16816

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

campaigns, to limit contributions by multicandidate political committees, and for
other purposes.

The Senate resumed consideration
of the bill.
Pending:
Byrd-Boren Amendment No. 305, in the
nature of a substitute.

The ACTING PRESIDENT protempore. Who yields time?
The Senator from West Virginia.
RECESS FOR 15 MINUTES

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that there be a
recess for 15 minutes, with the time to
be equally charged.
There being no objection, the
Senate, at 9:16a.m., recessed until 9:31
a.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the
Acting President pro tempore.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will come to order.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest
the absence of a quorum and I ask
that the time be charged equally.
The ACTING PRESIDENT protempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT protempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
RECESS UNTIL 9:50A.M.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senator
BoREN is in the Intelligence Committee at this moment. Other Senators
are working in committees. I have discussed with the distinguished Senator
from Kentucky [Mr. McCONNELL] the
necessity of either staying in a quorum
for the moment or recessing, and so he
and I have agreed that we will recess
until 10 minutes to 10 o'clock. So I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate
stand in recess until 9:50 a.m. today
with the time to be equally charged
against both sides.
There being no objection, the
Senate, at 9:35a.m., recessed until 9:50
a.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the
Acting President pro tempore.
The ACTING PRESIDENT protempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we
have been on S. 2 for 2 weeks and 2
days.
Clearly, it is possible for the Senate
to pass a meaningful campaign finance
reform bill. The distinguished majority leader has indicated that his side is
willing to talk, and I reiterate the observations of the Republican leader
yesterday, that the leadership group
on this side consisting of Senator STEVENS, Senator BOSCHWITZ, Senator
PACKWOOD, and myself, has been
saying for some 2 weeks and 2 days
that we would like to sit down with
those on the other side of the aisle

and have a discussion on formulating a
truly meaningful campaign finance
reform bill.
There are a number of areas upon
which we can agree. The Senator from
Oklahoma and I yesterday discussed
"soft money". We discussed independent expenditures. We discussed the
need for effective controls on PAC's.
We have discussed over the weeks the
problem of the millionaires' loophole.
These are the real problems that our
constituents have spoken against, in
letters, in calls, and even in editorials
supplied by Common Cause. As I mentioned yesterday, only a very small
percentage of these editorials that pile
up on our desks advocate public financing and spending limits to bring
down overall spending. Most just want
to control the PAC's.
But today, I'm going to talk about
the millionaires' loophole and independent expenditures, under current
law, under S. 2, and under McConnellPackwood. I am proposing today a constitutional amendment to deal with
these campaign finance abuses, and I
might add that we usually think that
constitutional amendments take a long
time to pass.
The constitutional amendment that
I will be introducing is simple, direct,
and strongly supported in this body. It
would grant to this body and to the
various State legislatures the authority to regulate what an individual
could put into his own campaign from
personal funds, just as we have the
constitutional authority to regulate
what any of us can put into somebody
else's campaign from personal funds.
It would also grant to the Congress
and to the various State legislatures
the authority to regulate the independent expenditures.
In the course of the debate on campaign finance reform, Members on
both sides of the aisle have decried the
ease with which wealthy candidates
can virtually purchase congressional
seats, and the surge of independent
expenditures in campaigns.
Both of these campaign abuses are
the result of loopholes in the Federal
election law, carved out by the Supreme Court decision in Buckley v.
Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). In that decision, the Supreme Court held that restrictions on campaign expenditures
from personal funds and on independent political expenditures are violations of the first amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. Thus, the
"millionaires' loophole" and the independent expenditure loophole are constitutional problems, and will not be
corrected by any clever statutory incentive or spending of public moneys.
That is why I introduce today a joint
resolution to amend the Constitution,
to allow Federal, State, and local governments to restrict the spending of
personal funds in campaigns, and the
amount of independent expenditures

June 19, 1987

in election cycles. Unlike a broad
amendment to limit all campaign
spending, this amendment would
quickly pass through the Senate and
be ratified by the State legislatures. It
is a measure for which I have heard
nothing but unqualified support.
I do not dispute that my earlier campaign finance reform bill, S. 1308,
offers only imperfect solutions to the
millionaires' loophole and independent
expenditure problems. It is true, for
example, that wealthy candidates
could spend up to $250,000 in personal
funds before S. 1308 would provide
relief to opponents. And although my
earlier bill incorporates the same restrictions and reporting requirements
that S. 2 applies to independent expenditures, it is unlikely that any of
these administrative constraints will
curb the negative practices of independent expenditures.
S. 2, the taxpayer campaign finance
bill now before the Senate, tries to address these two problems by spending
the taxpayers' money. Candidates,
facing wealthy opponents or negative
ads financed by independent expenditures, would be armed with additional
public funds-funds that would be diverted from farm programs, Social Security, education, and our antidrug
war. Yet, S. 2 would probably not discourage wealthy candidates from sinking their personal fortunes into campaigns, particularly since S. 2 doesn't
give the opponent much to compete
with. Under S. 2, a candidate from the
State of Arkansas would get a maximum of $1,727,200 to do battle with a
millionaire. An Oklahoman would get
$1,989,500, and a Coloradan would get
$1,998,000. This is a lot of money to
our taxpayers, but not much at all to a
millionaire, unless he's a rather poor
millionaire.
Further S. 2 hopes to limit independent expenditures by compensating each attacked candidate for the
full amount spent against him or her.
This candidate compensation fund
again comes from the American taxpayer. Last year, independent expenditures totaled nearly $5 million in
Senate races; thus, we can safely tack
another $5 million onto S. 2's $100 million price tag, and another $5 million
onto the overall amount of campaign
spending allowed under S. 2.
Will those who now spend hundreds
of thousands of dollars to express
their political views independently be
deterred simply by the spending of
taxpayers' money against them? Mr.
President, I think not. Will candidates
be compelled to tap the public till
every time they believe they are being
unfairly treated in an independent ad?
Mr. President, I hope not. It is apparent that · S. 2's independent expenditure provision is just another loophole
to funnel more of the taxpayer's
money into our reelection campaigns.

 June 19, 1987

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

Another $5 million every election
year is obviously not very much to
those who seek to dominate the political debate with independent expenditures-but it is a lot of money to the
American taxpayer, and we shouldn't
be throwing it away on a proposal that
won't benefit anyone except broadcasters.
Neither administrative constraints
nor government entitlements will prevent well-heeled individuals and
groups from independently trying to
influence elections. Nor will wealthy
candidates be deterred from trying to
purchase congressional seats merely
by S. 2's costly but ineffective millionaires' loophole provision.
These are constitutional problems,
demanding constitutional answers.
This Congress should not hesitate, nor
do I believe that it would hesitate, to
directly address these imbalances in
our campaign finance laws. I offer this
constitutional amendment in the sincere hope that the Senate will begin to
turn its attention to the real abuses in
campaign finance-the millionaires'
loophole, independent expenditures,
political action committee contributions, and "soft money" -and develop
simple,
straightforward
solutions,
rather than strangle the election process with overall spending limits and a
larger political bureaucracy.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this constitutional amendment be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
S.J.

RES.

166

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembed, That the following

article is proposed as an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, which
shall be valid to all intents and purposes as
part of the Constitution when ratified by
the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date
of its submission to the States by the Congress:
"ARTICLESEcTION 1. The Congress may enact laws
regulating the amounts of expenditures a
candidate may make from his personal
funds or the personal funds of his immediate family or may incur with personal loans,
and Congress may enact laws regulating the
amounts of independent expenditures by
any person, other than by a political committee of a political party, which can be
made to expressly advocate the election or
defeat of a clearly identified candidate for
Federal office.
SECTION 2. The several States may enact
laws regulating the amounts of expenditures a candidate may make from his personal funds or the personal funds of his immediate family or may incur with personal
loans, and such States may enact laws regulating the amounts of independent expenditures by any person, other than by a political committee of a political party, which can
be made to expressly advocate the election
or defeat of a clearly identified candidate
for State and local offices.".

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President,
these two areas have repeatedly been
agreed by both sides to be at the crux
of the problem. What distorts the
process, of course, is the ability of an
individual of unlimited wealth to put
literally everything he has into his
own campaign; whereas, if he were
contributing to anyone else's campaign, he would be limited to $1,000 in
the primary and $1,000 in the general
election. That is clearly unfair, and we
ought to cure it. We can cure it, however, only with a constitutional
amendment.
Another unfairness that we all agree
on is the independent expenditure,
again a constitutionally protected area
of expression, according to the Supreme Court decision in Buckley
versus Valeo.
This constitutional amendment that
I propose would grant to the Congress
and to the various State legislatures
the right to deal with that problem.
Mr. President, if we dealt with three
areas of great concern: The closing of
the millionaires' loophole, the ability
to regulate independent expenditures,
and the cost of broadcast time, which
we can address simply by statute, we
would have passed in this body the
most meaningful campaign finance
reform since Watergate.
The third area I just referred to, Mr.
President, is the cost of television.
What has driven up the cost of campaigns in the last several years has
been the cost of television advertising.
Candidates have to use television because it is the most effective way to
reach our people and communicate
ideas. That is particularly true in the
large States. My colleagues from New
York, California, Texas, and Florida
could shake hands all day, every day,
for the rest of their lives, and never
make a dent in the huge populations
in their States, let alone discuss the
issues that concern the citizens of
those States. Clearly, both incumbents
and challengers should be able to use
television to reach our people.
What has happened, Mr. President,
is that the broadcast stations in America have raised the rates they charge
during key times in political campaigns, and have made handsome profits on the candidates, in terms of the
cost of advertising.
We could in this body pass legislation that would, for example, require
television stations to grant to candidates television time at the lowest unit
rate of the previous year, for the class
of time purchased. This would dramatically lower the cost of campaigns,
and give us all an ability to afford the
brOltdcast time which is absolutely essential to modern political communication.
What happened in Kentucky last
May, just last month, is typical of
what goes on all over America. The
lowest unit rate skyrocketed just prior

16817

to the election, such that the " discount" given to candidates amounted
to nothing-it was like offering a 25percent-off sale after a 100-percent
price increase. That problem, Mr.
President, could be solved by legislation.
These are the kinds of agreements
that we can reach together. I hope we
can work together on direct, simple solutions to the real problems that
plague our campaign finance system.
The ACTING PRESIDENT protempore. The time of the Senator from
Kentucky has expired.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent for 1 more
minute.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to
the distinguished Senator from Kentucky 1 minute from our side.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia
has yielded 1 minute to the Senator
from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the distinguished majority leader.
The Senate could solve these key
problems by the passage of the kind of
constitutional amendment I outlined
earlier. I believe that this resolution,
unlike most constitutional amendments, would zip through this body
and zip through the State legislatures;
I believe that, by passing a statute
that did something meaningful about
the cost of television, we would bring
down the cost of campaigns without
deterring public participation through
contributions.
Those accomplishments would be
real reform, Mr. President, and we
stand ready on this side to sit down
with the leaders on the other side at
any time, to work out the kind of bipartisan reform package that we all
know will have to be reached, in order
to pass any meaningful campaign
reform legislation in 1987.
The ACTING PRESIDENT protempore. The Senator from Kentucky
yields the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the
Chair will indulge me momentarily
and charge the time.
Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The ACTING PRESIDENT protempore. The Senator will state it.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how
much time do I have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Two minutes and 14 seconds.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, of course,
I have listened with great interest and
riveted attention to the urging that we
need to meet and discuss compromise.
But the problem is that the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr.
McCoNNELL] and I say this with all
due respect, insists that we can com-