THE DEBATE BEGINS September 26, 1997 NewsHour Transcript

The Online Explainers take your question on the investigation. The NewsHour's coverage of the Congressional Investigation. The inside stories on the political fight behind the public investigation. The investigation is big news in Washington, but how's it playing around the country. A closer look at the issues really under scrutiny by the Congress.

A RealAudio version of this report is available. KWAME HOLMAN: Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott made it clear he's in no hurry to see current campaign finance laws reformed, but this morning he opened the debate on the issue to give the full Senate a chance to decide. SEN. TRENT LOTT, Majority Leader: I indicated all along that I knew this issue would come up, that it should come up, and it should be debated, and, therefore, I have kept that commitment, and we'll begin our debate; we'll have the full debate; and we'll have some votes. KWAME HOLMAN: Lott then suggested the best way to reform campaign financing might be to do away with most of the laws that govern it. SEN. TRENT LOTT: Perhaps the public good would best be served not by restricting donations to campaigns but by promoting them with full disclosure, full, total, and immediate disclosure. I wonder what would happen if every donation to a federal campaign had to be logged into the Internet as it was received by the campaign. Anyone interested in the integrity of that campaign, the identity of its donors, the possibility of undue influence or corruption would be able to track the campaign's revenues dollar by dollar as they come in. Maybe we could agree on that. Then let interested Americans donate as they will for this one overriding reason, because spending money to advance your own political views is as much a part of the right of free speech as running a free press. KWAME HOLMAN: But Democratic Leader Tom Daschle followed Lott to the floor and insisted the problem simply is too much money. SEN. TOM DASCHLE, Minority Leader: And the average cost of winning a Senate seat in 1996 is now $4 ½ million. To raise that much money a Senator has to raise $14,000 a week every week for six years. How many more times will we have to tell someone who may consider running for the United States Senate, you can't afford it? This is now a cult for millionaires. You either have lots of money, or your indebted to somebody for the rest of your life. But that's the choice. That should not be the American way. KWAME HOLMAN: The Supreme Court already has equated contributing to political campaigns to free speech, but Republican John McCain of Arizona and Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin say they have refined their legislation to control campaign contributing and spending without violating anyone's constitutional rights. SEN. JOHN McCAIN, (R) Arizona: It is not perfect reform. There is no perfect reform. We tried to exclude any provision which would be viewed as placing one party or another at a disadvantage. Our purpose is to pass the best, most balanced, most important reforms we can. KWAME HOLMAN: The McCain-Feingold bill would ban unregulated soft money contributions to political parties. SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Our soft money ban would serve two purposes. First, it would reduce the amount of money in campaigns; second, it would cause candidates to spend more time campaigning for small donor donations from people back home. KWAME HOLMAN: The bill would define and restrict spending on so-called express advocacy advertising. SEN. JOHN McCAIN: If soft money is banned to political parties, money will inevitably flow to independent campaign organizations. These groups run as even the candidates who benefit from them often disapprove of. Further, these ads are almost negative attacks on a candidate and do little to further healthy political debate. As we all know, they are usually intended to defeat a candidate and are often, in reality, coordinated with a campaign of that candidate's opponent. KWAME HOLMAN: The bill would increase public disclosure of campaign contributions. SEN. JOHN McCAIN: The bill mandates all FEC filings documenting campaign receipts and expenditures be made electronically and that they then be made accessible to the public on the Internet not later than 24 hours after the information is received by the Federal Election Commission. KWAME HOLMAN: The bill would encourage candidates to limit personal spending on their campaigns. SEN. JOHN McCAIN: If an individual voluntary elects to eliminate the amount of money he or she spends in his or her own race to $50,000, then the national parties are able to use funds known as coordinated expenditures to aid such candidates. If candidates refuse to limit their own personal spending, then the parties are prohibited from contributing coordinated funds to the candidate. This provision serves to limit the advantages that wealthy candidates enjoy and strengthen the party system by encouraging candidates to work more closely with the parties. KWAME HOLMAN: And finally, the bill would restrict the use of labor union dues for political purposes. SEN. JOHN McCAIN: The Beck decision states that a non-union employee working in a closed shop union workplace and who is required to contribute funds to the union can request and be assured that his or her money will not be used for political purposes. I personally support much stronger language. I believe that no individual, union member or not, should be required to contribute to political activities; however, I recognize that such stronger language would invite a filibuster of this bill and would doom its final passage. KWAME HOLMAN: But Republican Senator Mitch McConnell is vehemently opposed to the McCain-Feingold bill and argues if he can't stop it, the courts certainly will. SEN. MITCH McCONNELL, (R) Kentucky: In this whole field, Mr. President, at the end of the day we get back to the Constitution. You begin and you end this debate with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as the Senator from Utah has pointed out. This is core political speech according to the United States Supreme Court. That's not Mitch McConnell's interpretation. It's not Bob Bennett's interpretation. This is the law of the land. The court has said it's impermissible for us to decide how much political speech is enough--impermissible. In spite of that, the reformers persist in promoting the notion that it is somehow desirable for the federal government to determine how much political discourse we're going to have in our campaigns in this country. You hear them say time and time again we heard it this morning and we'll hear it next week. We're spending too much in American politics. Now, remember what the Supreme Court says that means that they're saying. They're saying we're speaking too much. KWAME HOLMAN: The debate will continue into the next four weeks. So far, forty-nine Senators, all forty-five Democrats, and four Republicans support the basic reform bill. But it takes 60 votes to prevent a filibuster and bring the bill to a final vote, meaning the future of campaign finance reform legislation is very much uncertain. JIM LEHRER: Now, the perspectives of two Senators involved in the debate: Robert Bennett, Republican of Utah, and Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois. I spoke with them earlier this evening. JIM LEHRER: Gentlemen, welcome. Sen. Durbin, you support McCain-Feingold. Why? SEN. RICHARD DURBIN, (D) Illinois: I think it's time for us to really address some of the serious problems in our campaign finance system. And McCain-Feingold, at least in its original form, did that, first to eliminate soft money. And I think that's one thing that we've learned in the course of the Government Affairs Committee hearings is long overdue. Secondly, I hope that there will be a provision in there that either has reduced cost or free TV time available. Unless we do that we're really not getting to the heart of the problem, which is the overall rising costs of campaigns. I spent over 80 percent of the money I raised in Illinois for television. And we have to reduce the costs of the candidates who don't spend as much time scrambling for money. Finally, when it comes to these so-called independent expenditures or advocacy ads, I think we need a much greater area of disclosure. The Republicans are critical of the labor ads. We on the Democratic side are critical of ads run by their favorite groups. Let's get down to the heart of the matter. Let's have full disclosure. Let's make sure they're bound by the same laws when they're actually involved in advocacy. JIM LEHRER: Sen. Bennett, do you oppose McCain-Feingold? Why? SEN. ROBERT BENNETT, (R) Utah: I do, indeed. I will agree with Sen. Durbin that these hearings indicate that something has to be done, but I think McCain-Feingold is clearly the wrong thing to do. I think it goes in a number of wrong directions all at the same time. When you sit down and scrub it all the way through, it's really a series of suggestions of how the federal government will regulate how people speak in a political advocacy circumstance. In any other context that would be called censorship. We're talking about whether or not ads can be run 60 days prior to the election that are available 61 days are not available 59 days prior, who can do it, where they can spend their money. The federal government is going to be checking up on it. The Federal Election Commission is going to be given a huge bureaucratic responsibility. I've been involved in an FEC audit, and I can tell you if you've ever been contacted by the FEC, you'd welcome a phone call from the IRS. This is not the way to increase political speech or increase American confidence. This is a bill that's just going to make things worse. JIM LEHRER: Well, let's take the specific--the ban on soft money, Senator Bennett. Are you opposed to that ban? SEN. ROBERT BENNETT: Soft money is what? According to the Constitution you have the right to say whatever you want. And if you decide to say what you want in an atmosphere, that is by an ad in the newspaper or on television, and pay for it, that's soft money. That's your First Amendment rights. Now, do I think there should be some different disclosure rules? Yes. Do I think there ought to be a clear examination of corporate involvement in politics? Yes. To say we're automatically going to ban soft money you're opening a very dangerous constitutional box that I think the Supreme Court will shut on you. JIM LEHRER: Sen. Durbin. SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: I think we get to the bottom line here, and the bottom line is--I won't speak for Sen. Bennett--but some Republicans have said the problem with our political system is there's just not enough money in it. If there were more money, there'd be fewer problems. And in respect--our showing respect for the First Amendment where the Supreme Court has said speech equals money and money equals speech, let's pour more speech into the system, more money into the system. That's not going to work. I think we've seen unfortunately what's happened in the past election cycle. When the opportunity for soft money, hard money, and mystery money came out, politicians went overtime trying to raise it and as a result cut corners and did things that were embarrassing. JIM LEHRER: Sen. Durbin, you do not think that the right to give as much money or not as much money but the right to contribute money is the same as the First Amendment right, in other words, the two are not the same? SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: No, I don't at all. And frankly, as a candidate, a federal candidate in seven or eight different elections, I've been restrained on the amount of money that I can raise from individuals, which ultimately meant how much I could spend on my own behalf to express my point of view, I think that's a legitimate concern. One of the elements that the Supreme Court did note 20 years ago in Buckley Vs. Vallejo is whether or not we have reached a point where not limiting money ends up in corruption in the whole procedure. I think we have reached that point. I think our political campaign system, if not corrupt, is corrupting. And we've got to change it. JIM LEHRER: Is it corrupt, if not corrupting, Sen. Bennett? SEN. ROBERT BENNETT: It's broken. Whether it's corrupt or not really does not depend on the system at all but people in it. I was--I was somewhat offended and expressed myself that way when some of the witnesses before the Governmental Affairs Committee said he had $50,000 from ascortia--that's clearly going to influence your vote. I've had big contributors in my office asking me to do things that I thought were not the right things to do. And I told them so. And they did not say to me--because they were honorable people--they happen to be wrong on this issue. They did not say to me you have to do it anyway because we gave you money. There's no quicker way for them to get thrown out of my office than to say that. And ultimately, if you have people of conscience and integrity, they will be people of conscience and integrity, regardless of the system. And if you have the tightest system in the world and you have somebody who's corrupt, he or she is going to stay corrupt no matter how many rules you have concocted. And I think this is terrible to say money is the only determinant in politics and money makes every decision. The record is clearly that that is not the case. JIM LEHRER: Sen. Durbin. SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: Well, you know, I think the American people have just about had their fill with this. Whether President Nixon is inviting his biggest contributors to his daughter's White House wedding, or President Clinton is inviting people into the Lincoln Bedroom, I think the American people have told us that as we spend more and more money on political campaigns, they are going to participate less and less. The statistics are there. JIM LEHRER: But what about the Senator's point that it isn't money, it's the people? SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: Well, obviously, it gets down to the bottom line, individual decisions of moral choices. But when you have so much money moving around and such great demands for money--in the state of Illinois Paul Simon six years ago spent $8 million to be re-elected. I got by with about five or six. But think about that. In the state of California $25 million for Barbara Boxer to be re-elected? It really is just an overwhelming responsibility to raise that money. JIM LEHRER: Sen. Bennett, you don't see that, right, as an evil, the amount of money that's required now to run for political office? SEN. ROBERT BENNETT: I wish the amount of money were less, and I think there are circumstances where you could make it less. But there--every election is different. Every circumstance changes. Sen. Kerry, for example, of Massachusetts, running against Gov. Weld, they made an agreement to limit their expenditures. They could both do it because they were both very well known politicians and frankly did not need to spend the money for name ID that a newcomer does. I think we have to recognize that we're being awful glib in this debate. For example, to say, as Sen. Durbin has, as the amount of money has gone up, the percentage of voting has gone down, to say that that is a cause and effect relationship is stretching things a little. You could say by that logic that we ought to stop spending any money on schools because the more money has gone up on spending on schools, test scores have come down. I don't think the money circumstance is causing the problems. There are a lot of problems. I don't think the money circumstance can be labeled as the single one at all. JIM LEHRER: Just to test the waters here for a moment, Sen. Durbin, how important is this issue? Many people on the floor, many of your colleagues on the floor of the Senate today--Sen. Kerry, for instance, Sen. Bennett just mentioned him--Sen. Kerry said on the floor it was the most important debate the Senate has had this term, if not many, many terms. Do you agree with that? SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: I do agree with it. I'm not sure if you polled the American people about the most important things on their mind that this would come up in the top three, but if you asked them about their opinion of our government, of our political system, of campaigns, and of candidates, I think you'd hear their responses and understand that what's at stake here is literally the future of this democracy. Is it going to be a participatory democracy, where people who are not millionaires have a chance to be elected? Is it going to be a democracy where people will vote because they think their votes count? Those are real fundamental questions. And if we don't address them, I think Sen. Kerry's right, we will have missed out on an opportunity to clean up a system that literally has more to do with the future of this democracy than almost anything. JIM LEHRER: More to do with the future of this democracy than almost anything, Sen. Bennett? SEN. ROBERT BENNETT: I think it's correct that this is a very fundamental debate and a very serious issue, but I obviously see it very differently. I see what's at stake here is a very frontal attack on the First Amendment. Now, it's in the name of something that sounds wonderful and that everybody feels good about. Let's clean up campaigns. But you look at the details, forget the labels--the labels are all wonderful, and they're on the side of McCain-Feingold--let's have reform and everything's great--you look at the details of this bill and you go back, as I said, this is a list of ways the federal government will use its police power to direct people in how they conduct their political advocacy. I think that's a very frightening kind of thing even in the best of motives. And, as I said on the floor today, I do not attribute anything but the very best of motives to all of the people who were on the other side of the issue. But, frankly, I find it very chilling. JIM LEHRER: So, what's going to happen, Sen. Bennett, nothing? SEN. ROBERT BENNETT: Well, there will be a lot of political maneuvering. I don't think there are the votes there in the Senate to pass McCain-Feingold. I think there are a number of us, quite frankly, who are willing to withstand the opprobrium, if that's the right term, of even a filibuster on what we consider a fundamental First Amendment issue. I have filibustered very seldom, but something this important I'm willing to do it. JIM LEHRER: So it isn't going to happen, Sen. Durbin? SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: Well, I'm worried about it because we only have 48 who are on board. I think you can add Sen. Specter as a possible vote in favor of cloture, so maybe 49. JIM LEHRER: But you need 60, right? SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: Well, we need 60 to beat back a filibuster, that's for sure. And, you know, it gets to the bottom line. If we are going to see this debate mired down because of alternatives and poison pill amendments and it comes to nothing, then the same Republican Party that's been so critical of this process through all these hearings at the Governmental Affairs Committee-- JIM LEHRER: All right. SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: --will have to go home and explain why they didn't change it. SEN. ROBERT BENNETT: And I'm perfectly willing to do that. As a matter of fact, sometimes my audiences get a little bored as I talk about this. They say we're not that interested; get on to something else. JIM LEHRER: All right. Well, gentlemen, thank you both very much.

REGIONS TOPICS RECENT PROGRAMS ABOUT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS:

Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.