Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. You don't know how much was spent or who spent it?

Mr. TORRICELLI. That route will be blocked. Instead, the environment we create would be this. Is the Senator from Wisconsin, with his familiarity with American politics and American fundraising, generally of the belief that people who are now contributing $100,000 or $250,000 contributions, because they are advocating some perspective in American politics, when you pass this law, you are going to sit at home and say: You know, I guess I'm just not going to be heard; I'm going to remove myself from the process because that's the right thing to do? I think the Senator from Wisconsin must at least be suspicious that that money, that same check, is going to work itself into Americans for Tax Justice or one of these other 70 organizations that are engaged in this political advertising. It may not happen, as the Senator has appropriately written the bill, that a Member of Congress or a political party leader calls one of these contributors and says: Send your check to so-and-so. But certainly the Senator is aware it will not be very hard for political leaders to divert this money by a wink or a nod or some smile in the right direction, and we are going to end up, instead, having these surrogate organizations running these campaigns.

Mr. TORRICELLI. There would be no reason to do so. They are no longer raising soft money, so why would they need to transfer?

Mr. TORRICELLI. I am aware of it. And I believe it will be proven to be entirely ineffective.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Reclaiming my time, I do not doubt there are some people who will not participate in doing so. But in what is a rising tide of soft money contributions in the country, they will be overwhelmed by people who will because it is not illegal. It will not be illegal. It will be fundamentally clear which of these affiliated organizations each political party supports and favors. It certainly is not going to be lost upon many donors that the Democratic Party looks favorably upon the Sierra Club or NARAL. I doubt that any major Republican contributor is not going to understand that Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Justice, or term limits, or the antiabortion groups, or term limits are favored by the RNC. No one is going to have to send out a letter or make a speech. Everybody is going to know where everybody stands. The same money just gets redirected, but not equally as bad as the party contributions-- worse, no accountability; you will never know who they are. And the ads, I believe, become less and less responsible.

Mr. TORRICELLI. That is the scenario I predict.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Nor, by the way, if I may continue, is this a theoretical problem. I do not cast aspersions, but entirely legally in the 1996 cycle, when the restrictions were out on the coordination of issue advertising, Senator D'Amato set up a separate division and did issue advertising. It is entirely appropriate, entirely appropriate. This August, Grover Norquist had $4.5 million worth of advertising for his Americans for Tax Justice. In some of those advertisements, they used the same film footage as Republican candidates were using--on the same issues. That technically is not advisable, but it is happening. We have some responsibility here in the Senate to deal with the reality of how this process is going to evolve.

Mr. TORRICELLI. It covers all of those. I do not see that because they are dealing with an issue, they are not otherwise intending to influence an election.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Senator Bennett raises a very worthwhile point. Indeed, as Senator McConnell has noted in a number of cases, this is all an interesting debate. There are various sides trying to do good things, but the last word is in the Supreme Court, and, indeed, whether or not the Supreme Court will allow us to ban issue advocacy through soft money contributions to advocacy groups or even the political parties remains a question. If the Senator's point is correct, we could end up in the same place with, I will concede to you, the current McCain-Feingold if the Court were to do so. Senator McConnell has also pointed out it is a question of whether the Court will allow us to maintain the current limits on campaign fundraising in any case. Senators who vote on this should be aware that the Court, before we are concluded, will change probably much of what we are writing.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I think it is difficult to know how the Supreme Court is going to deal with all of this. But certainly, if you get outside the 60 days and you are attempting to bring people under FEC regulations for issue advocacy outside of the 60 days, your case will clearly be weakened.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I am happy to.

Mr. TORRICELLI. We may not be on the same side of the debate for comprehensive reform, but I think our dialog can help Senators understand the world in which we are entering, because if we, indeed, reject Shays-Meehan and only go to this narrow reform, that single adjustment is going to change the American political debate as we know it. The Senator has raised some of the means by which it will change. I will predict for the Senator the new environment in which we are going to live: The Democratic and Republican Parties that now receive great amounts of this soft money with a wink and a nod are simply going to direct it to favorite organizations. Instead of soft money contributions coming to the Republican National Committee, for example, people who are interested in a particular issue are going to give it to an advocacy group. You will never know who they are. The contribution will never be known, but the money will be redirected, and rather than leaders of the party deciding how to present the issue, those groups will do so. Second, I predict to you the Democratic and Republican Parties will establish their own independent wings, much like legally what Senator D'Amato did with the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. Down the hall, they put a new sign on the door, new incorporators, a new name, took money, and did issue advocacy. As long as you do that fully at arm's length, it is fine to do. But the same soft money you think you are banning in the parties will now go to these independent groups or affiliated groups. Unless this is done comprehensively, you are only going to have money flow in through different windows. What bothers me the most is that the people who are most honest about the process and most committed to stopping this abuse will suffer while those who are prepared to do the winks and nods, establishing the other organizations, working on some affiliated arm's-length basis will succeed. In any case, we are not going to stop this money; we are going to redirect it. The only way to stop it, in my judgment, is comprehensive reform.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I don't dispute that, although, indeed, if we were really doing comprehensive reform, which seems to be lost in the Senate, frankly, I would be going to that question on disclosability and tax deductibility and people remaining in tax-free status to do so. That would be comprehensive reform. But for the purpose of the argument, I will concede the point.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Reclaiming my time, I can deal with it. I remind the Senator, I am yielding the time. It can be dealt with. I am telling you about our legislation. In the original McCain-Feingold bill now passed by the House of Representatives, we are dealing with soft money in this 60-day period.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I would.

Mr. TORRICELLI. It is the central point. The proper system is the full disclosures we have for the Democratic and Republican Parties; limit those political parties just to these hard money contributions within the law, but extend that to all Americans who participate in the national political debate. The fact that my colleague, as a Senator, has accounted for every dollar he has raised, and he did so within limits, but these major groups enter his State either on his behalf or against his candidacy, yet my colleague doesn't know who they are or where their money is coming from and to whom they are accountable, is the heart of the problem.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I point out to the Senator from Nevada, this is not simply a problem with our adversaries; sometimes it is a problem with our allies. When I go to the people of New Jersey, I want to present to them who I am and what I want to do, what my record is as a Senator. Groups whose support I am very proud of--AFL-CIO, National Abortion Rights League, Sierra Club, environmental groups--I am proud to have their support, but I don't want them presenting my campaign. Under the system that would be in place if Shays-Meehan were rejected, the political parties would be further restricted from advertising. I think they should be restricted with soft money. But if these advocacy groups were to take over, they would hijack your campaign; they would tell the people of your State what you were for and what you were against. It is not only your adversaries who will be out there presenting a campaign against you with these enormous amounts of money, it is even your allies who are not so restricted.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, every Senator who has taken the floor has given the appropriate compliments to Senator Feingold and Senator McCain. I will be no exception. Congress has been considering campaign finance reform for more than a decade. There have been, by my estimation, 3,000 speeches made on the floor of the Senate for campaign finance reform, some 6,500 pages of Congressional Record, 300 pieces of legislation. Indeed, we would not be at this moment without Senator Feingold or Senator McCain. They deserve that credit. I found their arguments in recent years so persuasive that I am today joining Senator Daschle in presenting their own legislation. The original McCain-Feingold bill, which found its way to the House of Representatives, is before the Senate now as the Shays-Meehan legislation. Similar in content and purpose, it is comprehensive campaign finance reform. Regarding advocacy of that reform, I take a second place to no Member in my years in the Congress. I have never voted against campaign finance reform, and I never will. I believe the integrity of this system of government and the confidence of the American people is at issue. It is not by chance that only a third of the American people are participating in some elections. Even in the choice of the Presidency of the United States, with those not registered and those not choosing to vote in many of our localities and States, half of the American people are not participating. It is not that they do not recognize the choice is important. I do not believe they have a lack of confidence in our country. They do not respect the process because they believe they do not have an equal position, and it is money that is the heart of that problem. When we entered into this new phase of campaign finance reform 2 years ago, along with most Members of this institution, I had great ambitions for how far we could go with reform. Indeed, in private conversation, almost every Member of this Senate knows the fundamentals of comprehensive reform. We started with such ambition. We were going to subject all independent advocacy groups in issue advertising to the rules of the FEC. We were going to require full and immediate disclosure by all contributors. We were going to ban soft money to the political parties. We were going to prohibit foreign interests. We were going to reduce the cost of television time. We even discussed the subsidies of mail to inform voters. One by one almost every one of these reforms has been eliminated from the legislation. Political cultures in all of our States are different. In my State, in Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas, and California, I don't believe real campaign finance reform is possible without reducing the cost of television advertising. There is a reason for the spiraling rise of campaign spending; it is the cost of television advertising. In each of the large metropolitan areas, 90 percent of the money goes to feed the television networks. That was the first reform to be eliminated. Then there was the advocacy of subsidized mail. It went the way of public finance--one by one by one. Yet, because the need for reform is so overwhelming and the public confidence is so much in question, I joined in the last Congress with Senator McCain and Senator Feingold and reluctantly supported their legislation. Although I believe these critical provisions for the reduced cost of television advertising were essential for reform in my area of the country, I joined in support of the McCain-Feingold. That was to be followed by the House of Representatives which reached the same judgment in a historic vote for Shays-Meehan. That brings the Senate to this moment. In a frustration I share with other advocates of campaign finance reform, the mantra of the day has become: Do something, do anything. Pass some legislation. Call it reform. Let's put the problem behind us. If only it were so easy. The new legislation presented by Senators McCain and Feingold has a single objective: to eliminate soft money fundraising from Democratic and Republican Parties. It is a worthwhile objective, but it does raise the prospect that if passed it will eliminate the chance to have any further campaign finance reform. If history is any guide, every decade we get one chance to redesign this system. We are largely still governed by the Watergate reforms of 1974. Through a series of court rulings and FEC decisions, they clearly are no longer producing a system that was once envisioned. If we institute but this single change, we will not create a new system of our design but, in my judgment, be governed by the law of unintended consequences. Let's look for a moment at this new national campaign system. If Senator Daschle and I fail and the House of Representatives legislation in Shays-Meehan is rejected and instead we adopt this very narrow reform as envisioned by Senators McCain and Feingold, we eliminate soft money fundraising by the political parties, but it is maintained for issue advocacy and independent expenditures. The principal rise in campaign advertising in recent years is not the political parties; it is this independent advocacy expenditure. This chart tells the story. In 1998, the Democratic and Republican Parties spent $64 million in issue advocacy spending; nonparty advocacy groups spent $276 million, rising at a rate of 300 percent cycle to cycle. In my hand I have the list of 70 advocacy groups. It begins alphabetically with the AFL-CIO and ends with the Vietnam Veterans. In between are many organizations I support and believe have a worthwhile contribution to the national political debate; some I note I do not believe have great contributions to the political debate. But they are all heard--in the last election cycle, $276 million worth of advocacy. The legislation before the Senate by Senators Feingold and McCain does nothing about the expenditures, nothing. Nothing. Many exist as nonprofit tax-free organizations under the IRS Code. From whom they raise money is unknown. As to the sources of their contributions, no one in this Senate could attest. They often exist before the public eye as names that misrepresent their purpose and are designed to shield their objectives. They are not just a part of the national political advertising debate; they are coming to dominate it. What is this new campaign finance world that will be produced if Senator Daschle and I fail and the House of Representatives Shays- Meehan legislation is rejected? A national political debate that is fought by surrogates. The Democratic and Republican Parties will be within FEC rules, raising money only at $1,000 per person, $50 a person, $100 a person--a good system, where every name will be known, limits will be imposed to reasonable amounts. But over our heads will be a far larger contest fought by the AFL-CIO, with millions more dollars of expenditures, the Christian Coalition, anti-abortion groups, chemical companies, automobile companies, steel companies, that will spend millions, indeed, if history now is any guide, hundreds of millions of dollars of advocacy.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Let me say to the Senator from Nevada, that is not atypical. Health care in this country has been undermined by advocacy of insurance companies whose principal interest is not the delivery of quality health care to people who are currently uninsured, but they stand behind these blind advertising campaigns where no one knows where the money comes from. Just as in the campaign of my colleague from Nevada, we have polluters who are running ads on environmental protection; we have people on consumer safety who are representing groups that are damaging to individual consumers. That is because none of these groups is disclosable and none is accountable. In the current system, bad as it is, while these groups can run these advertising campaigns, the political parties are also raising soft money and there is a chance to answer them. Now the political parties will no longer be able to raise these funds, but these advocacy groups will continue in an upward spiral of spending. Senator Daschle's point is, let's eliminate this gross fundraising and these soft money expenditures across the board within 60 days of an election by putting everybody under the FEC rules. Senator McCain has said, ``But that will not pass.'' It may not. But it passed in the House of Representatives, and 60 Republicans came to join with the Democratic majority in passing it. We are not 20 or 30 or 40 votes from passing it in the Senate, we are 7 or 8. I would come back here every week of every month of every year until we restored the integrity of this Government and got comprehensive campaign finance reform. But the answer is not to lower our ambitions for campaign finance reform, to have a new, distorted system to make American politics fought by surrogates over the heads of candidates. The answer is to remain committed to this reform, reveal to the American people who is voting against it, who is stopping it, and let the American people decide.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Nevada. I note the problems of which I speak are not theoretical. Groups are already adjusting to the possibility that there will be a soft money ban in the political parties but no Shays-Meehan reform. They therefore are adjusting to this new reality. Let me give an example. Congressman DeLay has now formed a group, Citizens For A Republican Congress. He has gone to the wealthiest donors in the Nation, promising them a safe haven for anonymous and limitless contributions to the 2000 elections. He is reportedly planning on spending $25 to $30 million in 30 competitive House races in soft money. So Congressman DeLay will now, if this happens in the Democratic and Republican Parties, personally be directing a larger advertising campaign than the Democratic or Republican Parties in either House of Congress. The former advisers to Congressman DeLay are also forming a Republican issues majority committee, which is planning on spending $25 million. Already in a previous cycle, in the 1996 cycle, Americans for Tax Reform received $4.6 million from the Republican National Committee that they were able to spend on issue advocacy. United Seniors Association spent $3 million in direct mail in seven States in the 1996 election. They are an IRS tax-exempt 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. U.S. Term Limits, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charitable organization, spent $1.8 million in 1996; Americans for Limited Terms, $1.8 million in seven States; American Renewal, $400,000, a 501(c)(3). These are charitable organizations. The Tax Code has these provisions for people who want to help churches, synagogues, and Americans who are hurt and damaged, and to help build communities. They are being used as a cover for political advertising and no longer simply a force on the fringes of American politics. Look at the chart I have on my left: 1998 elections. Nonparty advocacy groups are two-thirds of all the issue ads in U.S. politics. The political parties, Democratic and Republican Parties, are one- third. If the sum total of the legislation offered by Mr. McCain and Mr. Feingold is that we will largely eliminate this third, when a Senator stands here a year from now going over this same problem, this entire pie chart will be advocacy groups, many of them tax-free organizations that are hiding who is contributing to them, who is running them, where their money is coming from, often using disguised names and running surrogate campaigns over the heads of political candidates.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I think I said it covers all.

Mr. TORRICELLI. The most sensitive period for American elections are those ads that are actually directly influencing elections.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I would, but Senator Bennett is standing. If we could go to him next.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I am aware of it, and if it was my design, I would have it apply to issue advocacy ads throughout the calendar so everyone is equal. To quote Senator McCain, making the perfect the enemy of the good, if it is your argument that because I cannot bring all issue advocacy under FEC hard money limits, therefore we should do none, that, I think, is to surrender the point and we will not make any progress.