Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I will ask unanimous consent----

Mr. THOMPSON. I respond to my friend from New York by saying, yes, in fact I do see a distinction. Here we are dealing with political speech, which makes it even more sensitive. What my friend's amendment would do is cut back and restrict clearly constitutionally protected political speech. The Supreme Court has decided on numerous occasions that there are only certain limited ways and times you can restrict political speech, such as if you are engaging in express advocacy, which this has nothing to do with. So I think not only is Velazquez relevant and on point, the amendment before us is more egregious than the activity in Velazquez that was struck down by the Supreme Court.

Mr. THOMPSON. I have had an opportunity to read or have summarized the Feinstein amendment, and I thought we were just basically dealing with dollar limits. But as we get into it, it is breathtaking in its scope and, in my opinion, clearly unconstitutional. The Senator from Kentucky had it exactly right. Basically what the so-called Schumer provision would do--it is like the government losing a first amendment case and then conditioning a benefit upon not doing what the Supreme Court just decided he has a right to do. There is no way we can engage in that kind of activity. As we know, there are limits now on what a party can spend in coordination with its candidates. A lot of people think that will be overturned in Colorado and the Colorado 2 case. As I understand the Schumer amendment, if the Supreme Court strikes the coordinated expenditure limits of parties, then no broadcaster is required to give a party the lowest unit rate unless the national party certifies to the FEC that neither it nor the State committees where the television ad is run--that certifies they are adhering to what the Supreme Court just struck down. I have never seen anything quite like that before. It is clear in a long line of cases that we cannot require private citizens to restrict their speech in order to get certain benefits. It is easier when it is the government. This is not the government. These are private governmental entities, some right-to-life case, and so forth. These are not governmental entities. You cannot require private citizens to restrict their speech in order to get certain benefits. Velazquez v. Legal Services Corporation was decided just this year. I urge my colleagues to have someone take a look at that case and explain to me why the principles of that case don't clearly set out or establish that we just can't do this constitutionally. They held in that case that Congress can't condition legal services grants on a lawyer's inability to challenge the constitutionality of welfare reform. That is an unconstitutional restriction of the first amendment rights of that lawyer, even though it is government money and the government doesn't have to give them money to start with. Once you have a scheme like that, you cannot condition receiving that government benefit on an agreement to not exercise your free speech rights. In this case, we are putting into law something that requires them not to exercise a free speech that the Supreme Court had just decided they had a constitutional right to. This is clearly unconstitutional. I know I sound like a broken record. Some of these other things that we have been engaging in have similar problems, but I think this is the worst that I have seen. As I look at the limits, I second what the Senator from Kentucky said about party committees. I have been spending a lot of time trying to do something about soft money and the kind of money that gives the wrong kind of appearances with the hundreds of thousands of dollars that are flowing into these parties and soft money, corporate money, union money, coordinated money, and we are trying to do something about that. I still am. Hopefully, we can get rid of all of that. But we cannot emasculate the parties. Parties are not bad. Parties are weak enough as they are. The Feinstein amendment provides for $35,000 per cycle to the party committees. That is $17,500 a year when the limit today is $20,000. We are going backwards. That is $20,000 that was established in 1974, which adjusted for inflation, will be in the neighborhood of $60,000 or $70,000. Instead of recognizing that and making some inflationary adjustment in response to getting rid of soft money, which we are trying to do, we are going in the opposite direction and further clamping down on the parties.

Mr. THOMPSON. Let me say to my friend, I will yield for a question.

Mr. THOMPSON. I say to my friend, I do not view that argument very favorably because it flies in the face of Velazquez v. Legal Services Corporation. The people in Legal Services did not have to take that money either. They had the option to take that money or not, and the Supreme Court there said you can't require private citizens to restrict their speech in order to get those benefits.

Mr. THOMPSON. My understanding is that under ordinary rules, absent overall agreement, if the Feinstein motion to table does not carry, it would leave the Thompson amendment not tabled and the Feinstein amendment not tabled. Ordinarily, I would have the right to come in at that point with a motion or perfecting amendment. I am told because we are operating within the confines of an overall agreement, that right is no longer there. So we are operating on the basis of what is fair and what is expeditious. I don't want to complicate the issue in having more players, more and more players--as we are trying to refine this process and get a resolution, having more and more players involved. Obviously, everybody needs to be involved and would have to be in order for us to get a good resolution, but I don't want to bog it down more than necessary.

Mr. THOMPSON. I certainly want Senator McConnell and Senator Dodd to be a part of this process and a part of the discussions and negotiations, but I did not understand that we would necessarily have to have their concurrence in order for us to agree on a motion. I don't think it would be appropriate, frankly.

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. THOMPSON. I am informed we have 7\1/2\ minutes. I yield the remaining time to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. THOMPSON. If the Senator will yield, I understand the Senator has about 2 minutes left. Will the Senator yield about 30 seconds of that to me?

Mr. THOMPSON. I will save what little remaining time I have and defer to my colleagues on the other side who oppose the amendment.

Mr. THOMPSON. Does the Senator from New Jersey wish to speak?

Mr. THOMPSON. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. THOMPSON. I did not.

Mr. THOMPSON. I will yield back part of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON. Exactly, and the candidates a chance. Continue on with those full-page ads. Spend millions of dollars on those full-page ads slamming the candidate. That is free speech, that is America, but let the candidate have a fighting chance. Let him have some control over his own campaign. I am most disturbed to read in the newspaper that the leadership on the other side, with whom I have worked on these reform measures, is saying now that we can increase it this much, but if you go one centimeter over that, they are going to be against the whole McCain- Feingold bill. I ask how that considers those of us who have stood with McCain- Feingold, against those who say it will hurt their own party, through thick and thin over the years, to hear the other side now saying that if you go one centimeter over this level, which is still substantially below inflation, we are going to blow up the whole bill because it disadvantages our party. Are we back to trying to figure out which party is going to get a little advantage on the other party? Is that what this is all about? That is what we have been fighting against. That is not reform. The fact of the matter is, in all of these areas, we are in as much equilibrium from a party's standpoint as we are ever going to be. Raising these limits to a point that is far below what the writers in 1974 wanted certainly does not tinge on corruption. It does nothing to weaken McCain-Feingold. It strengthens McCain-Feingold. If you want a bill the Senate will pass, if you want a bill the House will pass, if you want a bill the President will sign, then you will assist in raising these hard money limits up to a decent point. We talk about a couple and treating a man and a wife as the same; the wife going to do exactly what the husband says, presumably. Raise those money limits. We are talking about $100,000. This is $100,000. Why not extend it over 4 years and say $200,000? You can get the theoretical limits up as high as you wish as long as no large amounts are going to individual candidates, as long as amounts are going to parties that under the law and under all of the learned speculation about what the law will be in terms of these cases that are pending, you are still not going to be able to coordinate between the donor and the candidate. You give to the party and the party can give to the candidate, but you cannot have that kind of coordination that was suggested on the floor. That is just not the law. Let us remember the purpose of this effort. This will strengthen this effort if we will raise these hard money limits. Give the candidates a fighting chance, give challengers a fighting chance, and not engage in some class warfare: Because not everybody can contribute $2,500 then nobody ought to be allowed to contribute $2,500, even though it skews our system and it will ultimately result in these independent groups totally taking over. We will be back in here with a strong effort to get rid of all limitations and total deregulation. That will be the result. We often say do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If that phrase ever applied, it applies today. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, as was stated, we are here to consider our amendment to modestly raise the hard money limits that can be contributed to candidates. We should keep our focus on what this whole reform debate is about; that is, the concern over large amounts of money going to one individual and the appearances that come about from that. What we are doing today is a part of helping that. It is not enough just to get rid of soft money and leave the hard money unrealistically low limitations where they are. Everything will go to the independent groups. We see how powerful they are now, and they are getting more and more so. Under the first amendment, they have the right to do that. It will be even more in the future when and if we do away with soft money. Therefore, we should not keep squeezing down the most legitimate, on top of the table, limited, full disclosed parts of our campaign system, which is the hard money system which is now at $1,000. It has not been indexed for inflation since 1974. All we are asking is that we come up to limits, not even bringing it up to inflation, which would turn the $1,000 limitation into about a $3,550 limitation. We are not suggesting that. We are saying let's go to $2,500, substantially below inflation and the other numbers commensurate with that. If those limits did not have corruption significance and appearance problems in 1974, they do not today because we are actually giving the candidate less purchasing power than we gave him in 1974, and the reason we are having to bump it up in the increments that we are is because we have not done anything for all of that time. I think the most salutary benefit of raising the hard money limits just a little bit and to the parties just a little--let the parties have some money to do the things they are supposed to do--no corporate money, no union money, no soft money, but hard money to the parties. Let them be raised, too, again below inflation. The effect of that would be to benefit challengers. I engaged in a little colloquy with my friend from New York as to how in the world somebody in New York, who wants to run as a challenger in New York, under the $1,000 limitation, or how in the world would a challenger in the State of California or the State of Texas or any other big State--or small State for that matter, but especially large States--get enough money to run as a challenger under these present-day limitations? They will not even try anymore, and we will continue to have a system made up of nothing but multimillionaires and professional politicians who have Rolodexes big enough to barely fit in the trunk of an automobile.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I simply remind my colleagues that we are here about $100,000 contributions, $200,000 contributions, and $500,000 contributions. That is what this debate is all about. There is a difference from that and raising the hard money limit from $1,000 and $2,000 or $500--whichever commentator says it--which is just and reasonable and substantially below inflation. This will help McCain- Feingold, not hurt it. I yield the rest of my time. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, as I understand it, we have to have the concurrence of the two managers of this bill before Senator Feinstein and I can set forth a modification or a perfection.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, do I control the time?

Mr. THOMPSON. I ask the Senator from Arizona if he wishes to be heard at this time.

Mr. THOMPSON. I suggest that we proceed to a vote.

Mr. THOMPSON. I am prepared to yield back our time.

Mr. THOMPSON. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the Thompson amendment regarding hard money tomorrow morning. There will be up to 30 minutes of debate prior to a vote at 9:45 a.m. Following the vote, further amendments will be offered. Votes will occur throughout the day and into the evening, with the intention of completing action on the bill by Thursday evening. Those Members who have amendments remaining should work with the bill managers as soon as possible on a time to offer their amendments.