By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Clinton, and Ms. Cantwell):
S . 719 . A bill to amend Federal election law to provide for clean elections funded by clean money; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senate this week took a historic step toward fairer elections. I was proud to join a solid majority of my colleagues in voting for the McCain-Feingold bill. However, passage of that bill is not the end of the reform debate, but hopefully merely a beginning.

It is clear to me that we need to go still further to reform our elections comprehensively, and for that reason I rise today along with Senators KERRY, CLINTON and CANTWELL to re-introduce ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' campaign finance reform legislation. Debates about campaign finance reform should be debates about who is at the table and how to level the playing field. Looking back at the two weeks of debate on McCain-Feingold from this perspective highlights the importance of and also the severe limitations of the bill. I say importance of the bill, because if you believe that reform of our federal elections is essential for the reasons I believe, restoring the centrality of one person, one vote, then you need to get soft money out of the system since it allows too much political power to flow from too few. I say severe limitations of the bill because even if we ban soft money and sham issue ads, we will still have too much money in American politics. And, the wealthy investors will still have an all too prominent role in our elections.

Fundamentally, we need to go beyond legislation that merely seeks to patch a badly broken system. The McCain-Feingold legislation seeks to stop a leak here, and block a loophole there. It does not eliminate private, special interest money flowing to candidates and parties. The Clean Money, Clean Elections legislation that I am reintroducing today will fix this problem--it will reduce the costs of campaigns and provide public funds to eliminate the dependence on wealthy investors entirely. Hence the Clean Money, Clean Elections legislation will truly level the playing field for all candidates and ensure fair elections.
Now that the Senate will finally go on record in favor of the modest reform that McCain-Feingold represents, I believe the time is right to begin the fight for fundamental reform: public financing of elections. The Clean Money, Clean Elections bill is the ``gold standard'' of true campaign finance reform, against which any more modest legislation ought to be assessed. The conceptual approach it embodies, replacing special interest money in our current system with clean money, is being adopted by state legislatures and in referenda across the country.

In Maine, for example, there was broad participation in the Clean Money, Clean Elections program during the last election with 116 out of 352 general election candidates both Republicans and Democrats participating. In Maine, Arizona and Vermont, Clean Money, Clean Elections reduced the influence of special interest money and provided a level playing field by offering qualified candidates a limited and equal amount of public funds. The earliest indications from Maine's first election under the Clean Elections law do inspire hope. Far more candidates than expected stepped forward to seek Clean Elections financing, and all but one succeeded in qualifying. There comments about the process tell us we are on the right track. Some of their comments are for example: ``Without Clean Elections I couldn't even think about running for office. I just couldn't afford it.'' said Shlomit Auciello, democrat challenger; ``The main reason I did it was that this is what people want.'' Chester Chapman, Republican challenger; ``I spent a lot of kitchen table time explaining the system to people. Once they knew what it was they really liked it. They like that it means no soft money and no PAC money will be used. I want to work for the people of Maine and I don't want to be beholden to anyone else.'' Glenn Cummings, Democrat challenger; ``It will definitely change some things. For one thing I will have about half the amount of money I raised last time but much more time to talk with people which is a good thing.'' Gabrielle Carbonear; and ``We have an obligation to put into practice the system that was approved by voters in 1996. Maine is in the lead in this area. It will only work if it is used, and it is important for incumbents to embrace it. Also, the Clean Election Act is making it easier to recruit candidates to run for office.'' Rick Bennet, Republic incumbent, Assistent Senate Minority Leader and a candidate for reelection.

When asked, 60 percent of Americans say they think that reforming the way campaigns are financed should be a high priority on our National agenda. There is no question in my mind that these people are right, reforming the way campaigns are financed should be, must be, a high priority.

Many people believe our political system is corrupted by special interest money. I agree with them. It is not a matter of individual corruption. I think it is probably extremely rare that a particular contribution causes a member to cast a particular vote. But the special interest money is always there, and I believe that we do suffer under what I have repeatedly called a systemic corruption. Unfortunately, this is no longer a shocking announcement, even if it is a shocking fact. Money does shape what is considered do-able and realistic here in Washington. It does buy access. We have both the appearance and the reality of systemic corruption. And we must act. Here in the Senate, we must push forward this spring on tough, comprehensive reform.
I wonder if anyone would bother to argue that our budget debates are unaffected by the connection of big special-interest money to politics? The budget cuts proposed most deeply affect those who are least well off, while the tax cuts proposed mostly go to the wealthy. That is well-documented. The tax breaks we offer benefit not only the most affluent as a group, but numerous very narrow wealthy special interests. Does anyone wonder why we retain massive subsidies and tax expenditures for oil and pharmaceutical companies? What about tobacco? Are they curious why we promote a health care system dominated by insurance companies? Or why we promote a version of ``free trade'' which disregards the need for fair labor and environmental standards, for democracy and human rights, and for lifting the standard of living of American workers, as well as workers in the countries we trade with? How is it that we pass major legislation that directly promotes the concentration of ownership and power in the telecommunications industry, in the agriculture and food business, and in banking and securities? For the American people, how this happens, I think, is no mystery.

I think most citizens believe there is a connection between big special interest money and outcomes in American politics. People realize what is ``on the table'' or what is considered realistic here in Washington often has much to do with the flow of money to parties and to candidates. We must act to change this.
We must act to change this because too many people have lost faith in the system. People are turning away from the political process. They are surrendering what belongs most exclusively to them, their right to be heard on the issues that affect them, simply because they don't believe their voices will carry over the sound of all that cash. The degree of distrust, dissatisfaction, and outright hostility expressed by the American people when asked about the political process overwhelms me.

We must act on comprehensive campaign finance reform. We must act to restore Americans' trust in our political process. We must act to renew their hope in the capacity of our political system to respond to our society's most basic problems and challenges. We must act to provide a channel for the anger that many Americans feel about the current system, and acknowledge the grassroots reform movement that's been building for years. These are our duties, and we must act to move the reform debate forward.
As Members of Congress, most pressing for us should be the question of why so many people no longer trust the political process, especially here in Congress, and what we can do to restore that trust. Polls and studies continue to show a profound distrust of Congress, and of our process. Many Americans see the system as inherently corrupt, and they despair of making any real changes because they figure special interests have the system permanently rigged.

Too many Americans believe that a small but wealthy and powerful elite controls the levers of government through a political process which rewards big donors, a system in which you have to pay to play. Why do you think corporate welfare has barely been nicked, but welfare for the poor and needy in this country has been gutted? The not-so-invisible hand of corporate PACs and well-heeled lobbyists, and huge corporate soft money contributions can be seen most openly here.

Too many Americans see our failures: to alleviate the harsh poverty that characterizes the lives of far too many of our inner-city residents; to reduce the widening gulf between rich and poor; to combat homelessness, drug addiction, decaying infrastructure, rising health care costs, and an unequal system of education.

And they want to know why we can't, or won't, act to address these problems head-on. Americans understand that without real reform, attempts to restructure our health care system, create jobs and rebuild our cities, protect our environment, make our tax system fairer and more progressive, fashion and energy policy that relies more on conservation and renewable sources, and solve other pressing problems will remain frustrated by the pressures of special interests and big-money politics.

In thinking about reform legislation, I start with the premise that political democracy has several basic requirements: First, free and fair elections. It is hard to argue plausibly that we have them now. That's why people stay home on election day, why they don't participate in the process. Incumbents outspend challengers 8 or 10-1, and special interests buy access to Congress itself, all of which warps and distorts the democratic process.

Second, the consent of the people. The people of this country, not special interest big money, should be the source of all political power. Government must remain the domain of the general citizenry, not a narrow elite.

Third, political equality. Everyone must have equal opportunity to participate in the process of government. This means that the values and preferences of all citizens, not just those who can get our attention by waving large campaign contributions in front of us, must be considered in the political debate. One person, one vote--no more and no less--the most fundamental of democratic principles.

Each of these principles is undermined by our current system, funded largely through huge private contributions. Contributions that come with their own price tag attached--greater access and special consideration when push comes to shove. It's time for real reform.

Which is why I stand here today, re-introducing the ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' legislation that we introduced during the last Congress. We have tightened and strengthened some of the nuts and bolts of the legislation, but it is much the same bill that it was when we first introduced it: simple and sweeping, fundamental campaign finance reform.

Money has always played a role in American politics and campaign spending is not a new problem, but it has exploded during the 1990s. In the 1993-94 election cycle, the national political parties raised $101.6 million dollars in soft money contributions. By the 1997-98 election cycle that figure was up to $224.4 million dollars in soft money. In the 99-2000 election cycle that figure more than doubled to more than $487.5 million.

However, we must not forget that nearly 80 percent of the money spent on elections during the last cycle was hard money. All together, over $2.2 billion in hard money was raised by federal candidates and parties during the 2000 elections, a figure that dwarfs party soft money. Unfortunately, under McCain-Feingold, even more hard money will pour into our elections.

Of all the money given to Congressional candidates, almost none represented the millions of Americans who are poor, or parents of public school children, or victimized by toxic dumping or agri-chemical contamination, or who are small bank depositors and borrowers, or people dependent on public housing, transportation, libraries, and hospitals. It is clear who is represented under the current system and who is shut out.

During the last election, only 4 out of every 10,000 Americans made a contribution greater than $200. Only 232,000 Americans gave contributions of $1000 or more to federal candidates--one ninth of one percent of the voting age population. By raising the hard money limits in McCain-Feingold, the Senate voted to increase the amount of special interest money in politics and entrench candidates' dependence on a narrow, political, elite made up of wealthy individuals. This was step backward and it makes Clean Money reform all the more necessary.

The bill I am introducing today strikes directly at the heart of the crisis in the current system of campaign finance: the only way for candidates of ordinary means to run for office and win is to raise vast sums of money from special interests, who in turn expect access and influence on public policy. Real campaign finance reform needs to restore a level playing field, open up federal candidacies to all citizens, end the perpetual money chase for Members of Congress, and limit the influence of special interest groups. This legislation does all of these things by offering: The strictest curbs on special-interest money and influence. The ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' legislation bans completely the use of ``soft money'' to influence elections, discourages electioneering efforts masquerading as non-electoral ``issue ads,'' provides additional funding to clean money candidates targeted by independent expenditures, and most importantly, allows candidates to reject private contributions if they agree to participate in the clean money system of financing. The greatest reduction in the cost of campaigns. Because it eliminates the need for fundraising expenses and provides a substantial amount of free and discounted TV and/or radio time for Federal candidates, this legislation allows candidates to spend far less than ever before on their campaigns. The most competitive and fair election financing. By providing limited but equal funding for qualified candidates, and additional funding for clean money candidates if they are outspent by non-participating opponents, this legislation allows qualified individuals to run for office on a financially level playing field, regardless of their economic status or access to larger contributors. Right now, the system is wired for incumbents because they are connected to the connected. The big players, the heavy hitters, tend to be attracted to incumbents, because that is where the power lies. This bill would allow all citizens to compete equally in the Federal election process. And an end to the money chase, shorter elections, and stronger enforcement. ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' campaign finance reform frees candidates and elected officials from the burden of continuous fundraising and thus allows public officials to spend their time on their real duties. In effect, it also shortens the length of campaigns, when the public is bombarded with broadcast ads and mass mailings, by limiting the period of time during which candidates receive their funding. Moreover it strengthens the enforcement and disclosure requirements in Federal campaigns.

What I am proposing are fundamental changes, necessary changes if we hope to ever regain the public's confidence in the political process. This legislation is both simple to understand and sweeping in scope. As a voluntary system this bill is constitutional, and it effectively provides a level playing field for all candidates who are able to demonstrate a substantial base of popular support. ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' strengthens American democracy by returning political power to the ballot box and by blocking special interests' ability to skew the system through large campaign contributions.

Most importantly, this legislation attacks the root cause of a system founded on private special interest money, curing the disease rather than treating the symptoms. The issue is no longer one of tightening already existing campaign financing laws, no longer a question of what's legal and what's illegal. The real problem is that most of what's wrong with the current system is perfectly legal. Big money special interests know how to get around the letter of the law as it is now written. This current system of funding congressional campaigns is inherently anti-democratic and unfair. It creates untenable conflicts of interests and screens out many good candidates. By favoring the deep pockets of special interest groups, it tilts the playing field in a way that sidelines the vast majority of Americans. This legislation takes special interest out of the election process and replaces it with the public interest, returning our political process to the hallowed principle of one person, one vote. This week the Senate took an excellent, but limited, step forward. A complete overhaul of the financing of elections is required to fully restore the public confidence in our democracy. I believe the Clean Money approach is what is needed to get the job done.

Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN), April 5, 2001