And what exactly might this 'unconstitutional and treasonous legislation' be exactly?
He has been very determined to get through his campaign finance. They said 'they' would desstroy him for it. Is that perhaps what we have going on here?
Here is a link directly to his site where you can see what he stands for and how he is voting. He invites your response.
http://www.senate.gov/~mccain/

But here are his direct comments about Campaign reform taken from the Congressional Record. Does this sound like someone we should be recalling? Or is it that he has just killed the 'fatted calf'?

http://www.urielw.com/campfin.htm

We have a new patriotic challenge for a new century: declaring war on the cynicism that threatens our public institutions, our culture, and, ultimately, our private happiness. It is a great and just cause, worthy of our best service. It should not, and neither I nor my friend from Wisconsin will allow it to, be casually dismissed with parliamentary tactics.

Those of us privileged to hold public office have ourselves to blame for the sickness in American public life today. It is we who have squandered the public trust. We who have, time and again, in full public view placed our personal and partisan interests before the national interest, earning the public’s contempt for our poll-driven policies, our phony posturing, the lies we call spin and the damage control we substitute for progress. It is we who are the defenders of a campaign finance system that is nothing less than an elaborate influence peddling scheme in which both parties conspire to stay in office by selling the country to the highest bidder.

All of us are tainted by this system, myself included. I do not make any claims of piety. I have personally experienced the pull from campaign staff alerting me to a call from a large donor. I do not believe that any of us privileged enough to serve in this body would ever automatically do the bidding of those who give. I do not believe that contributions are corrupting in that manner. But I do believe they buy access. I do believe they distort the system. And I do believe, as I noted, that all of us, including myself, have been affected by this system.

I think most Americans understand that soft money--the enormous sums of money given to both parties by just about every special interest in the country--corrupts both politics and government whether it comes from big business or from labor bosses and trial lawyers. It seizes the attention of elected officials who then neglect problems that directly affect the lives of every American. That is something about which each of us should care deeply.

Americans care deeply about reforming our Tax Code, improving education, reducing the size of Government, about improving our national security, and many other pressing national issues. But fundamental reform is not possible when soft money and special interests demand a higher return on their political investments.

Most Americans believe we conspire to hold on to every political advantage we have, lest we jeopardize our incumbency by a single lost vote. Most Americans believe we would pay any price, bear any burden to ensure the success of our personal ambitions--no matter how injurious the effect might be to the national interest. And who can blame them when the wealthiest Americans and richest organized interests can make six figure donations to political parties and gain the special access to power such generosity confers on the donor.

The special interests will tell you that the fight to limit soft money is an attack on the first amendment. They are wrong. They are entirely wrong. The courts have long held that Congress may constitutionally limit contributions to campaigns and political parties.

In the 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley versus Valeo the Justices affirmed Congress’ right to uphold contribution limits in the name of preventing, and I quote, ‘corruption and the appearance of corruption spawned by the real or imagined coercive influence of large financial contributions on candidates’ positions and their actions.’

Mr. FEINGOLD:
[T]oday, both parties aggressively engage in this big money auction. It is an arms race where the losers are the American people. Soft money causes Americans, time and time again, to question the integrity and impartiality of the legislative process. Everything we do is under scrutiny and subject to suspicion because major industries and labor organizations are giving our political parties such big piles of money. Whether it is the telecommunications legislation, Y2K liability, the bankruptcy bill, defense spending, or health care, someone out there is telling the public, often with justification, in my view, that the Congress cannot be trusted to do what is best for the public interest because the major affected industries are giving us money while those bills are pending in committee or debated on the floor.
Soft money has exploded, with far-reaching consequences for our elections and the functioning of Congress. I truly believe--and I didn’t necessarily feel this way 3 or 4 years ago--if we can do nothing else on campaign finance reform in this Congress, we must stop the cancerous growth of soft money before it consumes us and ultimately the remaining credibility of our system.

[S]oft money first arrived on the scene of our national elections in the 1980 election, after a 1978 FEC ruling opened the door for parties to accept contributions from corporations and unions that are barred from contributing to Federal elections. The best available estimate is that parties raised, in that 1980 cycle, that first cycle, under $20 million in soft money. By the 1992 election, the year I was elected to this body, soft money fundraising by the parties had gone from under $20 million to $86 million.

Then came the 1996 election and the enormous explosion of soft money fueled by the parties’ decision to use the money on phony issue ads supporting their Presidential candidates. Remember those ads that everybody thought were Clinton and Dole ads but were really run by the parties? I remember seeing them for the first time in the Cloakroom. That was the moment when soft money began to achieve its full corrupting potential on the national scene.

As you can see on this chart, again, total soft money fundraising skyrocketed as a result. Three times as much soft money was raised in 1996 as in 1992. Let me say that again. Soft money tripled in one Presidential election cycle.

The total dollars raised, as shown on this chart, don’t tell the whole story. This talks about the total amounts. This talks about the campaign side of this problem of soft money. There is a whole other story, and that is the impact of these contributions on what we do here.

Soft money is raised primarily from corporate interests that have a legislative ax to grind. So the explosion of soft money brought another explosion--an explosion of influence and access in this Congress and in this administration. Consider these statistics on this chart. I hope people will note these figures. They amaze me. As long as I have been involved with this issue, they have amazed me.

The following is a tabulation, for clarity, of the figures cited by Mr. Feingold: 1980 1992 1996
Total soft money contributions to parties ($millions) under 20 86 about 250
# of donors giving over $200,000 52 219
# of donors giving over $300,000 20 120
# of donors giving over $400,000 13 79
# of donors giving over $500,000 9 50
# of companies giving over $150,000 to each of the political parties (“double givers”) 7 43

In 1992, there were a total of 52 donors who gave over a total of $200,000 to political parties. In 1996, just 4 years later, 219 donors gave that much soft money. Over 20 donors gave over $300,000 in soft money contributions during the 1992 cycle. But in 1996, 120 donors gave contributions totaling $300,000 or more. What about over 400,000? In 1992, 13 donors gave that much soft money. But in 1996, it was all the way up to 79 donors giving $400,000 per person or interest. Whereas only 9 donors in 1992 gave $500,000--a half million dollars, Mr. President; people giving a half million dollars--by 1996, 50 donors gave a half million dollars.

Does anyone think those donors expect nothing for this act of generosity? Does anyone think those donors get nothing for their generosity? Does anyone think the principle of one person/one vote means anything to anyone anymore if somebody can give a half million dollars?

Here is another amazing statistic: This is even worse, to me. In 1992, only 7 companies gave over $150,000 to each of the political parties--double givers, we call them, who made contributions to both parties. In 1996, the number of these double givers was up to 43: Forty-three companies or associations gave $150,000 or more to both the Democrat and the Republican Party. I would suggest there is no ideological motive. This is not about their passion for good government. These donors are playing both sides of the fence. They don’t care about who is in power. They want to get their hooks into whoever is controlling the legislative agenda.

Here are some of the companies in this rather exclusive group. We know they have a big interest in what Congress does:

Philip Morris
Joseph Seagram & Sons
RJR Nabisco
Walt Disney
Atlantic Richfield
AT&T
Federal Express
MCI
the Association of Trial Lawyers
the National Education Association
Lazard Freres & Co.
Anheuser Busch
Eli Lilly
Time Warner
Chevron Corp.
Archer Daniel’s Midland
NYNEX
Textron Inc.
Northwest Airlines

Mr. President, it is a who’s who of corporate America. These are the big investors in the U.S. Congress, and no one can convince the American people that these companies get no return on their investment. So we have an ever-increasing number of companies that are participating in this system, trying to make sure their interests are protected and their lobbyists’ calls returned.

There is another effect of this explosion of soft money, and that is the increasing participation of Members of this body in raising it.

I do not know how many of my colleagues are actually picking up the phones across the street in our party committee headquarters to ask corporate CEOs for soft money contributions. But no one here can deny that our parties are asking us to do this. It is now simply expected that United States Senators will be soft money fundraisers.

When you hear all this talk about how the parties need this money generally, that is why they need soft money, and an awful of lot is not going to the parties generally. And I and many of my colleagues know from painful experience that much of that money ended up being spent on phony issue ads in Senate races. The direct contribution of corporate money to federal candidates has been banned in federal elections since 1907, but that money is now being raised by Senators as soft money and spent to try to influence the election of Senators. It is spent to try to influence the election of Senators. To me, this is a complete obliteration of the spirit of the law. It is wrong. It must be stopped.

The growth of soft money has made a mockery of our campaign finance laws. It has turned Senators into panhandlers for huge contributions from corporate patrons. And it has multiplied the number of corporate interests that have a claim on the attention of members and the work of this institution.

Mr. President, there is broad and bipartisan support for banning soft money. Former Presidents Bush, Carter, and Ford believe that soft money must be eliminated, as does a large and distinguished bipartisan group of former Members of Congress, organized last year by former Senator and Vice President Walter Mondale, a Democrat, and former Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker, a Republican. Their effort has been joined at last count by 216 former members of the House and Senate. Senators Mondale and Kassebaum published an opinion piece in the Washington Post that eloquently spells out the rationale and the critical need to enact this reform.

They state that a ban on soft money would ‘restore a sound principle long held to be essential. That bedrock principle, developed step by step through measures signed into law by presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Gerald Ford, is that federal elections campaigns should be financed by limited contributions from individuals and not by either corporate or union treasuries. Neither candidates for federal office, nor the national political party committees whose primary mission is to elect them, should be dependent on the treasuries of corporations or unions that have strong economic interests in the decisions of the federal government.’

Mr. DURBIN:
I find this debate to be absolutely critical when it comes to the future of our Nation. I don’t think what is at stake in this debate is just a question of money and where it comes from. It is about much more. What is at stake in this debate is the future of this democracy. We expect politicians to be hyperbolic, to say things that sound so sweeping, they can’t be true.
But in my heart, I really believe what I have said is true. I am honestly, genuinely, and personally concerned, as a Member of the Senate, a former Member of the House of Representatives, and as a person who, for better or worse, has devoted his adult live to public service, about the fact that the people I represent and we represent are losing interest in their Government. The clearest indication of that loss of interest is in their declining participation in elections.

If you look at this [bar graph], you will notice that, in 1960, in the Presidential election campaign, both candidates spent the relatively meager sum of $175 million. And then, if you will fast forward to the estimated expenditures of the 1996 campaign--a span of 36 years--it went from $175 million to $4 billion.

When we spent $175 million in 1960, 63.1 percent of the eligible voters turned out. Then we started piling on big time all the money we could find and raise legally in the system. And what happened? There was a steady decline in voter interest and participation to 49.1 percent in 1996. We have lost 14 percent of the eligible electorate as we have plowed massive amounts of money into the system.

The 1996 Presidential campaign had the lowest national average turnout for a Presidential election in 72 years. The money was there; the voters weren’t. If one accounts for the flood of new voters in 1924 with the passage of women’s suffrage, it may have been the lowest percentage turnout of eligible voters to vote for President since mass popular balloting was introduced in America in the 1830s, in the 160-year history of the United States. And by 1996, the voters of the United States said: None of the above; we don’t care; a majority will stay home.

The decline in the exercise of the basic right of citizenship is a grave concern. More than 100 million Americans of voting age don’t participate. I don’t think this is an accident. Despite the fact that we tend to register more voters--an increase of some 8 million eligible voters, resulting in 4 million being registered--fewer Americans cast their ballots in the most recent election, the 1998 mid-term, than in 1994’s similar election, plunging voter turnout to the lowest level in over 50 years.

According to data compiled by IDEA, the United States ranked 114 out of 140 countries the voter turnout of which has been assessed since 1945.

The life of a Senator is a wonderful life in many respects. I am so honored to represent a great State such as Illinois and to be able to stand in this Chamber and use my best judgment on my votes to try to help them. But the path to the Senate, for someone who is not independently wealthy, is a path that takes you to many small offices, many desks, many telephones, and many telephone calls to perfect strangers, begging for money.

When I was a Member of the House of Representatives running for the Senate, I used to take off during the course of a day, drive about a block away to a little cubicle I had rented, where I could sit and legally make fundraising calls. I would take every available minute to do it. When I received my beeper notification, I would race back to the floor of the House of Representatives to cast a vote and then back to make more phone calls and raise more money. Of course, it is going to have an impact on your private life, and it had an impact on my public life, too. I can remember, to this minute, the day I left to race over and make a vote on the floor of the House. As I cast my vote, I looked up and thought of the list of potential contributors I was now about to call. But there were two or three of them I could not call. I just voted against them. You know, when that becomes part of the calculation, it takes something away from your judgment.

I don’t point the finger of blame to any of my colleagues in this Chamber. I think they are, by and large, to my knowledge, some of the most honorable people I have come to know in life, and they are really conscientious in the job they do. But the system as it is currently constructed is a system that, frankly, is going to lead all of us to make conclusions and make decisions which may not be the right ones.

The argument on the other side against Senator McCain and Senator Feingold is the suggestion that more money into this system is going to make it better. This is not a new argument. We have seen it in several other iterations.

I can recall the debate over guns in America. The National Rifle Association is for a concealed carry law. What does it mean? It means all of us would be able to carry a gun around in our pockets or, for women, in their purses, taking them into shopping malls, restaurants, churches, and high school basketball games. It is their belief that this proliferation of guns in America will make us safer.

Yesterday, we had a vote on a nuclear test ban treaty. Many of us believe that we have all the nuclear weapons in the world we will ever need and that we should have passed that treaty to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in those countries that possess them. The treaty was defeated. Those who wanted fewer nuclear weapons lost. Those who believe we shouldn’t have a limit on testing and, therefore, the development of nuclear weapons around the world prevailed. They believe, obviously, that more nuclear weapons around the world make us safer. I don’t share that belief.

But a similar argument is at hand. There are those who argue that more money going into the political system will somehow result in better men and women being elected to Congress and to other offices. I don’t believe that is the case.

Centuries ago, Machiavelli wrote his famous book, ‘The Prince,’ and outlined some ideas and principles of politics. I have always said that if he did not have a chapter in his book on the subject, he should, and it should be entitled ‘If you have the power, for God’s sake, don’t give it away.’ The power now is in the money. And many on the Republican side of the aisle who are capable of raising more money than we do on the Democratic side of the aisle do not want to surrender that advantage.

It is similar to handing a weapon to your enemy, as they see it. That is an understandable conclusion by some. But thank goodness for Senator McCain and others who have risen above it and said it is an empty victory to continue the status quo, the current system of campaign fundraising, if in fact we are losing credibility and losing the respect of the American people. What good does it do for us to be elected and supposedly lead this country when the American people do not give us the respect for the office or the job we do? It has a lot to do with the campaign finance system.

We have seen demonstrated in American political history time and time again that it takes a major overwhelming scandal for this Congress to act to enact real reform. The Watergate scandal is one example, and others have shown up in our history. We are not dealing with such a scandal today in specifics, but we are dealing with a scandalous system, a system which really troubles me the most, that so many Americans have given up on us. We can’t allow that to happen. We can’t afford it.

For those who argue that we have to allow the very wealthiest in America to be articulate in our political process by writing checks for thousands--$10,000, $20,000, $50,000, or $100,000--I think on its face is laughable. To think we would give up on working people, average families, and businesses making modest amounts and disclosing contributions and instead turn this process over to the wealthiest in America is to give up on the very basis of this democracy. It will continue to push away from the average American that interest they should have in this most fundamental system of representative democracy.

Mr. WELLSTONE:
The kind of corruption I think we are talking about is actually much more serious than the wrongdoing of an individual office holder. That is not what I will focus on. I gather that is what some of my colleagues have focused on and questioned. I say it is much more serious. I say it is a systemic corruption, and it is a systemic corruption when there is a huge imbalance between too few people with so much wealth, so much power, so much access, and so much say, and the vast majority of people in the country who don’t make the big contributions, aren’t the heavy hitters, aren’t the investors, and who believe that if you don’t pay, you don’t play: I think that is the corruption.
I think the corruption is that the standard of a representative democracy that says each person should count as one, and no more than one, is violated. If any Senator--Democrat or Republican--should go into any cafe in Minnesota, or around the country, and try to make the argument that, as a matter of fact, because of this system we have--which I think is really a failure when it comes to any standard of representative democracy--if we were to try to argue, no, it is not true that people who are the investors and make these big contributions don’t have too much access and too much say, I think 99 percent of the people in the country would say you are not credible. Of course, that is what is going on. Of course, people make contributions for a variety of different reasons, one of which is to have access and a say.

Look, both parties will talk about special gatherings we will have with the business community here, or the high-tech community there, or the labor community there. We have big dinners, and we are told to come to the dinners. What is the purpose of those dinners?

[T]he truth of the matter is that the vast majority of people in the country don’t come to these dinners. The vast majority of people aren’t invited to special gatherings and special sessions. The people who are invited by both parties are the big contributors. They are the investors.

Come on. You are not going to try to argue on the floor of the Senate that we don’t have a problem with systemic corruption, where we have just too few people who make these big contributions, who, as a result, perhaps have too much access and too much say.

Let me go out on a limb. It is not just a question of perception. The vast majority of people in our country today believe their concerns about themselves and their families and their communities are of little concern in the corridors of power or the Halls of the Congress in Washington, DC. Do you know what? We have given them entirely too much justification for having that point of view. They are not necessarily wrong.

Mrs. BOXER:
I have noticed in all my years in politics--and it has been a long time--what a legislature likes to do most is nothing, because it is easy, because if you keep it the same, you do not make waves, you do not disturb anybody, and it is comfortable. Certainly campaign finance reform is comfortable for many of us who have been in this for a long time.
Ever since I have been in politics, I have been supporting reforms in campaign finance. I have been in politics, in elected office, for 23 years. That is most of my adult working life. I started in local politics. It was an issue then. Then I went to the House in 1983. It was an issue then, and it has been an issue in the Senate during the 7 years I have served.

It is fair to ask: Why is Senator Boxer in favor of the most far-reaching campaign finance reform we can get? I can sum it up with three main reasons. Maybe there are 10 or 12, but I want to give the Senate the three main reasons.

First of all, the system is bad for ordinary people; and I will expand on that. Secondly, the system has the appearance of corruption; and I will expand on that. And thirdly, the system is stealing precious time from public officials who are elected to do a job; and I will expand on that.

First, the system is bad for ordinary people. Let me tell you why. Ordinary people feel disenfranchised. Ordinary people who cannot afford to make contributions to campaigns feel left out.

Secondly, the system has the appearance of corruption. Let me talk about the fight I waged on oil royalties. I do not know anyone who stood up in that debate who did not believe big oil companies were not paying their fair share of royalties.

Everyone agreed; even the key opponent of my perspective that we ought to do something about it said it is true, they are not paying their royalties. I know it to be the case when the person who stands up on this floor and fights for the status quo for one particular industry and the newspapers write a story that that individual got more money from that industry than anyone else; even if the motives were as pure as the driven snow--and I have no reason to believe otherwise--people lose faith. They do not want to believe us if we stand up and fight for an industry and we are the biggest recipient of the industry’s funds.

We are not talking about a thousand bucks; we are talking about big bucks. The appearance of corruption, if I may use the word, is out there.

And the third reason: The system is stealing precious time from elected officials. Look, let’s be honest. A person who comes from California, who takes the oath of office, would have to raise $10,000 a day, 7 days a week, for 6 years, in order to have the resources to run for reelection.

How do you think that happens? Do you think that individual in the Senate can possibly do all that and still do the best job that she can do? It is impossible.

Why am I standing here? I know how to work the system. I have been at it a long time. It is in my benefit to keep it the way it is. Even a well-heeled opponent that I had and I faced, with all the support of the Republican Party, could not go toe to toe with me because I know how to work the system. But the system is broken, and we have to clean up our act. We have a chance to do it.

‘Free speech,’ my colleagues say on the other side. I will tell you, I never heard anyone more eloquent on the point than the Senator from Kentucky. The Supreme Court was divided 5 to 4 on the issue of free speech. I tell you, they are wrong because when you say money equals speech, you are demeaning the Constitution; you are demeaning this democracy.

How is it free speech if candidate A is a billionaire and can buy up every inch of time on the TV and the radio and the other candidate, candidate Y, is a poor candidate and has to go raise money? By the time he gets the money, he goes to the TV stations and the radio stations, and they say: Oh, sorry, candidate Y. There is no time left for you to buy. That is an infringement on his speech.

I had an interesting situation at the end of my last campaign. A lot of money came in toward the end of my campaign. I sent it over to the TV stations. I just got it back with a big refund. By the time we got it over there, there was no more time.

So how do you say that money equals speech if one candidate has it; the other one has a harder time getting it, and they cannot get the prime time? This speech argument is a debasement of everything that I believe in. I believe that our Founders would roll over in their graves if they knew that when they fought and died for free speech, it now means money, and you cannot tell a wealthy candidate you can only put X into your campaign, because it is a violation of free speech. But what about the poor candidate? He does not have the money. What about his speech?

So this argument on speech, to me, is nonsensical. I am one of these people who believe the Supreme Court ought to take another look at that Buckley v. Valeo because I think it is off the wall.

Mr. McCONNELL:
Make no mistake, the essence of this debate is indeed freedom--fundamental first amendment freedom of speech and association guaranteed to every American, citizen group, candidate, and party. That is the view of the U.S. Supreme Court, the view of the American Civil Liberties Union, and the view of most Republicans. Soft money, issue advocacy, express advocacy, PACs, and all the rest are nothing more than euphemisms for first-amendment-protected political speech and associated means of amplifying one’s voice in this vast Nation of 270 million people.
It is important to remember that Dan Rather and Peter Jennings have a lot of speech, and the editorial page of the New York Times has a big audience. But the typical American citizen and the typical candidate, unless he or she can amass the resources to project their voices to a larger audience, just simply doesn’t have as much speech as the press. So the means to amplify one’s voice in this vast Nation of 270 million people is critical and constitutionally protected. It is no more complicated than that and no less vital to our democracy than the freedom of the press, which has taken a great interest in this issue.

Just thinking of the New York Times editorial page, for example, I think they have had 113 editorials on this subject since the beginning of 1997. That is an average of about one every nine days--issue advocacy, if you will, paid for by corporate soft money, expressing their view, which they have a right to do, on this important issue before us.

But as we look at this long odyssey of campaign finance reform, we have come a long way in the last decade, those of us who see through the reform patina--from the push 10 years ago for taxpayer financing of congressional campaigns and spending limits, and even such lunacy as taxpayer-financed entitlement programs for candidates to counteract independent expenditures, a truly bizarre scheme long gone from the congressional proposals but now echoed, interestingly enough, in the campaign reform platform of Presidential candidate Bill Bradley, who advocates a 100-percent tax--a 100-percent tax on issue advocacy. So if you were so audacious as to go out and want to express yourself on an issue, the Government would levy a 100-percent tax on your expression and give the money to whoever the Government thought was entitled to respond to it--a truly loony idea.

That was actually in the campaign finance bills we used to debate in the late 1980s and early 1990s and now is in the platform of one of the candidates for President of the United States, believe it or not.

So it was just 2 years ago that spending limits were thrown overboard from the McCain-Feingold bill and that the PAC and bundling bans were thrown overboard as well. Now the focus becomes solely directed at citizens groups and parties, which is the form McCain-Feingold took last year. Now, this month, the McCain-Feingold odyssey has arrived at the point that if it were whittled down any further, only the effective date would remain. As it is, McCain-Feingold now amounts to an effective date on an ineffectual provision.

Obviously, it is not surprising that that is my view. But it is also the view of the League of Women Voters, which opposes the current version of McCain-Feingold.

To achieve what proponents of this legislation profess to want to achieve--a reduction of special interest influence--if you want to do that, I think that is not a good idea at all, it is blatantly unconstitutional and the wrong thing to do. But if you wanted to do it, you would certainly have to deal with all the avenues of participation, not just political parties. Nonparty soft money as well as party soft money, independent expenditures, candidate spending--all of the gimmicks advanced through the years in the guise of reform--all would have to be treated, if you truly wanted to quiet the voices of all of these citizens, which is what the reformers initially sought to do.

The latest and leanest version of McCain-Feingold falls far short of that which would be needed if you were inclined to want to do this sort of thing to limit special interest influence. As the League of Women Voters contends--mind you, there is the first time I have ever agreed with them on anything--as they contend, you would have to treat all of the special interests if you were truly interested in quieting the voices of all of these Americans who belong to groups.

It could not be more clear that this sort of McCain-Feingold-light that is currently before us is designed only to penalize the parties and to shift the influence to other avenues. That is precisely what it would do. It could not be more clear. Prohibiting only party soft money accomplishes absolutely nothing. It is only fodder for press releases and would make the present system worse and not better.

That is quite aside from the matter of unconstitutionality and whether the parties have less first amendment rights to engage in soft money activities than other groups. If this were to be enacted, that issue would surely be settled by the Supreme Court, which is, of course, the Catch-22 of the reformers. The choice is between the ineffectual unconstitutional and the comprehensively unconstitutional. A younger generation would call that a choice between ‘dumb and dumber.’

For reality ever to square with reformer rhetoric, the Constitution would have to be amended and political speech specifically carved out of the first amendment scope of protection.

There are those in this body who have actually proposed amending the Constitution. We had that debate in March of 1997. And, believe it or not, 38 Senators out of 100 voted to do just that--to amend the first amendment for the first time in 200 years to give the Government the power to restrict all spending, and in support of or in opposition to candidates. The ACLU calls that a ‘recipe for repression.’ But that got 38 votes. You could at least give those people credit for honesty. They understand that in order to do what the reformers seek to do, you really would have to change the first amendment for the first time in 200 years.

So what the McCain-Feingold saga comes down to is an effort to have the Government control all spending by, in support of, or in opposition to candidates, with a little loophole carving out the media’s own spending, of course.

That this effort is allowed to be advanced as reform is one of the tragedies of our time. Fortunately, enough Senators on this side of the aisle have had the courage to forestall this assault on freedom for the past decade and have proven by example that there is a constituency for protecting constitutional freedom.

Let me just say there is an excellent letter from the American Civil Liberties Union--a group that is an equal opportunity defender for an awful lot of Americans but is truly America’s experts on the first amendment--to me, which I just got yesterday, which I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record.

My colleague from Arizona [Senator McCain] gave a moving speech in Bedford, NH, a few months ago to kick off his Presidential campaign. In that speech, my friend from Arizona laid out his vision of America with strong, and I must say, compelling statements about what he firmly believes to be corruption in American politics. If there is one thing that is often said about our colleague from Arizona, it is that he is a straight shooter and that he calls it as he sees it. I certainly wouldn’t argue with that.

Based on the Senator’s speech in New Hampshire and his remarks about his legislation, I assume I am correct in inferring that the Senator from Arizona believes the legislative process has been corrupted. I think he said that in the Wall Street Journal today. I don’t believe I am misquoting him.

What I will do is run through a few of the recent statements of the Senator from Arizona about corruption to be sure that the Senate fully understands his strongly held views on this subject.

The Senator from Arizona, in discussing the subject of campaign finance reform in Bedford, NH, on June 30 of this year said:

I think most Republicans understand that soft money, the enormous sums of money given to both parties by just about every special interest in the country, corrupts our political ideals, whether it comes from big business or from labor bosses and trial lawyers.
Quoting further from my friend from Arizona, he says:

In truth, we are all shortchanged by soft money, liberal and conservative alike. All of our ideals are sacrificed. We are all corrupted. I know this is a harsh judgment, but it is, I’m sorry to say, a fair one.
So the principal quote from my friend from Arizona is that ‘We are all corrupted.’

He goes on to say:

Pork barrel spending is a direct result of unlimited contributions from special interests.
My friend from Arizona, also on CNN Early Edition, July 1 of this year, said:

We have seen debasement of the institutions of government, including the corruption of Congress because of the influence of special interests.
Further, my friend from Arizona said:

Soft money is corrupting the process.
Then on Fox News, Sunday, on June 27 of this year, my friend from Arizona said:

I talked to Republicans all over America, including up here in New Hampshire, and when I tell them about the corruption that exists they nod their heads.
My friend from Arizona goes on:

I think that Americans don’t hold us in the esteem and with the respect that the profession deserves and that’s because the profession has become permeated with special interests, which have caused corruption, which have then caused them to lose confidence in government.
And the Senator from Arizona went on: [numerous additional examples]

I know [Senator McCain] said from time to time the process is corrupted. But I think it is important to note, for there to be corruption, someone must be corrupt. Someone must be corrupt for there to be corruption.

So I just ask my friend from Arizona what he has in mind here, in suggesting that corruption is permeating our body and listing these projects for the benefit of several States as examples.

I ask the Senator from Arizona, how can it be corruption if no one is corrupt? That is like saying the gang is corrupt but none of the gangsters are. If there is corruption, someone must be corrupt.

[...]

So I repeat to the Senator from Arizona, the question before us is not reading a list of what he considers to be inappropriate projects. That is not the issue. The issue is, where is the corruption? You cannot have corruption unless somebody is corrupt. There is not corruption without somebody being corrupt. You can’t say the gang is corrupt and none of the gangsters are. If the Senator from Arizona believes there is corruption, he has an obligation, under the Senate rules and the Federal bribery statute, to name the people. Who is being corrupt? Who are the people putting all of these items in these bills? What was their impetus for doing it? Who made the contribution, as the Senator from Utah said, and to whom? Where is the corruption?

It is shocking to have these allegations when there are no specifics.

What is new is Senators who serve here, walking these Halls every day, who meet with their fellow Senators every day, who watch their fellow Members take official actions every day, go before the American people and declare openly and with great conviction that votes are being bought in the Halls of the U.S. Capitol. When Senators make those kinds of allegations about their colleagues, I think we are suggesting they ought to back it up. They ought to back it up.

There are specific rules in the Senate that prevent taking an official action in order to reward somebody for a contribution. In addition to that, we have bribery statutes involving public officials:

Any public official who ‘directly or indirectly,’ corruptly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for . . . being influenced in the performance of any official act . . . shall be fined under this title . . . or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

We have suggestions of violations not only of Senate rules but of Federal bribery statutes, without specifics. That is unfair to the Members of this body who are doing their very best to represent their constituents who are honest, hard-working, and good citizens. It is unfair to the Members of the Senate to have these aspersions cast on their honor and the honor of this institution.

We are not just talking about the appearance of corruption. What the Senator from Arizona has repeatedly said is things such as, ‘corrupts our political ideals,’ ‘we are all corrupted,’ ‘the corruption of Congress,’ ‘soft money is corrupting the process.’

These have been allegations of corruption, which is a violation of Senate rules and a violation of Federal bribery statutes.

I would suggest to all of our colleagues, in our exuberance to pursue our different points of view on this issue, do not suggest corruption unless you have evidence of corruption. It demeans the Senate, and in the instances of Senators Bennett and Gorton, it demeans a specific Senator. It is clear from this debate, there is no evidence--none whatsoever--of corruption.

Let me give you poll data of how people feel about newspapers and see if the Senator thinks we ought to legislate based on the appearance there to restrict the activities of newspapers.

A poll taken in September of 1997 indicated that 86 percent of the American people believe newspapers should be required to provide equal coverage of congressional candidates; 80 percent want restrictions placed on the way newspapers cover political campaigns; 68 percent believe newspaper editorials are more influential than a $1,000 contribution; 70 percent believe reporter bias influences the coverage of politics; 61 percent believe the candidate preferred by a reporter will beat the candidate with more money; and 42 percent believe newspaper editorial boards should be required to have both Republicans and Democrats.

This is the public’s perception of the newspapers, which operate under the first amendment, just as American citizens and parties do.

If the argument is that we should pass legislation restricting first amendment rights based upon perception, I am wondering if the Senators also believe we ought to eliminate the newspaper exemption from the Federal Election Campaign Act and react to the public perception that newspapers need a bit of this Government regulation of speech as well?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpted from the Congressional Record of the October 14, 1999 Senate debate. The Congressional Record is available at THOMAS -- U.S. Congress on the Internet. For the above debate, choose “106th Congress,” then “All Congressional Record Issues by Date and Section,” then October 14, 1999 Senate, then “BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1999--RESUMED (Senate - October 14, 1999),” then “Full Display.”