In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

A Senate Democrat’s Perspective David Boren David Boren was a U.S. senator from Oklahoma from 1979 to 1994. Boren was a fact witness for the defense. He testified as to his experience running for reelection while following a personal policy of refusing political action committee contributions and discussed the impact of soft money on the campaign finance system during his tenure in Congress. In this excerpt, he describes some of the methods parties use to raise soft money and its corruptive effect on the legislative process. When I left the Senate in 1994, I left with a sense of gratitude for having had the privilege to serve there, but also in a state of great alarm about its future. Congress as an institution is in trouble, and only a change in the way our campaigns are financed can mend the broken trust between the American people and their government. During my time in the Senate, I was one of a handful of senators who did not take any money from political action committees (PACs). I also tried to minimize the time I spent raising “soft money” for the Democratic Party, and as a result, I received almost no money from the Democratic Party for my campaigns. At the time, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and other national party organizations kept records, or “tallies,” of how much soft money a senator had raised for the party. The DSCC then gave little money to the campaigns of those senators who had not raised adequate party funds. In my view, this practice demonstrates very clearly that soft money is not used purely for “party-building” activities, but that there is at least a working understanding among the party officials and senate candidate that the money will benefit the individual senators’ campaigns. Political parties raise soft money in various ways. One very effective fund-raising tool was the gala dinners and other functions where big donors purchased “tables” with soft-money contributions. Like other senators , I was expected to “sell a table” and attend these functions, and, from time to time, I did. Sometimes, lobbyists called me or other senators, offered to buy a “table” for the corporation they represented and then 116 Politicians and Party Officials 03 1583-8 part1b 3/25/03 12:00 PM Page 116 offered to “make sure the donation goes on your tally.” At the fundraising dinners themselves, donors could often choose which senators they would like to have at their table. They often chose the senator who was a member of the congressional committee that mattered to the particular industry. In addition to dinners, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), DSCC, and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) organized a variety of other events for large soft-money donors, such as breakfasts to talk about policy issues. I also occasionally attended these events. While donors did not necessarily lobby us for specific legislative actions at these events, donors would frequently say, “I’ve been meaning to come by and see you” or “Can your scheduler set up an appointment for someone in my firm?” Each senator knows who the biggest donors to his party are. Donors often prefer to hand their checks to the senator personally , or their lobbyist informs the senator that a large donation was just made. Senators play golf with donors at weekend retreats and attend dinners and briefing sessions together. Through these functions, donors and members of Congress become part of a small village where everyone knows each other and knows who is providing funding to the party. This creates a tremendous hydraulic: it is extremely difficult to decline to see, and perhaps do favors for, someone whom you know personally and who has been generous to you and your party. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I experienced the pressure firsthand. On several occasions when we were debating important tax bills, I needed a police escort to get into the Finance Committee hearing room because so many lobbyists were crowding the halls, trying to get one last chance to make their pitch to each senator. Senators generally knew which lobbyist represented the interests of which large donor. I was often glad that I limited the amount of soft-money fund-raising I did and did not take PAC contributions because it would be extremely difficult not to feel beholden to these donors otherwise. I know from my firsthand experience and from my interactions with other senators that they did...

Share