03.23.01

Senator Cantwell Announces Support for "Clean Money" Election Laws

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Senator Maria Cantwell's March 21, 2001 statement before the Senate on eliminating the influence of special groups in elections:

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation and the Wellstone amendment. I ran for the U.S. Senate because I believe it is time for us to reform our political system and bring it into the 21st century. At a time where citizens are more empowered than ever with information, where access to technology and communications tools makes it possible for citizens to track and understand on a daily basis our legislative progress, and where citizens understand exactly the tug and pull of the legislative process, that is, who is getting tugged and who is getting pulled. It is time to respond with a political system that is more inclusive in the decision process. That meets the best long-term needs of our citizens, instead of a political system of financing campaigns that rewards short-term expedient decision-making.

But before I go on about the Wellstone amendment that I rise to support, I want to thank the authors of the bill, Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, for the commitment, determination, courage and perseverance that they have demonstrated on this issue. Campaign finance reform has few friends. It has many enemies. It suffers from a public that simply believes that we cannot reform ourselves or this system. John McCain and Russ Feingold, at great personal expense, have championed this cause for many years and I am proud to join them in the heat of this battle.

I rise today in support of the Wellstone amendment that I am cosponsoring along with Senators Corzine and Kerry because I believe it will truly start us down the road of progress--progress in allowing clean money and clean money efforts to finance campaigns. There is almost a grassroots effort popping up in many States such as Maine, Vermont, Arizona, and Massachusetts, and hopefully with this amendment, in many more States across our country.

The clean money effort allows us to put our political system where it belongs--back in the hands of the public, making it more accountable for the people we represent. This is the political reform that our country so badly needs.

The money we raise from special interests plays a role in politics. It plays a role in setting the terms of the debate. It plays a role in what issues get placed at the top of the legislative agenda. And, most importantly, it keeps the focus in the wrong place.

Elizabeth Drew, wrote a book called "Whatever It Takes," that chronicled some of the way business and the Congress operate. Paraphrasing her remarks, some of the interest groups oppose legislation because it is the camel's nose under the tent. It is something they can stop, and so they do.

We need a political decision making process in Congress in an information age where people are brought together, and not just met with because we agree with them. Our failure to act to reduce the amount of money in politics is feeding the skepticism and cynicism about politics and government among our citizens, and particularly our youth.

At a time when we are not far from Internet voting, we ought to have a system of financing campaigns that encourages our citizens to be more involved. Our citizens believe the current campaign finance system prevents us from acting in their interest.

We have been through a technology revolution in this country, and we have to have a governing system, and a campaign system that will keep pace with it.

I was reminded in this last cycle--going around the State of Washington, I met a constituent who wanted to tell me about a piece of legislation. They turned around to their desktop and printed off the bill that was being considered, circled the sections of the bill they were most interested in, and said: Now tell me why we can't get this passed by the U.S. Senate.

I didn't have to answer this person. They knew very well why it was not getting addressed in the Senate. And that is why we need to change our system.

I welcome Senator Wellstone's amendment and his recognition that States can be leaders in this area. I hope my colleagues embrace the spirit of this amendment and recognize it for what it is--a great opportunity to watch, to see, and to learn from those experiments that are happening at the State level.

As Senator Wellstone said, States are great laboratories. By letting States that are interested in doing so set up public funding systems for their Federal candidates, we will be providing ourselves with valuable research on how we can level the playing field and get the money out of politics.

Think about that: The time that Members spend raising money instead spent listening to the voters in their States.

We have already learned from the clean money election systems in Maine that candidates taking part in that voluntary system have had the following things say:

"It was easier to recruit candidates to run for office."

"It is what the people want."

"I will only have about half the money I raised last time but much more time to talk to the people." We have learned that voluntary limits can work. In his Senate race in 1996, Senator John Kerry and his opponent, then-Governor Bill Weld, agreed to a voluntary spending limit, and the result was a campaign waged largely on the issues. Senator Kerry proved there are incentives for both sides to improve the political discourse.

In Arizona, 16 candidates were elected under the clean money system, including an upset victory over the former speaker of the State senate. And the challenger spent only one-quarter of the money that his opponent took.

In Maine, 49 percent of the State senate candidates won their seats while participating in the clean money program.

Overall, States implementing public financing have seen more candidates run, more contested primaries, more women running for office, and, most importantly, it is proving that good candidates can run winning campaigns and participate in a system that limits spending.

The only way we have to truly level the playing field, both between candidates and parties of opposing ideologies, and more importantly, between new candidates and incumbents, is to commit the resources to the process of getting people elected.

Not until we create a campaign system with a shorter and more intensive campaign period--something I think the public would truly applaud--funded with finite and equal resources available to all candidates, will we be able to really listen carefully to what the people want.

Not until then will we be able to free candidates from the time, and the energy drain that is needed for dialing for dollars. Not until then will we be able to improve the quality of political discourse, to play down the dominance of polls, to render tax-driven negative ads ineffective, and to remove the appearance that political decision making is not based on principle but on the dependence on funds.

We can't in an information age and a technology age be smart enough to figure out how to make prescription drugs and new therapies improve the quality of life and health care and yet not even have the debate to make prescription drugs more affordable.

Why is that? Because it, too, has gotten clogged in this debate and campaign finance reform. Senator Wellstone's amendment removes the roadblock to exploring new options for getting people elected in a new information age. I support the right of States to experiment with new ideas to help level the playing field and to improve our election process and our campaign system.