Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I would concede the point. But I would simply say that what this does is prohibit the challenger or the Member of Congress from being involved in this. I think it is a heavy restriction, but I think it is the right restriction, and I think if we can go to this kind of a standard, it is going to look better to the American people and, frankly, it is going to drive a lot of money out of politics and clean up our day by making us spend time lawmaking instead of fundraising. And at the end of the day, if somebody wants to spend their own money, they are going to have to comply with the law or the amendment we just passed, and it will equalize it somewhat.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. There is no question but that this amendment will do more to drive money out of politics than anything that has been proposed yet. There is no question about that. But we have just passed an amendment that doesn't give a perfect playing field to the challenger against the multimillionaire, but it gives them a better playing field than we have had before.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I don't believe so. It doesn't prohibit them. It regulates them in terms of time and place.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. That is correct, during a legislative session. When we gavel the session in, you can't do it until you gavel sine die. If the world of special interests wants to evaluate what they think of your performance and help you in your election, fine. We are segregating the function of lawmaking and moneymaking. I think that goes a long way to fixing what you think and feel, rightfully, is broken in this country.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. That is correct.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I am happy to work with the Senator on an amendment to this amendment. I am not locked down. It is offered in the spirit of my experience as an Oregonian. I believe Wisconsin and Arizona have similar laws. It works. It will be more difficult for Congress, but it ought to be done in Congress.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Under that guide, that is correct. However, if you sent that person a solicitation in the mail asking for a maximum hard money contribution as a private citizen, they would be allowed to make that contribution. But what I am trying to do is stop us spending time, while we are lawmaking, down at the RSCC and the DSCC, spending hundreds, even thousands, of hours raising money.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I am open to discussing it with the Senators.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank Senator Dodd. I know this is not easy. I know Congress meets for a long time. I know State legislatures are different just in terms of time. In every other respect, this law is as valid here as it is other places, in my view. If we are worried about appearance, if we want to move soft money, if we want to move money out of politics, nothing will do that better than this amendment. Nothing will shorten congressional sessions more than this amendment. In my opinion, we ought to vote on it. We ought to pass it. I will pledge my best efforts to work with Senator McCain to get it in a shape that wins his support as well. It is consistent with the spirit of McCain-Feingold. I thank my colleague for the time.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the Senator also.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I am prepared to include the soft money ban to the regulation of the outside groups. And if we want to include this as well, I am comfortable with that.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I recommit to work with Senator McCain and Senator Feingold and see if we can narrow this down. We worked on this a long time. It is hard to do. We are intruding upon speech, there is no question about it. The question is whether this is a permissible time-and-place regulation and is there a legitimate State interest. Absolutely, because you are separating the fundraising from lawmaking. That not only will drive money out of politics, it will help us to focus more on lawmaking and less on fundraising. There is a time and a season for everything. That season is after we do our business. Everybody can have their say and make their contribution. You just can't do it when we are doing the people's business.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. This is referring to a registered lobbyist or those who employ them.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. If they employ them, they are covered by this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Yes.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I am aware of that, but I think what we are debating here is of so fundamental a nature to our liberty--that is, our speech; our most important speech being our political speech--that I have no doubt this would make it to the U.S. Supreme Court because this would fundamentally affect the future of our country.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I have so much confidence in its constitutionality based on its judicial history already, I would be happy to include it in a severability clause because I think everything we are doing here has a reasonable constitutional question. We ought to ask the Supreme Court to rule on it. This could be among them in terms of any nonseverability, as far as I am concerned.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. It does not.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I do understand that logic. I would be happy to include this in any nonseverability amendment that I would propose. As a practical matter, as the Senator knows--and I have said this to him and Senator Feingold--I have legitimate questions as to the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold. I am not a judge. We get really angry at judges who act as legislators. We are often acting as a bunch of judges. We have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution. It is their responsibility to interpret it. I don't know how all this will cut. My concern about the severability clause or a nonseverability clause, which I will be happy to include this in, is that we will leave our country worse off rather than better off if we say to the political parties: You can't have a role any longer in elections, but the folks who will go into the smoke-filled rooms, who are not disclosable to the American people or accountable to the American people, will then be the ones who have the power because they will run campaigns about candidates. Frankly, I have seen this happen with a campaign finance issue in Oregon. It was not pretty. It was an ugly situation because the citizen and the candidate were disenfranchised by it and were the victims, along with democracy in Oregon, because of a system that would empower those who are nondisclosable and unaccountable to the American people. They get all the power. That is my concern, Senator. That is why I have believed a nonseverability clause is important in order that we not leave our country worse off. With that, I am telling you and the whole world, I am prepared to vote for your bill, but I think that that is an essential ingredient, as I have told you privately. I really believe without it we will leave our country worse off based on the experience of my State of Oregon.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Absolutely.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Clearly, there will be, but ultimately the issue of constitutionality is for the Court across the street to decide. It does not prohibit them from making a contribution later. It just says there is a time to do it and there is a time not to do it. I think what disturbs all of us is the notion of holding a hearing on an industry in the morning and then going to their fundraiser in the evening. That is the nexus that is wrong. That is what, I agree with the Senator from Arizona, we ought to do away with. This works in my State. It works in your State also. Arizona is one of those States that has this restriction. It works. It smells better. It doesn't violate constitutional rights, but it does vest us with more of a process of integrity.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I respond to that by saying that this is not unlike other time-and-place regulation of speech issues. People come to this building all the time and would love to come in this Chamber and protest from the very seats above us. They are not allowed to. They are given a place to protest but not to disrupt the public's work. What I am saying is, this is a time-and-place regulation of speech. I admit that. I am saying it passes the smell test far better than our current system.