Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I think the Senator from New York might agree that we should not automatically double whatever the head of the household might want to do politically. Let us get back within the realm of reason. Clearly, the real world being what it is, there is certainly a risk of some things going on in terms of parties helping individual candidates at the expense of other candidates. I do not think you can stop that. My point is that the areas about which we are talking are infinitesimal compared to the problem we are supposed to be addressing. We are concentrating on the tail of the elephant instead of the elephant or we are concentrating on the tail of the donkey instead of the donkey. We are talking about hard money, incremental increases that do not amount to very much in terms of the increase but are very significant in terms of their being hard dollars instead of soft because it is not union money, it is not corporate money, if they are hard dollars to start with. I think we can agree that would be progress. Again, yes, the world has changed. Perhaps people have gotten more clever. They have gotten attorneys general who will give them interpretations they like, and things of that nature, but when the people addressed this back in 1974, they were talking about much more buying power than we are talking about today. Again, my colleagues are assuming they have soft money. That is the situation in the bank, and now we are talking about the details. I suggest that what my amendment will do is strengthen McCain-Feingold and ultimately make it something that will be more likely to pass the Senate, more likely to pass the House, and more likely to be signed by the President of the United States. I am trying to help my friends, as I always have, with regard to this issue. We overlook what is going to happen if we do not make some progress in this hard money area. I am encouraged to hear my friend from Connecticut say he is willing to talk about it, and obviously I am, too, but I have been doing all the coming down and I have not seen much coming up. If we do not make some progress with regard to this area, we are going to create a situation where we have eliminated soft money, and we have impoverished the hard money side of the equation. Both parties have neglected the hard money side of the equation, the side that used to be predominant, by far, in terms of running these campaigns. We are going to eliminate soft money, have an impoverished hard money situation and have these independent groups continue doing what they have been doing more and more. People are going to react to that. That will not work. That will not work in my estimation. I want to get rid of soft money. I am tired of reading all these stories about the money pouring in and this vote on this major issue is going to go one way because the Democrats got this money and another way because the Republicans got that money. I am tired of all that. I am telling my friends, if we do that and nothing else, we are going to wind up with a disfigured system that is worse than what we have today, and we will be back on the floor and all regulations will be taken off. There is sentiment out there that I think will be energized under a few years of the system I just described, and we will be back here and people will be making credible arguments that we tried this, we tried that, candidates can no longer compete, and instead of having 98- percent reelection in the House, we will have 100 percent. They cannot get any higher than that. Challengers will not have a prayer, especially in the larger States. The independent groups will double, triple, and quadruple their buys in all of our States. Everybody will be running our campaigns except ourselves, and these are just the incumbents. The challengers will have no prayer at all. That, I say to my colleagues, will result in a reaction that none of us want, a reaction to take off absolutely all the limits. I say some of us--none of us on the reform side of this issue want. I had to stop and remind myself that some of my colleagues think that would be a jolly good idea, which makes my point, that we are not as far away from that possibility as we might think. In summary, I say to my friend from New York and to my other colleagues on this issue with whom I have worked side by side, it boils down to this: $5,000--let's say you double it to take care of the primary and the general election. Somebody can contribute $5,000. Mr. President, $5,000 is different than $100,000; $5,000 is different than $500,000; $5,000 is different in every way quantitatively and qualitatively from $1 million. That is what we ought to be concentrating on, but in order to get rid of those large dollars, we have to give a candidate an even chance of running so he is not totally dependent on that soft money and he is not even totally dependent on his party and having somebody in Washington dole out the checks and decide which one of the potential challengers has a chance and which one does not. Hopefully, at the end of this, we will have an opportunity to adopt this amendment and still be open for further discussion. I reiterate, this amendment strengthens the cause. This amendment strengthens the cause; it does not weaken the cause. The fact that someone cannot contribute to the limits we might raise, to that point I say there are plenty of people who cannot contribute to the $1,000 limit we have today. We have diminished their freedom when we raise it to $1,000, recognizing you have to have some money to run. If somebody can give $200, do we diminish their freedom? Are we causing their levels of cynicism to rise because we had a $1,000 limit? If we have a $2,500 limit, there will be some people who can give $1,000 or $500 or $700. Maybe not the full amount. The fact that you can give the full amount does nothing to my freedom or to my citizenship because I cannot at the present time give as much as you can. As long as we live in a free country and I can aspire to that, there is no legal impediment to me doing that. I do not think we do anything to empower those who cannot necessarily give to the maximum of whatever level we raise because they cannot do it now. We are getting off the focus. The focus ought to be on the issue of corruption, which cannot be the case. If so, our forbears in 1974 missed the mark, if we say corruption kicks in in these cases or the appearance of corruption. The other side of the equation, of course, is making it so people can run a decent campaign and get their message out and especially challengers. I cite, again, the independent study that was done by the Campaign Finance Institute affiliated with George Washington University. It says from a competition standpoint, upping the individual contribution limit helps nonincumbent Senate candidates while having little impact on the House. I can understand all the positions that my friends who oppose this amendment take with regard to it, but one might listen to that and think this is something outrageous we are proposing. I cite David Broder, I cite Stuart Taylor, I cite almost any commentator I have read on the subject. I think I am paraphrasing correctly. It was certainly reasonable to raise the limits to $2,000 or $3,000, and of course we are coming in the middle of that. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I simply say the issue has been joined. My position is my friend from New York is incorrect in terms of the law, his interpretation of the law in terms of a donor's legal right to coordinate or direct the direction of his contribution to a particular candidate. I do not think that is a correct interpretation of the law. For anyone concerned about that, perhaps the Senator from New York and I can get together and hash this out tonight or in the morning, but I did want to state that issue. We have a disagreement on that. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Utah be given 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I respond first by saying that, based on my recollection, I disagree with his analysis of the Colorado case. I do not believe the Colorado case would allow coordination. I believe coordination would run afoul--in the amounts we are talking about, would run afoul of the hard money limits. Coordination would deem it as a hard money contribution, and therefore that is not allowed. With regard to the issue of an individual contributing to a State party and having that earmarked for some particular candidate, again, I think you get into a coordination problem. I am somewhat amazed with this alchemy going on here. This piddling increase that does not even keep up with inflation has doubled, tripled, quadrupled, and now we are up into the stratosphere. A couple is automatically doubled. Are we assuming the husband is going to tell the wife what to do or is the wife going to tell the husband what to do? I am not prepared to assume that. I do not think my friend from New York is either.

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

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

Mr. THOMPSON. It is $600,000.

Mr. THOMPSON. That was 1993.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky.

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

Mr. THOMPSON. What does the Senator from Virginia need?

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. THOMPSON. No.

Mr. THOMPSON. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. THOMPSON. Does the Senator realize that the $50,000 he is concerned about now, which is doubling the $25,000, would be about $75,000 in 1974 terms? In other words, when our predecessors looked at this problem in 1974, they decided that for an individual limit for that year, it ought to be $75,000, roughly, in 2001 dollars. So actually by doubling it, we are not keeping up with inflation. In terms of real purchasing power, they were higher than we are today. Did they miss the boat that badly back when they addressed this?

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I will make a couple comments first. I thank my friend from Connecticut, who is eloquent, as usual, in his advocacy. Clearly, what we are trying to do is reach a balance where we have limits that are high enough for people to run decent campaigns, and allow challengers in large States such as California, Texas, and others to have a decent chance to get a campaign off the ground, so you don't have to be a multimillionaire or a professional politician in order to have a chance. That is what we are doing--trying to get it up enough so they have a fighting chance, while not getting so high that we have a danger of corruption, or appearance of corruption. I don't really detect that we are in that ballpark yet. There is some talk that increasing the aggregate individual limits from $25,000 to $50,000 is somehow outrageous. But I don't think that the ability to give several contributions, let's say, of $2,500 around the country s going to corrupt anybody. No one person is receiving all this money. No one person is receiving more than $2,500. So you don't have a corruption issue there. And why we are doing something on behalf of democracy by limiting the number of potential candidates out there who can get $2,500 kind of escapes me; plus the fact that in 1974, after the Watergate scandal, when everyone was rather sensitive, shall we say, about these issues and we addressed these issues, they came up with a $1,000 limitation, which would be $3,500 today. They came up with this $25,000, which--I am going to round it off 3 times--would be $75,000 today. My colleagues heard my reference to Senators of the past, Democratic Senators and Republican Senators, many of whom wanted to go higher than what we are talking about today. My colleague is correct that I have scaled mine down because I had the temerity and audacity to think there was a chance that we could index this to inflation and have basically actually a little less than inflation. But let's round it off and say basically we can have the same dollars they had in 1974, right after the scandal of the century, when people were most receptive and responsive to this. But I found that was not to be the case. I don't think that would have flown. Certainly, Senator Hagel's amendment today did not fly. So I came back and said: OK, let's move down from inflation, move down from 1974 dollars, go to $2,500. There is no corruption issue here. And these other limits, too, let's double some of them. We don't double all of them. But let's do something that will enhance McCain-Feingold, my friends. As you know, I have supported McCain-Feingold from the beginning through thick and thin. My colleagues talk as if McCain-Feingold has already passed and that the scourge of soft money has totally left us. That is not the case.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield an additional 5 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:15 a.m. on Wednesday, March 28. I further ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of the Thompson amendment to S. 27, the campaign finance reform bill.

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.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today Senator Lieberman and I are introducing a bill designed to clarify the existing criminal provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act and strengthen their enforcement. Sen. Lieberman, myself, and the members of the Government Affairs Committee spent a year investigating some of the worst campaign finance abuses in our nation's history. Despite a number of obstacles, witnesses fleeing the country, people pleading the fifth amendment, entities failing to comply with subpoenas, our Committee uncovered numerous activities that were not only improper but illegal. But although we were able to demonstrate to the American people exactly what went on in the 1996 election, I was disappointed in the failure of the Justice Department to use that information to aggressively investigate and prosecute those that violated the law. After four years of investigation the many, wide-ranging abuses, only one person connected with the presidential election, Yogesh Gandhi, will spend any time in jail. The question we have to ask ourselves is ``why?'' Unfortunately, the primary reason is that the Justice Department simply did not do its job. Leads were not pursued, subpoenas were not sought, suspects were ignored, agents were instructed not to ask questions about certain people, the law was misapplied, and no independent counsel was ever appointed to ensure a credible investigation. A hearing we held at the Governmental Affairs Committee provided just one example of how the Department ran its campaign finance probe. So impatient was the FBI with the Department's resistance to investigating Presidential friend and DNC fundraiser Charlie Trie that the Bureau's senior agent in Little Rock wrote an angry letter to FBI Director Freeh complaining about Department incompetence and stalling. The plea bargains that were entered into also raise concern. However, we have also learned that, the federal election law itself also makes prosecution of violators more difficult than it should be. The bill that we are introducing today would ensure in the future that conscientious prosecutors can more effectively pursue those who violate existing law. This bill accomplishes the following five goals: First, the bill makes knowing and willful violations of the Federal Elections Campaign Act, FECA, involving at least $25,000 in a year a felony. Currently, no violations of FECA are felonies. The law does not differentiate between the donor that accidentally writes a check in excess of the $1,000 limit and the fundraiser that launders $100,000 to a party or campaign. This bill will provide a deterrent and appropriate punishment for those who knowingly and willfully flaunt the campaign finance laws. Second, the bill will extend the statute of limitations from three to five years. Outside of the Internal Revenue Code, virtually every violation of federal law has a statute of limitations of at least five years. This provision brings FECA into conformity with the rest of the law. Third, the bill would require the Sentencing Commission to promulgate a guideline specifically for FECA violations. In addition, the bill provides specific factors for enhancement of sentences. Currently, without a specific guideline, judges are forced to turn to other guidelines, typically those intended to govern or set sentences for fraud. Unfortunately, because the donor makes the contribution with full knowledge of the scheme, the enhancement factors for fraud are basically useless. By providing judges with a specific election law sentencing guideline, they can impose appropriate sentences. Fourth, the bill prohibits foreign soft money contributions. Prior to the 1996 campaign, I think we all thought foreign soft money contributions were illegal. Thereafter, the Justice Department interpreted ``contribution'' as used in FECA to have two different meanings depending on how the contribution is used, raising the possibility that foreign soft money did not fall within the scope of FECA's prohibition on foreign ``contributions.'' Indeed, in two cases a Federal District Court Judge in D.C. ruled that foreign soft money was, in fact, legal. Subsequently, he was overruled by the Court of Appeals. However, in order to clarify the law, this bill was definitively prohibit foreign soft money contributions. Mr. President, last year the FEC wrote to Congress and asked for a clarification regarding the legality of foreign soft money. I believe we should provide that guidance. Finally, this bill would prohibit conduit soft money contributions. Under current law, it is illegal to give $500 of hard money in the name of another, but it is perfectly legal to give $500,000 of soft money in another person's name. This bill would close that loophole and provide what I think we all can support--more, full disclosure. Mr. President, I personally believe that we need to reform our campaign finance system. However, reform will mean nothing unless we do a much better job enforcing the law when it is violated. I believe this bill in the hands of prosecutors who are interested in enforcing the law will help ensure that in the future violators of the campaign finance laws will not walk away with a slap on the wrist. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Assuming for a moment that the Senator is correct--and he may be--is my colleague going in this direction? Knowing that we are going to have a severability vote a little bit later on, knowing that as of this moment we don't know how that vote is going to turn out, would it be wise or appropriate to put this amendment off until after that vote?

Mr. THOMPSON. Could it be severable at that level? When we are talking about severability, we are usually talking about provisions, or sections, and so forth. I don't have the answer to this. The Senator from Pennsylvania might have the answer to this. The answer may be yes. But I wonder whether or not within this very specific provision we could actually have a provision where that would be severed so that either/or language would come under the severability provision.