SENATOR CANDIDATES TO VOLUNTARILY LIMIT THEIR OVERALL SPENDING
           BY GETTING MOST OF THEIR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THEIR OWN
           HOME STATE, LIMITING PAC FUND-RAISING AND RESTRICTING THEIR
           SPENDING OF PERSONAL WEALTH. IN RETURN, THEY WOULD RECEIVE THE
           BENEFIT OF REDUCED-COST TELEVISION TIME. SO, MR. PRESIDENT, WE
           HOPE TO GET TO THAT POINT AND WE ARE OPTIMISTIC. WE EXPECT
           FIERCE OPPOSITION TO OUR BILL IN THE SCOMPAS WE GOT IT. WE KNEW
           FROM EXPERIENCE THAT MANY MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ARE COMFORT
           COMFORTABLE WITH THE CURRENT CAMPAIGN FINANCE SYSTEM AND THEY

           DON'T WANT TO CHANGE IT. WE TRIED THIS IN 1996 BEFORE PEOPLE
           REALLY GOT A GOOD, CLEAN LOOK AT THIS SYSTEM AND WE DIDN'T GET
           TERRIBLY FAR. WHEN WE FAILED TO BREAK A FILIBUSTER IN 1996, THE
           SENATOR FROM ARIZONA TURNED TO ME AND SAID, "THIS THING IS
           GOING TO TAKE A SCANDAL." SCOMPISD, "JOHN, YOU'RE TOO
           PESSIMISTIC, WE'LL GET IT THROUGH." WELL, OF COURSE, HE WAS
           RIGHT AND I WAS WRONG, BUT WE GOT A SCANDAL. WE GOT A SCANDAL.
           AND IN 1997, WE MOVED THIS ISSUE MUCH FARTHER. AFTER THE
           HEARINGS THAT WERE CONDUCTED BY THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM
           TENNESSEE AND THE REVELATION OF MANY OF THE THINGS THAT WENT

           ON, WE GOT 53 VOTES ON THE FLOOR OF THIS SENATE BUT WE STILL
           FACED A FILIBUSTER AND WE FACED A SERIES OF ARGUMENTS THAT IN
           MY VIEW CAN'T WITHSTAND SCRUTINY. MR. PRESIDENT, I SEE THAT THE
           SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE HAS ENTERED THE CHAMBER AS WELL AND I
           SEE THAT THE SENATOR FROM KEN HAS RISEN TO SPEAK, SO AT THIS
           POINT, MR. PRESIDENT -- KENTUCKY HAS RISEN TO SPEAK, SO AT THIS
           POINT, MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLO FLOOR AND I WILL COMPLETE
           MY REMARKS AT ANOTHER POINT. I YIELD THE FLOOR.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY.
           

           MR. MCCONNELL: MR. PRESIDENT, THE MEASURE BEFORE US TODAY IS
           THE PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT AUTHORED BY THE DISTINGUISHED
           MAJORITY LEADER AND THE ASSISTANT MAJORITY LEADER. THE PAYCHECK
           PROTECTION ACT IS PREDICATED ON A FUNDAMENTAL TENANT OF ANY
           TRULY FREE SOCIETY. THAT NO PERSON -- NO PERSON -- SHOULD BE
           FORCED TO SUPPORT A CAUSE OR A CANDIDATE. IT'S REALLY QUITE
           THAT SIMPLE. THOMAS JEFFERSON PERHAPS BEST ANNUNCIATED THIS
           PRINCIPLE WITH A CHARACTERISTIC ELOQUENCE THAT WE WILL LIKELY

           HEAR OFTEN DURING THE COURSE OF THIS DEBATE. IT CERTAINLY
           MERITS REPETITION.
           

           MR. JEFFERSON OBSERVED: "TO COMPEL A MAN TO FURNISH
           CONTRIBUTIONS OF MONEY FOR THE PROPAGATION OF OPINIONS WHICH HE
           DISBELIEVES IS SINFUL AND TYRANNICAL." "SINFUL AND TYRANNICAL"
           AS IT IS, UNION BOSSES DO IT EVERY DAY. MILLIONS OF AMERICANS
           ARE ON THE RECEIVING END OF THIS TYRANNY AS A PORTION OF THEIR
           PAYCHECKS ARE CONFISCATED AND USED TO ADVANCE A POLITICAL
           AGENDA WITH WHICH MANY OF THEM DISAGREE. THAT FACT, MR.

           PRESIDENT, SHOULD NOT BE IN DISPUTE. TEN YEARS HAVE PASSED
           SINCE THE SUPREME COURT'S BECK DECISION IN WHICH THE COURT
           RULED THAT WORKERS WHO ARE FORCED TO PAY UNION DUES AS A
           CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT CANNOT BE FORCED TO PAY DUES BEYOND
           THOSE NECESSARY FOR COLLECT I HAVE BARGAINING, YET MOST UNION
           WORKERS -- FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, YET MOST UNION WORKERS
           STILL HAVE FOR RELIEF. THEIR UNIONS PROVIDE THEM WITH LITTLE OR
           NO INFORMATION OF THEIR RIGHTS. A NATIONAL SURVEY LAST YEAR
           REVEALED THAT MOST UNION WORKERS ARE NOT EVEN AWARE OF THEIR

           RIGHTS UNDER THE BECK DECISION. EVEN MORE DEPLORABLE, MANY
           UNION WORKERS' EFFORTS TO EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
           UNDER BECK HAVE BEEN MET WITH INTIMIDATION AND WITH
           STONEWALLING. IN A TELLING ILLUSTRATION, A UNION WORKER
           TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS JUST LAST YEAR THAT -- QUOTE --
           "ALMOST IMMEDIATELY IMMEDIATELY, THE LIES STARTED. ANTIUNION,
           SCAB, FREE-LOADER AND RELIGIOUS FANATIC WERE LABELS ASCRIBED TO
           ME," SAID THE UNION MEMBER. NOW, THERE'S A HOSTILE WORK

           ENVIRONMENT FOR YOU. THAT POOR FELLA HAD TO RESORT TO A LAWSUIT
           TO GET HIS UNION DUES REDUCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH BECK. THE
           ONUS, MR. PRESIDENT, SHOULD NOT BE ON THE WORKERS. IT SHOULD
           NOT BE THE WORKERS' BURDEN TO PURSUE AN AFTER-THE-FACT REFUND.
           OR TO WAIT UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR AND HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH
           HOOPS TO GET RETURNED TO HIM OR HER MONEY THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE
           BEEN TAKEN FROM THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. OUR FRIENDS ON THE
           OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE ARE UNDERSTANDABLY ALARMED AT THE
           PROSPECT OF THEIR MOST POWERFUL, AGGRESSIVE AND WELL-FUNDED
           ALLY LOSING A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE POLITICAL WAR CHEST

           AFTER WORKERS WERE FREED FROM THE COMPULSORY DUES TYRANNY. NOW,
           MR. PRESIDENT, WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS. WASHINGTON STATE -- VOTERS
           BACK IN 1992 BY AN OVERWHELMING MARGIN -- 70%, BY THE WAY,
           SUPPORTED THIS -- APPROVED A REFERENDUM TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR
           UNIONS TO EXTRACT DUES FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES WITHOUT OBTAINING
           PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM UNION WORKERS. AFTER THIS
           EMANCIPATION, ONLY 82 OF WASHINGTON STATE'S PUBLIC EMPLOYEE
           UNION MEMBERS GAVE THE UNION PERMISSION TO TAKE THEIR MONEY FOR

           POLITICAL PURPOSES. PRIOR TO THE VOTERS' ACTION, 40,000
           WASHINGTON STATE EMPLOYEES HAD BEEN FORCED TO STAND BY
           HELPLESSLY AS A CHUNK OF THEIR PAYCHECKS WERE CONFISCATED AND
           USED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT TO ADVANCE THE POLITICAL CAUSES OF
           THE UNION BOSSES. THE NUMBER OF WASHINGTON STATE TEACHERS'
           UNION MEMBERS CONTRIBUTING EVEN A MODEST $1 A MONTH TO THE
           UNION BOSSES' POLITICAL FUND, DROPPED FROM $48,000 DOWN TO

           $8,000. NOW, ALL POLITICIANS WHO BENEFITED FROM THE UNION LARGE
           LARGESS, A LARGESS BORNE OF FALSE CONTRIBUTIONS, INTIMIDATION
           AND A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE, WILL UNDERSTANDABLY TREMBLE AT THE
           PROSPECT OF LOSING IT. FOR THEM, THE SOUNDS OF PAYCHECK
           PROTECTION ROARING DOWN THE LEGISLATIVE TRACKS MUST BE
           TERRIFYING INDEED. NATIONWIDE, OVER 80% OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
           SUPPORT A FEDERAL PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT ACT. BUT I'M
           CERTAINLY NOT SO NAIVE AS TO THINK UNION WORKERS WILL SEE THIS
           FREEDOM COMING OUT OF WASHINGTON, D.C., BECAUSE PRESIDENT

           CLINTON WOULD SURELY VETO IT. THE UNION BOSSES HAVE BEEN SO
           GENEROUS TO THE CLINTON-GORE CAMPAIGNS OVER THE YEARS THAT THE
           LINCOLN BEDROOM PROBABLY FEELS LIKE HOME. FORTUNATELY FOR
           AMERICA'S UNION WORKERS, THEY MAY WELL SEE RELIEF IN THOSE
           STATES WITH THE REFERENDUM PROCESS OR POLITICAL LEADERS LESS
           BEHOLD BEHOLDEN TO UNION BOSSES THAN IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE
           UNITED STATES. SO, MR. PRESIDENT, THERE'S A LOFT ACTION OUT IN
           THE STATES. PROPONENTS OF PAYCHECK PROTECTION ARE HEARTENED BY
           THE RECEPTION THEY'RE GETTING OUT IN THE STATES. IT WILL BE ON

           THE BALLOT IN CALIFORNIA THIS JUNE. CALIFORNIANS WILL HAVE AN
           OPPORTUNITY TO STRIKE A BLOW FOR FREEDOM FOR UNION WORKERS.
           FREEDOM'S PROSPECTS, MR. PRESIDENT, ARE QUITE BRIGHT THERE. BUT
           THE UNION BOSSES WILL RESIST THIS FREEDOM FOR THE
           RANK-AND-FILE. THE UNION BOSSES WILL FIGHT IT WITH EVERYTHING
           AT THEIR DISPOSAL, INCLUDING THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF
           DOLLARS THEY HAVE AMASSED FOR POLITICAL USE FROM THE WORKERS'
           DUES. IT IS EXPECTED THAT UNION BOSSES WILL SPEND $20 MILLION
           OR MORE IN CALIFORNIA IN THEIR QUEST TO DEFEAT THIS FREEDOM

           QUEST FOR THE RANK-AND-FILE. I'M CONFIDENT THAT CALIFORNIANS
           WILL NOT BE DUPED BY THE UNION BOSSES AND THEIR MILLIONS.
           PAYCHECK PROTECTION RINGS TRUE TO REGULAR FOLKS AND NOT EVEN
           THE MOST SOPHISTICATED, WELL-FUNDED SMEAR CAMPAIGN WILL DROWNED
           IT OUT. NOW, I MIGHT SAY, MR. PRESIDENT, THERE ARE GOING TO BE
           PAYCHECK PROTECTION REFERENDA IN OTHER STATES AS WELL. I THINK
           THERE ARE FOUR OR FIVE NOW THAT ARE GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT
           THIS YEAR. THERE ARE MOVEMENTS ALL ACROSS AMERICA IN STATE
           LEGISLATURES TO PRESS FORWARD WITH BILLS GIVING UNION MEMBERS

           THESE VERY BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. SO TO HAVE THIS KIND OF
           MEASURE DESCRIBED AS A POISON PILL IS AMUSING, INDEED. THIS IS
           FUNDAMENTAL, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY OUGHT
           TO BE FORCED TO CONTRIBUTE TO CAUSES WITH WHICH THEY MIGHT
           DISAGREE. AND SO WE WILL PRESS FORWARD WITH THIS ISSUE AND HOPE
           FOR THE BEST, BUT IT WILL GO FORWARD ON A STATE-BY-STATE BASIS
           REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS HERE IN WASHINGTON. NOW, MR.
           PRESIDENT, LET ME JUST MAKE A FEW OBSERVATIONS. I SEE MY FRIEND

           FROM TENNESSEE IS HERE AND I WON'T DELAY HIM TOO LONG BUT DIE
           WANT TO MAKE SOME OBSERVATIONS -- BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE SOME
           OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE LARGER QUESTION OF MCCAIN-FEINGOLD. THE
           WHOLE MOTIVE BEHIND THIS REFORM AGENDA FOR THE LAST 22 YEARS
           HAS BEEN A DISAPPOINTMENT, MR. PRESIDENT, IN THE SUPREME COURT
           DECISION OF BUCKLEY VS. VALEO, WHICH WAS, OF COURSE, A VERY

           VICTORY FOR THE -- A GREAT VICTORY FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THE
           COURT SAID IN THE BUCKLEY CASE, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT SPENDING IS
           SPEECH. AND WHEN YOU FIRST HEAR THAT, YOU SORT OF SCRATCH YOUR
           HEAD AND SAY, "GEE, COULD THAT BE TRUE?" BUT WHEN YOU THINK
           ABOUT IT AND WHEN YOU READ THE DECISION DECISION, IT IS
           OBVIOUSLY THE CASE THAT IN A COUNTRY OF 270 MILLION PEOPLE,
           UNLESS YOU CAN AMPLIFY YOUR VOICE, YOU DON'T HAVE MUCH SPEECH.
           NOW, DAN RATHER AND TOM BROKAW AND PETER JENNINGS HAVE A LOT OF

           SPEECH, WAY MORE THAN ANY OF US. BECAUSE THEIR SPEECH IS
           AMPLIFIED EVERY NIGHT TO MILLIONS OF AMERICANS. BUT THE COURT
           SAID TO PUT AMERICANS IN A STRAITJACKET OF SPENDING LIMITS IS
           TO SAY THAT THEY ARE LEFT ONLY WITH INADEQUATE SPEECH. IN OTHER
           WORDS, A KIND OF CONTINUING EFFORT TO GO DOOR-TO-DOOR, I GUESS,
           TO CARRY YOUR MESSAGE TO MORE AND MORE AMERICANS. IN FACT THE
           COURT SAID A SPENDING LIMIT WOULD BE ABOUT LIKE SAYING YOU'RE
           FREE TO TRAVEL BUT YOU CAN ONLY HAVE $100. HOW FREE ARE YOU?

           NOT VERY FREE. IF YOU CAN'T AMPLIFY YOUR VOICE. AND THE COURT
           SAID YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL FIRST AMENDMENT
           RIGHT TO AMPLIFY YOUR VOICE EITHER WITH YOUR OWN RESOURCES OR
           THE RESOURCES OF OTHERS GATHERED TOGETHER IN A COMMON PURPOSE
           TO ADVANCE A PARTICULAR CAUSE. AND THE CAUSE COULD BE SPEAKING
           FOR A CANDIDATE OR AGAINST A CANDIDATE OR ADVOCATING AN ISSUE
           OR OPPOSING AN ISSUE. IN FACT, THE WHOLE COURT CASE WAS CRAFTED

           IN THE DIRECTION OF A WIDE AMOUNT OF PERMISSIBLE POLITICAL
           DISCOURSE IN THIS COUNTRY. WELL, THE REFORMERS HATED THAT
           DECISION AND THEY HAVE BEEN COMING BACK AND COMING BACK AND
           COMING BACK OVER THE YEARS YEARS, AND IT'S HAD DIFFERENT NAMES
           IN DIFFERENT CONGRESSES. A FEW YEARS AGO IT WAS BOREN-MITCHELL.
           NOW IT'S MCCAIN-FEINGOLD. BUT FUNDAMENTALLY, THE PHILOSOPHY IS
           THE SAME. THAT WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM IS WE JUST DON'T

           HAVE ENOUGH REGULATION, WE JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH RESTRAINT ON
           THE VOICES OF ALL OF THESE AMERICANS WHO ARE RUNNING AROUND
           EXPRESSING THEMSELVES AND WE DON'T LIKE IT. SO MRK
           CANE-FEINGOLD HAS BEEN CONSTANT -- SO MCCAIN-FEINGOLD HAS BEEN
           CONSTANTLY CHANGING. AND THE VERSION WE CURRENTLY HAVE BEFORE
           US IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM EARLIER VERSIONS. NOW, THE
           ORIGINAL VERSION, MR. PRESIDENT, SOUGHT TO PUT THE GOVERNMENT
           IN CHARGE OF THE POLITICAL SPEECH OF INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS,

           CANDIDATES AND PARTIES. THE CURRENT VERSION, WHICH IS THE SAME
           VERSION THAT WAS DEFEATED IN OCTOBER, SEEKS TO PUT THE
           GOVERNMENT IN CHARGE OF THE POLITICAL SPEECH OF INDIVIDUALS --
           I MEAN, EXCUSE ME, OF PARTIES AND GROUPS. LEAVING ASIDE
           INDIVIDUALS AND LEAVING ASIDE CANDIDATES. SO LET ME FOCUS JUST
           A MINUTE, MR. PRESIDENT, ON THE KIND OF SPEECH THAT PARTIES AND

           GROUPS ENGAGE IN. IT'S SAID THAT BECAUSE OF THE SCANDALS OF
           1996, WE SHOULD TAKE AWAY FROM THE POLITICAL PARTIES THEIR
           ABILITY TO FUNCTION IN STATE AND LOCAL RACES. IT'S CALLED
           GETTING RID OF SOFT MONEY. NOW, WHAT HAPPENED IN 1996, MR.
           PRESIDENT?
           AS THE DISTINGUISHED MAJORITY LEADER POINTED OUT, AND AS
           SENATOR THOMPSON'S HEARINGS HAVE CONFIRMED, WE HAD ARGUABLE
           VIOLATIONS OF EXISTING LAW; THAT IS, CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
           FOREIGNERS, MONEY LAUNDERING AND RAISING MONEY ON FEDERAL

           PROPERTY. AND ALL THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW NOW. WHAT THAT CRIES
           OUT FOR IS ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW. THIS BILL, MCCAIN-FEINGOLD,
           DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SCANDALS OF 1996. IT'S A
           TOTALLY DIFFERENT SUBJECT. THIS BILL IS SEEKING TO RESTRAIN, TO
           INHIBIT, TO DIMINISH THE VOICES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS IN THEIR
           EFFORT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS THROUGH THEIR

           POLITICAL PARTIES OR THROUGH GROUPS THEY MAY BELONG TO. NOW,
           THE COURTS HAVE HAD A GOOD DEAL TO SAY ABOUT THAT, MR.
           PRESIDENT. A GOOD DEAL TO SAY ABOUT IT. LET ME START WITH THE
           GROUPS. THE COURTS HAVE SAID THAT A GROUP OR FOR THAT MATTER AN
           INDIVIDUAL, CAN GO OUT AND ENGAGE IN WHAT'S CALLED ISSUE
           ADVOCACY WITHOUT HAVING TO ASK PERMISSION FROM THE FEDERAL
           GOVERNMENT. WITHOUT HAVING TO REGISTER WITH THE FEDERAL

           ELECTION COMMISSION OR SUBJECT ITSELF TO THE RULES THAT APPLY
           TO CANDIDATES AND TO PARTIES IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS. THE COURT
           HAS SAID AS LONG AS YOU DON'T SAY "VOTE FOR" OR "VOTE AGAINST"
           YOU'RE PERMITTED WIDE LATITUDE TO APPLAUD, CONDEMN, SAY
           WHATEVER YOU WANT TO IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL PROCESS. AND
           THERE HAVE BEEN A WHOLE LINE OF CASES, MR. PRESIDENT, ON THE
           ISSUE OF -- ON THE QUESTION OF ISSUE ADVOCACY. THE FEDERAL

           ELECTION COMMISSION DOESN'T LIKE THE LAW ON ISSUE ADVOCACY, AND
           IT'S BEEN PURSUING GROUPS OVER THE YEARS, LOST EVERY SINGLE
           CASE. IN FACT, THE LAST CASE THEY LOST IN THE FOURTH CIRCUIT,
           THEY NOT ONLY LOST THE CASE, THEY REQUIRED THEM TO PLAY THE --
           PAY THE LAWYERS' FEES OF THE OTHER SIDE BECAUSE THE F.E.C. JUST
           DIDN'T GET IT, THEY COULDN'T READ THE LAW. IT'S VERY CLEAR.
{END: 1998/02/23 TIME: 16-00 , Mon.  105TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}