammunition; a 13-year-old in Florida picked up a semiautomatic handgun. Mr. President, the lists goes on and on. We must do something to limit our youth's easy access to guns and end the epidemic of gun violence in our Nation's schools and community places. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the Time magazine article, Scorecard of Hatred.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will be supporting the Nickles amendment because I think it is the wiser course to leave this issue at this time to the courts and to the NLRB. I will say a few things about the Beck provision in the bill. I believe this is a different perspective than what we have heard from the Senator from Kentucky. However, we reached the same conclusion, that it is best to leave Beck to the courts and to the NLRB rather than to try to see if we can distill or characterize the Beck decision at this time. Mr. President, it was said that the codification of Beck or the Beck provision in this bill is the opposite of a codification. But, Section 304 of McCain-Feingold goes to the heart of the Beck decision, that is, whether a nonunion member can opt out of paying dues for political activities. The Supreme Court says ``yes'' in Beck, and section 304 would make that right to opt out statutory law. That is the technical holding in Beck that a nonunion member in a bargaining unit can opt out. It is that holding which is at the heart of Beck which is also at the heart of the provision in section 304. We don't believe section 304 would make it harder for nonunion members to exercise their Beck right; that, we believe, is not the case and we know it is not the intent. The National Labor Relations Board has told unions how they can and should implement Beck. The NLRB said in the California Saw and Knife Works case, in 1995, the following: First, before a union can require a nonunion member to pay what is called an agency fee, which is similar to union dues for a union member, the union must tell the nonmember employee of his or her right to object to paying for activities ``not germane to the union's duties as bargaining agent,'' and his or her right to ``obtain a reduction in fees for such act.'' The nonmember employee can then file an objection, and the union must then charge the nonmember objecting employee an agency fee reflecting only that portion of the agency fee that represents the cost of activities related to collective bargaining. The NLRB also requires that the nonmember objecting employee must also be given an explanation of the calculation made by the union, an opportunity to challenge the calculation, and an independent arbiter to determine the challenge. These requirements have been in force since 1995 and have been vigorously enforced. The McCain-Feingold bill incorporates both the Beck decision and that NLRB decision. The McCain-Feingold bill, first, makes it an unfair labor practice for a union not to provide the ``objection procedure'' laid out in the bill for nonmember employees. The objection procedure in the bill includes the same elements required by the NLRB, including annual notice to nonunion employees about the objection procedure; the persons eligible to invoke the procedure; and how, when, and where an objection can be filed. The bill provides an opportunity to file an objection to paying for union expenses ``supporting political activities unrelated to collective bargaining.'' One opportunity must include filing an objection by mail and, if an objection is filed, the reduction in the amount of the agency fee by an amount that ``reasonably reflects the ratio that the organization's expenditures supporting political activities unrelated to collective bargaining bears to such organization's total expenditure.'' The union must also provide, as the NLRB decisions have required, an explanation of the calculations made by the union, including calculating the amount of union expenditures supporting political activities unrelated to collective bargaining. That is the provision in the McCain-Feingold bill. Separate from the provision in the McCain-Feingold bill, any union employee who doesn't want to pay for a union's political activity through his or her membership dues can terminate his or her membership with the union and, like an objecting nonunion employee, seek a reduction in the agency fee of that sum which represents the amount spent on political activity. So I wanted to clarify the provision in this bill. But our conclusion on the amendment of Senator Nickles is really the same. It is best to leave this determination of the rights of nonunion members, and the meaning and fleshing out of the Beck decision relative to those rights, to the courts and to the NLRB. It doesn't belong on this bill. So we reach the same conclusion. We don't have the same analysis of the wording of the bill and the meaning and the completeness of it or the accuracy of it, obviously. We have differences on that. But the conclusion is the same. The intent of the bill was to incorporate Beck, but, I think we will be better served if in fact the bill, then, is silent on this subject and we leave it up to the NLRB and the courts to make that determination, as to the meaning and implementation steps for Beck.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Just add the words ``directly or indirectly.''

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment is indeed onerous, cumbersome, and confusing. It not only chills first amendment association rights, it makes a mockery of those rights. I want to use a few of the words from the amendment, words that were left out by my good friend from Utah who, by the way, is celebrating his birthday today. I think we all want to congratulate him. I heard it on the radio today. Senator Hatch, I won't disclose the age--except to say it is a few months older than I--and I would like to wish happy birthday to our good friend from Utah. Let me take one example of the confusing words in this amendment which make it impossible, it seems to me, to be implemented: An expenditure which directly or indirectly--directly or indirectly--is made for an internal communication that relates to a political cause. I cannot imagine how any corporation or union could conceivably keep track of the direct or indirect expenditure that relates to an internal communication that relates to a political cause. ``Political cause'' is not defined, by the way. We have the words ``political activity'' defined in ways which, for the most part, only apply to unions and not to corporations. But that is a different problem. That is the problem of the paper parity--an amendment which appears to apply to corporations. If it did, it would be totally impossible for a corporation to comply with, as our good friend from Connecticut just said. But it is really aimed at labor unions because the activities which are identified are mainly the political activities in which unions engage. But the point is, these words are so extraordinarily vague. Imagine a union at every level trying to keep track of the indirect costs of an internal communication that relates to a political cause--whatever all of that means. This is a burdensome and onerous requirement. I think it is confusing, and it is cumbersome. Again, it is devastating to a right which all of us--Democrats and Republicans--ought to protect, which is the right of free association. I close by reminding our colleagues that this applies to members of labor unions who join that union, and not to nonmembers. This is intended to control the rights of voluntary association and its members. This is an intrusion, and a heavy interference in the rights of association. It places impossible burdens on an association to keep track of every single expenditure and every internal communication that could indirectly--I am using the words of the amendment--relate to a political cause. None of those words are defined. It is an onerous interference with the first amendment right of association.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend and thank our friends from Oregon and Maine for their amendment. The bill before us is aimed at trying to close a soft money loophole, which has fueled the kind of negative TV ads which do not do justice to our democracy. The unlimited contributions which have come into campaigns, directly and indirectly, have been one of the major sources for the horrendous amount of negative attack ads which are inflicted upon our constituents in most of these elections. The McCain-Feingold bill is trying to do something about closing that soft money loophole. If we are going to restore credibility to the electoral process, it is vitally important we close that soft money loophole. Hopefully, we will. Part of the answer, ultimately, is that we require candidates for office who take out ads, if they want the lowest unit rate which is provided for in this McCain-Feingold legislation, if they want to take advantage of that benefit which is conferred, that guarantee that is in the McCain-Feingold bill--they at least put their name and their face at the end of the ad they are funding. To ask a candidate to do so is pretty fundamental for a benefit which is being conferred. This is a very modest amendment. It is a very carefully crafted amendment. It is not aimed at intruding on the message that is in that commercial. It doesn't create a problem in terms of the message. It doesn't seek to control that message. It says, if you want that lowest rate provided for in this law that we are guaranteeing to you, then you must put your name and your face at the end of this ad for a few seconds so the people know who is paying for this ad; so that you can't have some name of some citizens group put at the end of the ad which masks or disguises who is paying for this ad. It is a very reasonable kind of requirement in exchange for that lowest unit rate. I commend the sponsors of this amendment for the amendment. I want to say one other thing. I only wish it were possible to extend this to the ads that are put on by outside groups--it is not possible constitutionally. I don't think we are able to do that. I wish we could because so many of the ads that are on television these days are not paid for by candidates but are paid for with soft money, and are paid for by outside groups in the form of so-called issue ads, which more often than not, about 98 percent of the time, indeed, are not issue ads at all but are ads that are clearly aimed at electing candidates and giving advantages to candidates or attacking candidates. This will do some significant good, in my judgment, because it at least gets to the ads that are paid for by a candidate, or a candidate's committee. My only regret is--and I can't figure out a constitutional way yet-- we do not apply this same logic to the ads which are funded by outside groups that are intended to help candidates get elected or to defeat other candidates. But, again, we should be grateful for the good that can be accomplished while we seek to find ways to accomplish the same result relative to the so-called issue ads of the outside groups. So I commend my good friends from Oregon and Maine and the other cosponsors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator from Connecticut has any time

Mr. LEVIN. Are we waiting for another speaker?

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

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Connecticut. Mr. President, this amendment is written as though it would apply to both corporations and unions. The words on the piece of paper we have just been handed say ``any corporation or any labor union.'' When somebody first looked at it, they would say: Aha, this applies to both. In the real world, it doesn't. In the real world, the only entities to which it applies are unions and not corporations. The activities which are covered here are really for, first, voter registration activity. I don't know of too many corporations that engage in that. I would love to know from the sponsors of this amendment what percentage of corporations engage in voter registration activity. That is the first thing it covers, something which unions do and corporations don't. But we are told there is parity in this amendment. The second thing we are told it covers is voter identification or get-out-the-vote activity. I don't know of too many corporations that engage in voter identification or get-out-the-vote activity. I would be really interested to hear from the sponsors of this amendment as to what percentage do because I don't know of many. In fact, I don't know of any offhand. So while it purports to be equal in its application, while it purports to have parity to both unions and corporations, it is purely paper parity, it is not real world parity. It is the appearance of parity without the reality of parity--paper parity. The third item is public communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate. I am not sure what that means, because if it were a public communication that expressly advocated support for or opposition to, it would then be an expenditure which would have to be paid for in hard dollars. I am not sure even what the relevance of that is in this particular place. The same thing with disbursements for television or radio broadcast time. The heart of this amendment is to go after union activity and to place requirements on unions that are so onerous that they will not be able to meet them. To require affirmative approval of certain activities in a voluntary organization and association which has voted to engage in certain activities in which free people engage is set aside here. Instead, under this amendment, we have a free association of people, because no one can be required to be a member of a union, not in this country. Nobody can be required to be a member of a union. So you have an association of free men and women who have decided that they want to engage in certain political activity, but we are told in this amendment that they have to go through certain hoops and they have to jump across certain hurdles before they are allowed to do so. We are told that there is parity here. Stockholders are also covered by this, we are told. Yet we haven't heard, despite the many suggestions and questions asked about this, of any corporations that engage in this activity that would be required to obtain stockholder approval before using corporate funds to do so. If this were a serious amendment aimed at parity, if this were truly a real-world parity amendment, it would not be written in the way it is relative to corporations. Saying that you would have to get the approval of stockholders, for instance, without saying which class of stockholders--common stock, preferred stock--what day are we getting the approval of stockholders on, was it yesterday before a billion shares of stock were sold on the New York Stock Exchange, is it today, when another billion shares of stock are going to be sold on the New York Stock Exchange, This is not a moving target which would be presented to a corporation. It would be a moving bullet which would have to be somehow or other captured so these requirements could be met. But they are not real requirements because corporations don't engage in the activity purportedly being covered by this amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to try to restrict legitimate political activity of an association of men and women in a labor union. The disguise is pretty thin. The disguise is, look, we have heard a lot about covering corporations, so we are doing it. But this isn't the activity that the corporations engage in which is set forth in this amendment. This is the activity in which labor unions engage--voter registration activity, voter identification, or get-out-the-vote activity. So the disguise is pretty thin. The parity is paper parity only. This amendment, it seems to me, should be seen for what it is--a way to attempt to reduce the political activity of labor unions. There was a case called Machinists v. Street in the Supreme Court back in 1961. The Supreme Court expressed concern with encroachment on the legitimate activities and necessary functions of unions. They made it very clear in that case that it is up to the members of the union to decide in what activities they would engage, and that dissent is not presumed, in the words of the Supreme Court. This amendment reverses that right of association where members of an association are presumed to support, by the election of their officers and adoption of their bylaws, the program of that association. It reverses the Supreme Court's assumption and presumes dissent, requiring affirmative approval of members of a free association. This is what the Supreme Court said: Any remedies, however, would properly be granted only to employees who have made known to the union officials that they do not desire their funds to be used for political causes to which they object. The safeguards in the law were added for the protection of dissenters' interests, but dissent is not to be presumed. This amendment, by requiring that unions go through very complicated, cumbersome procedures in order to obtain affirmative approval of members of that free association, is intended to put a damper on union political activity, and it is very clear what this purpose is. Finally, let me just say this: This is not an amendment, it seems to me, which belongs in this bill or is really appropriate in this bill. This is an amendment that is aimed at labor unions, separate and apart from any bill that we have before us relative to money going into campaigns. This is not an amendment that is aimed at the appearance of corruption, which we have been told, under Buckley, can be addressed by trying to put some limits on contributions to campaigns. That is what the Buckley case says we can do. In order to avoid the appearance of corruption, the appearance of impropriety, we can put contribution limits on contributions, we can restrict contributions because of what can be implied, and is too often implied, by large contributions going into these campaigns. We have not been shown the corruption that this amendment intends to remedy. What this amendment intends to do is to restrict the rights of association of members of a union--people who voluntarily decide they are going to either be in a union, remain in a union, or join a union; people who are not required to stay in a union by law; people who are not required to join a union by law because no law can require that in this country. Yet it is the restriction of that association, the right of men and women in a free country to associate freely and to decide on a regime of political activity that is being restricted by this amendment--with no showing of an appearance of corruption, restriction on the rights of association. That is what this amendment reflects. That cannot just be disguised or covered up by saying, oh, look, it applies to corporations, too, when in fact the corporations do not engage in the activity being discussed here. And, in fact, if this seriously were aimed at corporations, it would be so totally unworkable that it would fall of its own weight. No corporation I know of could possibly comply with these rules, even if it wanted to engage in get- out-the-vote activity or voter registration. There would be no practical way it could comply with this. The effort to modify this amendment was a reflection of the total inability of a corporation to function under this kind of a rule. But it doesn't cure the problem because, again, we are not told: When is this decision made? What day are the stockholders going to be counted? Do they have to be asked on a certain day as to whether or not they approve a get-out-the-vote campaign or a voter registration campaign? The next day you may have hundreds of thousands, perhaps in a large corporation, of different stockholders. What classes of stock are covered? There is nothing about that--and for good reason. That is not the purpose of the amendment. The purpose of this amendment, I am afraid, is a purpose in which we as a body should not participate. The purpose of this amendment is to restrict the political activities of a free association. We should not do that, whether we like the association or don't like the association. We should not do that whether the association is supportive generally of our party or opposes generally our party. The principle here, the principle involved, is the right of association under the first amendment. It cannot be restricted by law. It should not be restricted by this body. We should not attempt to place these kinds of restrictions on the associative rights of American citizens. Finally, under a NAACP case in 1963, I will close with this quote. The first amendment is what is being discussed in that case, and this is what the Supreme Court held: Because first amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive, government may regulate in the area only with narrow specificity. I know we are going to have a debate over whether or not the bill before us meets the first amendment test. Those of us who very much support McCain-Feingold feel passionately that it does, that it is narrowly crafted to allow for regulation, to address the appearance of impropriety and corruption. But there is no way that the amendment before us, which has an effect only on the free association of labor unions, can possibly meet this test with no showing of an appearance of corruption, no showing of an appearance of impropriety, and severe practical limits on the rights of association in trade unions. And I believe this language should not only be defeated by this body, but, hopefully, will be rejected on a bipartisan basis because it would cut into the rights that I believe all of us should want very much to protect. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New Jersey, and the managers of the bill who I understand are supporting the amendment. I think it takes an important step towards reducing the money chase and leveling the playing field. First, the money chase will be reduced somewhat because so much of the money which has been raised goes into television. The more reasonable these ads are and the closer they come to the lowest rate, which is supposed to be provided for anyway under existing law, the less demand there will be for money in order to get a minimum message on television. I think it does some real good in terms of reducing the case for huge amounts of money for campaigns. Second, it attempts to level the playing field a bit because the less funded candidates will have a greater opportunity, as the television rates are less, to have at least a minimum message on television that they are able to fund. I think leveling the playing field is also something we are trying to do in the legislation before us. The existing law and spirit of the law provide that the lowest unit charge of the station is supposed to be provided in the 60 days preceding the date of the general election and 45 days preceding the primary. This amendment just carries out what is clearly the spirit, purpose, and intent of the existing law, and again I commend the Senator from New Jersey for bringing this forward and for those who have indicated their support for it, including, I understand, both Senators McCain and Feingold.

Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate the usual courtesy of my good friend from Kentucky. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 2 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. If I could continue, this is just an effort being made to try to say: Oh, you guys over there who are trying to ban soft money, you are not being perfectly consistent because, look, you allow the establishment, administration, and solicitation of contributions to a PAC to be paid for out of treasury dollars. You are not being totally consistent. The answer to that is, wait a minute, the law of 1974 also says that communications by a corporation to its stockholders and executive administrative personnel and their families or by a labor organization to its members and their families on any subject, that is not subject either.

Mr. LEVIN. The appearance of impropriety, the appearance of corruption, which is the only basis on which we can act as a justification for limiting contributions of a large size to candidates, that justification does not exist here with corporate or union treasury money being spent to administer a PAC. I urge that we either table this amendment or defeat this amendment. I am sorry my friend from Kentucky did not have a chance to ask me the additional question. I would be happy to try to answer it, if our good friend from Connecticut wants to yield the time.

Mr. LEVIN. I will in a couple of moments. Here we have a cure looking for a problem. There has been no problem on this. There is no practical way to keep track of these expenses, no practical way to do this. A corporation sends out a newsletter to its stockholders or to its executives saying: Which of the candidates out there should our PAC contribute to? Now someone has to sit and figure out: What is the cost of printing that newsletter; what page is that notice on; is that on page 1 where it has the biggest impact or on page 4 of the newsletter; what part of the postage of that newsletter goes to that issue; how much of the time of the secretary who took the minutes of that meeting where we discussed that issue can be attributed to that request. You have a bookkeeping nightmare that you are creating for no problem. There is no problem, that I know of, that has been shown over these almost 30 years. Yet in order to try to show some kind of a flaw, looking desperately for a flaw in the ban on soft money, the proponents of this amendment say: Aha, you are not being consistent. Well, we are being consistent because in the case of banning soft money, there is a disease that needs a cure--unlimited contributions to political campaigns that are being accomplished through soft money. The Supreme Court said: We can prohibit that constitutionally. That is what the Supreme Court has said. I don't know of any evidence that this particular provision in law, which has been in place for 26 years now, has created a problem. I say to my good friend from Utah, this amendment is not needed. It has not been shown to address a problem in the law. It will create a bookkeeping nightmare to try to in any way comply. It will put people into an illegal netherworld for no good reason that has been demonstrated.

Mr. LEVIN. That is exactly the point of the Bennett amendment: to repeal a law which has been in place since 1974 and has created no harm. Sometimes we say around here that the cure is worse than the disease. This is a cure looking for a disease. There is no disease here that has been shown.

Mr. LEVIN. If I could finish my remarks.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I very much oppose this amendment. The Supreme Court has told us over and over again that the standard for contribution limits that is constitutional is the appearance of corruption, the appearance of impropriety, and the appearance of undue influence, that large contributions or the solicitation of large contributions can create. There is no such appearance problem with these expenditures. In fact, the expenditures which the Senator from Utah would require to be paid for out of hard dollars has explicitly been excluded from that requirement by law since 1974. So since 1974, the statute under which we have all operated has excluded: . . . the establishment, administration, and solicitation of contributions to a separate segregated fund to be utilized for political purposes by a corporation, labor organization, membership organization, cooperative, or corporation without capital stock. The administrative expenses, the establishment expenses, and the solicitation of contributions to a PAC have not been considered to be limited by the hard money restrictions of law since 1974.