INVESTIGATION OF ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN CONNECTION WITH 1996 FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS FINAL REPORT of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SENATE Rept. 105-167 - 105th Congress 2d Session - March 10, 1998

              ADDITIONAL VIEWS BY SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA

    The Committee's investigation into the 1996 elections was 
triggered primarily by reports in the news media relating to 
Asia. Shortly before the election, news organizations reported 
that donors and fundraisers with ties to the Asia-Pacific 
region were linked to questionable contributions to the 
Democratic Party. After the election, the news media reported 
that U.S. intelligence agencies suspected the Chinese 
government of attempting to influence the elections.
    In light of this, it was understandable--and appropriate--
that the Committee devoted a great deal of time and attention 
to examining certain Asian nationals, Asian Pacific Americans, 
the so-called China Plan, and related matters. While I did not 
object to, and in fact supported, investigating these matters, 
I continue to have serious concerns about the manner in which 
the investigation was conducted. On a number of occasions, in 
my view, the Majority exhibited insensitivity to the effect of 
its actions and words on Americans of Asian ancestry.
    For example, in its discussion of the China Plan, the 
Majority Report confuses Chinese business and social 
connections of certain Asian American donors and fundraisers 
with the possibility of their being ``foreign agents.'' Seeds 
of doubt are cast out as to whether these individuals are loyal 
American citizens. Some of the subjects of the investigation 
may have violated campaign finance laws and some have been 
indicted by a federal grand jury. However, I am aware of no 
conclusive evidence that any of these individuals betrayed the 
United States. Absent stronger evidence, the Committee should 
refrain from making such damaging allegations.
    The Majority also exhibited insensitivity by blurring the 
important distinction between Asian nationals and Asian 
Americans. Let us remember that a congressional investigation 
is a powerful tool, and, like any tool, it must be used with 
skill and with care. If a congressional investigation is not 
conducted in that manner, it becomes a blunt instrument that 
can inflict serious harm to the reputations of innocent 
individuals.
    I am not just concerned that the Committee might have 
disparaged specific Asian Americans. I am also concerned about 
the effect that the allegations and insinuations of disloyalty 
may have on other Asian Americans--and, indeed, American 
citizens of other ethnic groups. The history of our country is 
replete with examples of ethnic groups whose loyalty has been 
questioned merely because of the national origin or religion of 
members of those groups.
    During the 19th century, many U.S. born Protestants viewed 
Irish Catholic immigrants as ``Papists'' who owed a special 
loyalty to Rome that conflicted with their loyalty to the 
United States. Many young people may not realize it, but this 
canard was used as recently as 1960--against then-Senator John 
F. Kennedy. Some of his opponents argued that a Catholic should 
never be elected President, on the grounds that he would be 
obliged to take orders from the Pope!
    During World War II, thousands of Japanese Americans and 
their foreign-born parents were held in federal internment 
camps solely on the basis of nationality and on the speculation 
that they would betray the United States to Japan. Such fears 
proved to be baseless and many Japanese Americans distinguished 
themselves in battle. The all-Nisei 100th/442nd combat team is 
the most decorated unit in U.S. military history.
    I strongly condemn all illegal fundraising activities, and 
I support prosecution of any individual or entity that may be 
guilty of violating federal campaign finance laws. However, I 
do not hold all Asian Americans responsible for the alleged 
actions of a few. With the majority of Americans choosing not 
to vote, let us not discourage Asian Americans from 
participating in the development of public policy because they 
believe the system is against them. Nor should Asian Americans 
be held to a higher standard than other citizens, and their 
political contributions should not be suspect. We cannot be 
guilty of selective harassment of those with Asian surnames 
because such actions only underscore the Asian American 
community's fear that they are being held responsible for the 
alleged crimes of some individuals who happen to be of Asian 
heritage.
    I am also concerned with the Majority's approach to the 
Special Investigation and its overriding focus on foreign 
money, which obscures the fact that foreign donors played a 
minuscule role in Democratic fundraising efforts in the 1996 
election cycle. The Democratic National Committee voluntarily 
returned about 172 contributions out of 2.7 million 
contributions, which represents .01 percent of the 
contributions received. Of the 172 returned contributions, 
fewer than 30 were returned because there was a determination 
that they were illegal or improper.
    All of the confirmed and suspected contributions from 
foreign sources in the 1996 election cycle totalled a few 
million dollars, representing a tiny fraction of the hard money 
and soft money contributions made during that cycle. Soft money 
contributions alone totalled more than a quarter of a billion 
dollars, most of it from wealthy individuals and corporations. 
Well-heeled donors also influenced the electoral process by 
funding political campaign ads through nonprofit groups, 
claiming that these were merely ``issue advocacy'' ads.
    While the Majority on this Committee focused on Charlie 
Trie, Johnny Chung, John Huang, Maria Hsia, Roger Tamraz, and 
others, the Majority has missed the forest for the trees. These 
individuals were not the only ones seeking access to decision-
makers or influence over the actions of the federal government. 
Without a doubt, the conclusions of the Special Investigation 
should not be ignored. Those who have broken laws should be 
prosecuted and punished.
    However, the Majority Report fails to focus on the real 
problem: campaign finance abuse and the need to reform the way 
federal elections are funded. Although it may be overshadowed 
by hyperbole about the so-called China connection, the most 
disturbing evidence gathered by the Committee details the use 
and abuse of our current campaign finance laws. The misuse of 
tax-exempt groups for political advocacy and fundraising; the 
creation and exploitation of tax-exempt shell organizations; 
the role of ``independent'' groups and issue advocacy 
expenditures; the exchange of access for campaign 
contributions; and the role of soft money in undermining the 
entire campaign finance system are some of the practices and 
loopholes utilized by both parties that are the most troubling 
instances of improper or illegal practices chronicled during 
the Special Investigation.
    I am pleased that several Republican members of the 
Committee strongly back real campaign finance reform, including 
Chairman Thompson. However, as long as Senate Republicans 
continue to choke off all efforts to revise our campaign 
finance laws and enact substantive reform, we will fail the 
American voters.
    Finally, I wish to associate myself with the Additional 
Views of Senator Richard J. Durbin. Senator Durbin's statement 
echoes the concerns I have expressed throughout the 
investigation relating to the failure of the Majority to 
enforce subpoenas issued by the Committee. The lack of 
enforcement and refusal to comply with Senate-issued subpoenas 
has set a dangerous precedent. I am hopeful that the serious 
disregard of Committee subpoenas has not harmed the Senate 
power to subpoena individuals to appear at hearings or submit 
requested information.

                            Daniel K. Akaka, United States Senator.