The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the tonight a preview of the Terry Nichols bombing trial, which began today in Denver; campaign finance reform, excerpts from today's Senate debate, plus the views of former Vice President Mondale and former Senator Kassebaum-Baker, and two perspectives on the new law governing the practice of religion in Russia. It all follows our summary of the news this Monday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Jury selection began today in the second Oklahoma City bombing trial. Lawyers arrived at the same Denver courthouse, where Timothy McVeigh was sentenced to death last month for the bombing. Terry Nichols, a friend of McVeigh's is also charged with murder and conspiracy in the 1995 bombing. If convicted, he could also receive the death penalty. Jury selection is expected to take several weeks. We'll have more on the story right after this News Summary. In economic news today personal incomes rose .6 percent in August the Commerce Department reported. That was triple the gain in July. Consumer spending increased .3 percent last month, and the Census Bureau reported family earnings up last year for the second year in a row. The real median household income rose 1.2 percent, or about $500 to $35,492. President Clinton said those figures meant an improvement in the nation's poverty levels.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: The report shows that while there is clearly much more to be done, the African- American poverty rate has fallen to its lowest level ever, the income of the typical Hispanic household grew more last year than in any single year on record, the child poverty rate has dropped in the past three years more than in any three-year period since the 1960's. Since 1993, every income group has seen its income rise, with those in the lowest 20 percent showing the fastest gains.

JIM LEHRER: 13.7 percent of the population lived below the poverty level last year. The Senate resumed its campaign finance debate today. At issue is legislation that would ban soft money contributions to political parties and restrict the way advocacy groups can spend money to help candidates. Two members of the Presidential Commission on Campaign Reform spoke today at a Washington news conference. Former Vice President Walter Mondale, a Democrat, and former Senator Nancy Kassebaum-Baker, a Republican.

NANCY KASSEBAUM-BAKER, Former Senator [R) Kansas: [technical difficulty-no audio) --would really encourage the democratic process, would really broaden it, and I think we both firmly believe would really expand the political participation in a broader way at the grassroots.

WALTER MONDALE, Former Vice President: The percentage of small contribution has dropped clear off in the federal structure as a result. People don't think it pays to participate. Voting has dropped off, and so we need to plug this to restore public trust in the sense that this government belongs to everybody.

JIM LEHRER: Sorry about the small technical problem. We'll talk with both Mondale and Kassebaum-Baker later in the program.

JIM LEHRER: The Middle East peace talks will resume October 6th. Secretary of State Albright made that announcement today. It followed a meeting between the Israeli foreign minister and a senior Palestinian negotiator. Albright spoke today in New York, where the meeting was held.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Secretary of State: Today's session was productive. And I believe we're headed in the right direction. We all agree that it is essential to re-energize these Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and to create the kind of environment necessary for those negotiations to succeed.

JIM LEHRER: Before the announcement Israeli authorities eased border restrictions in Palestinian-controlled areas. They allowed some 8,000 Palestinian workers to return to their jobs in Israel. The entry points were closed after a triple suicide bombing in Jerusalem which killed four Israelis and wounded 192. In the Malaysia plane crash story today a transcript of their last radio contact showed the pilot and the air traffic controller had a misunderstanding over landing instructions. Seconds later, the plane slammed into a mountain 30 miles short of the airport, killing all 234 aboard. The unidentified remains of 50 of those victims were buried in a mass grave today. The plane had been maneuvering through the thick smog that has covered much of Southeast Asia for much of several weeks. There's been some relief from that smog. Ian Williams of Independent Television News reports.

IAN WILLIAMS, ITN: Rarely can a tropical downpour have been more welcome than in Kuala Lumpur today. The rains managed to wash away much of the smog that's been blanketing the city. And it was sufficient for the state of emergency to be lifted in Malaysia's worst hit areas, though in the capital's meteorological center tracking the haze, they warned it was only a respite. The fires in Indonesia continue to force smoke into the atmosphere, and there are growing calls for the government here to be tougher on their neighbor. Yesterday a Malaysian tanker was grazed by another ship. It follows the collision of two other vessels, which left 29 people missing. The smog was blamed in both incidents. From Indonesia, though, have come accusations that many of the palm plantations responsible for the fires are owned by Malaysian companies, a list of which has been sent to the government In Kuala Lumpur. The prime minister's reaction so far has been to call a meeting of the accused companies and ask them to pay cash towards fighting the fires. In return, he's agreed not to publicize their names and to protect their investments in Indonesia.

JIM LEHRER: In this country fires continued to burn in the Sierra Nevada foothills of Northern California today. One thousand fire fighters are combating the blaze that has already burned nearly 6,000 acres. Some 1500 residents have evacuated their homes in Yuba County, 40 miles North of Sacramento. One hundred houses and buildings have been destroyed. Air tankers and helicopters were used to control the flames that were started on Saturday. The fire was 50 percent contained yesterday. Officials said they hope to have full containment by tomorrow. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Nichols trial, the Senate's campaign finance debate, Walter Mondale and Nancy Kassebaum-Baker, and the new religion law in Russia. FOCUS - BOMBING TRIAL II

JIM LEHRER: Betty Ann Bowser launches our coverage of the second Oklahoma City bombing trial.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Two days after the April 19, 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, 40-year-old Terry Nicholas, an old army buddy of Timothy McVeigh's, said he was listening to news reports here in his home in Herrington, Kansas, when he heard his name mentioned in connection with the incident. Later that day he went to the Herrington police station to ask why. Nichols, who had held a variety of jobs in Kansas and Michigan, was questioned for nine hours by police and FBI agents. Nichols told them that he was in Oklahoma City with McVeigh three days before the bombing; that he loaned McVeigh his truck the day before the bombing; and that he removed McVeigh's sleeping back and rifle from a storage locker in Herrington the day after the bombing. But, he said, he had no knowledge of the actual bomb plot. The FBI held Nichols as a material witness, and two weeks later, the government charged him with murder and conspiracy. Based on pre-trial hearings, the prosecution is expected to argue that Nichols was involved with McVeigh for months in planning the bombing. The government is expected to try and tie Nichols to the robbery of an Arkansas gun dealer and argue that money from that robbery was used to finance the bombing. The government may also produce a receipt for sale of a ton of ammonium nitrate, a receipt that was found in Nichols' home, with McVeigh's fingerprint on it. Ammonium nitrate was used to build the bomb. And the prosecution may also try and show that Nichols and McVeigh together built the bomb in the back of a yellow Ryder truck at Geary Lake State Park just 16 miles North of Nichols' home in Herrington. The lead defense attorney for Nichols is Michael Tigar, a University of Texas law professor. During his career Tigar has represented controversial clients. He was a defense attorney for the Chicago Seven in 1968, and he successfully represented John Demjanjuk, a retired Cleveland auto worker who was accused of being "Ivan the Terrible," an infamous Nazi concentration camp guard. In defending Nichols Tigar is expected to argue that Nichols was at home with his wife and daughter, 240 miles away from Oklahoma City, when the bomb went off; that Nichols was at a military surplus auction in Fort Riley, Kansas, the day prosecutors say the bomb was being built, and that any receipt for the purchase of fertilizer from this Kansas store was for Nichols' military surplus business and not for building a bomb. And Tiger is expected to draw from the testimony of the government's two- star witnesses in the case against Timothy McVeigh. Lori and Michael Fortier told the McVeigh jury that Nichols wanted out of the bombing plot and was not present when McVeigh discussed building the bomb.

MICHAEL TIGAR, Attorney: Terry Nichols was, according to Mrs. Fortier, not present for any conversation about any bombing, not present for any conversation about any illegal activity, not present for any stacking of soup cans, not present for any drawing of diagrams, or anything else remotely connected with the allegations in this case that may have taken place; and then the most significant thing of all; that ten days, or perhaps less, before April 19, 1995, Mr. McVeigh is alleged to have said in a motel in Kingman, Arizona, "Terry Nichols isn't going to be any part of this. Terry Nichols isn't going to help me."

BETTY ANN BOWSER: As in the McVeigh case, nearly 1,000 Colorado residents have been called as potential jurors and, as in the McVeigh trial, selection of a jury is expected to take several weeks.

JIM LEHRER: Elizabeth Farnsworth takes the story from there.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: For more on Nichols' trial we turn to three men who followed this trial periodically when it was the trial of Timothy McVeigh: Tim Sullivan, senior correspondent for Court TV; Jim Fleissner, professor at the Mercer University School of Law in Macon, Georgia, and a former federal prosecutor; and Dan Recht, the immediate past president of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar and a practicing attorney in Denver. Welcome back to all three of you. Tim Sullivan, describe the scene today. Was it like the early stages of the Timothy McVeigh trial?

TIM SULLIVAN, Court TV: Well, it was not very much like the McVeigh trial, Elizabeth. The day began with a short statement from Judge Richard Matsch of the people back in Oklahoma City, who are watching the trial on closed-circuit television, the families of victims and survivors of the bombing, and the judge said to them, "The evidence in this case will be very different from the trial of Timothy McVeigh." He said, "The trial of Terry Nichols begins on a clean page." In the courtroom the mood was I think more subdued, at least inside the well in the front part of the courtroom. Terry Nichols is a much more calm man than Timothy McVeigh. He's a very subdued sort of man. He's quiet. He comes in in the morning wearing a blue blazer and he shakes hands with his attorneys and chats with them but none of the laughing and joking with the attorneys that we saw from Timothy McVeigh or nodding to people in the audience and things like that, though Terry Nichols did acknowledge with a slight wave to his mother this morning that she was there, accompanied by Terry Nichols' sister, but there was only about half the press here for opening day than we saw at the McVeigh trial.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Dan Recht, how would you, if you were doing this case, get an impartial jury in the same courtroom with the same judge, the same place that Timothy McVeigh was just convicted and sentenced to death on the same charges that Terry Nichols faces?

DANIEL RECHT, Defense Lawyer: Well, it's a difficult task, that's for sure. The defense tried to have this trial moved to San Francisco, and unsuccessfully. So they need to go carefully with each juror, and each juror is being questioned individually, and, you know, as a background, each juror has gotten a long questionnaire asking them many questions about their background, what they knew about this case, what they heard about this case, how they heard it, where they heard it. And then they just need to be questioned concerning their biases and what they know, and you hope that you come up with a jury that doesn't have preconceived notions.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Jim Fleissner, what would you, as a prosecuting attorney, be looking for in a jury at this point?

JIM FLEISSNER, Former Federal Prosecutor: [Atlanta) Well, I think the main thing the prosecution is going to be looking for, jurors with an open mind about the death penalty. And the prosecution is entitled to a jury with an open mind about the death penalty. As to the question of bias and publicity, I just don't think that's going to be a major problem in selecting this jury. I think the reality is that most of these jurors know a lot about McVeigh but very little about Nichols. And they're going to be told--as the judge did tell them already--this is a blank slate, it's a different case; you shouldn't presume anything. And the defense in the case, the defense strategy is going to make that even easier, because the defense in the case is going to be McVeigh did this but Nichols didn't do this, and didn't participate. So the very defense strategy is going to make it so that jurors with a preconceived notion about McVeigh's guilt are going to be able to be fair because the issue in this case is different.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Mr. Recht, do you agree that that's what the defense strategy will be?

DANIEL RECHT: Well, you know, I actually talked to Michael Tigar about this yesterday, and, and it's true; the defense strategy is going to be that Nichols was never involved in any conspiracy. Now, the press has sort of wondered and I've wondered whether that was going to be their defense, or that he was initially involved in a conspiracy and then pulled out of it, which is a legal defense, and he would not be guilty if, in fact, that went through. But Mr. Tigar confirmed for me that their position is he was never--from the beginning-- involved in any conspiracy.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Fleissner, if that's the case, what does that do? What should the prosecution do? What do they have to do?

JIM FLEISSNER: Well, there's a very important aspect of the prosecution strategy and that is they have to remember that in the first case they were prosecuting McVeigh. He was the leading man in the bomb plot. Here they are prosecuting Nichols. He is a supporting actor. He wasn't there when the bomb went off. He didn't rent the Ryder truck. He has a lesser degree of involvement. The government has to forthrightly acknowledge his lesser degree of involvement and demonstrate to the jury that in the eyes of the law it doesn't matter; they can still convict Terry Nichols based on his supporting role in the case. As to this point that was raised about the--I'll just not continue that.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Jump in here, Tim Sullivan, on the differences between the two trials and how that makes the strategies of both sides different.

TIM SULLIVAN: Well, I think the prosecution here--they have a circumstantial case against Terry Nichols. Their case against Tim McVeigh was largely circumstantial but, of course, against Tim McVeigh. They had him arrested 70 miles from Oklahoma City about 70 minutes after the bombing, explosives residue on his clothing. He was, more or less, caught red-handed. They don't have anything like that against Terry Nichols. The challenge to the government here is they have to prove their allegation about Terry Nichols built that bomb. That's the most direct connection they have to put Terry Nichols deeply inside this plot. They have said on the record more than once that Terry Nichols built the bomb the day before the bombing, but in the McVeigh trial they put on no evidence of that. There wasn't one word from the government about where, how, or when that fourth or five thousand pound bomb was constructed. We may hear the government's theory about that in this case, as Betty Ann said. They allege it was built the day before at a state park in Kansas. We'll see if they can prove that. Also, they have Lana Padilla, Terry Nichols' ex-wife, who will be a key witness in this trial. Terry Nichols left this country a few months before the bombing went to the Philippines left the letter with Lana Padilla, said, don't open this unless I fail to return from the Philippines in 60 days. Well, she opened it immediately upon his leaving, and it was a letter to Tim McVeigh in there that said, "You're on your own, go for it," and had instructions to Tim McVeigh about things that were left in storage lockers, et cetera. That is going to hurt Terry Nichols, I believe, and it will help the government prove that he was more than just a sort of a theoretical backer of this thing.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Dan Recht, you want to say anything about that?

DANIEL RECHT: Well, it's true. They have circumstantial evidence against Nichols, and my understanding is that the defense team has reasons for all of those things and exculpatory reasons for all those things. The other thing that will differ greatly between these trials. And, again, Mr. Tigar confirmed this for me yesterday, is that they are going to--that is, the defense--put on a substantial case. He told me that they subpoenaed over 300 people just for the defense case, which comes after the prosecution case. And he also said he believed his cross- examination of government witnesses would be longer and more vigorous than we saw in the McVeigh trial.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Mr. Fleissner, let's talk about the lawyers for a minute. We have Michael Tigar and Larry Mackie, rather than Steven Jones and Joseph Hartzler. Starting with Mackie as a prosecutor--I'm sorry, starting with Tigar as a prosecutor--what difference will it make that it's Michael Tigar this time?

JIM FLEISSNER: Well, in the first trial the defense team, led by Steven Jones, I think took on the air of a portly officer of the court. And in this trial I think that the defense is going to be much more scrappy. If you're a prosecutor, looking across the courtroom at Michael Tigar, the only legitimate thing to be feeling is to be worried because he is sharp, he is creative, he's smart, and he's very, very tough, and I think that he's--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Let me interrupt just a minute. He's the defense lawyer which I knew I meant as you as a prosecutor, what difference will it make, so go ahead.

JIM FLEISSNER: Right. He is an extraordinary lawyer. He has kind of a Clarence Darrow-like persona, and I think he's going to be a real star in this case. He has a triable case. He could win this case.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Dan Recht, what would you add to that about Michael Tigar?

DANIEL RECHT: Michael Tigar has been my hero for the almost 20 years I've been a lawyer. He's a very good lawyer, but I guess I want to point out to be a very good courtroom lawyer doesn't mean you're tricky or sneaky. To be a very good courtroom lawyer means that you communicate well with jurors, that you--that they believe in you; that they trust you; that you seem honest, and Michael Tigar is all of those things. So I agree with, Jim. I think he's a formidable force.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Tim Sullivan, what about Larry Mackie, the prosecutor?

TIM SULLIVAN: Larry Mackie, Elizabeth, is an excellent lawyer. He had a very big role in the first trial. He was one of the three prosecutors who conducted jury selection in that trial, and he's doing that again here. He also delivered the closing argument, which was a very well constructed and convincing closing argument after the guilt phase in that trial. He also was a key maker of strategy in the first trial, and, of course, he's the boss this time around. And he'll be making the strategic calls. Just to give you one example, there's a famous videotape, a surveillance video camera at an apartment building near the Murrah building, caught a picture of Terry Nichols' truck, or the government says it's Terry Nichols' truck driving by that building just moments before the bombing a block away from the building that was exploded. They were going to put that in through maintenance man from the building where the video was made, and he was going to introduce that videotape. And it was Larry Mackie who suggested to Joe Hartzler let's not do that, let's put it in through this other witness. This was a civilian witness who was getting into his car in front of that building when that tape was made, putting his 10-year-old nephew in the car, and when the bomb went off the axle from the Ryder truck that carried the bomb flew through the air three blocks and landed on the roof of his car, nearly killing his 10-year-old nephew. The importance of his decision was that the jury saw that tape only after hearing this stirring emotional story about a 10-year-old kid almost killed by the bombing whose uncle was accidentally on the videotape that the government wanted to put in. So Mackie said let's put it in through that guy; it'll have a lot more punch. And it did.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Interesting. Mr. Fleissner, finally, how will Terry Nichols' statement to the FBI, the nine hours and something more of testimony that he gave right after the bombing in Herrington, Kansas? How was that likely to be used?

JIM FLEISSNER: Well, it's not a confession. Terry Nichols says in the statement that he didn't know about the bomb plot. And I think, as Dan said before, that's why the defense is going to pursue that defense, but he never was a member of this bomb plot. The defense attempted to suppress those statements as being seized in violation of the Constitution. The judge refused to do that. The statement is long. It's involved. He flip flops back and forth between various explanations for things. He starts off protesting his innocence, and he ends up saying, well, McVeigh did this and I may have accidentally helped him. The government will also try to prove that certain statements in that statement are false and they believe, on the whole, it is incriminating, even though at the bottom line it is not a confession.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay, gentlemen. Thank you very much for being with us. SERIES - THE MONEY CHASE

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight the Senate's campaign finance debate and religion in Russia. Kwame Holman begins the story.

KWAME HOLMAN: One of the key elements of the Senate's campaign finance reform bill sponsored by Senators McCain and Feingold says a non-union employee in a union workplace who is required to contribute money to the union can request that money not be used for political purposes.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, [R) Arizona: The bill would require that all labor unions give notice to non-union individuals who are forced to pay agency fees annual notice of their Beck rights. Such notice would occur by mail. They must inform the worker how much money he or she could receive.

KWAME HOLMAN: But Majority Leader Trent Lott today said why not extend that option to union members as well and introduced an amendment to McCain-Feingold that would require it.

SEN. TRENT LOTT, Majority Leader: Most Americans would be shocked to learn that some workers in our

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL: What I believe it was an engagement in issue advocacy and--

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: You really believe that that was an issue advocacy ad, when they said Congressman J. D. Heyworth is an enemy of every man, woman, and child in Arizona?

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL: The Supreme Court has said that it is issue advocacy unless the words "vote for," "elect," "support," "cast your ballot," "Smith for Congress," "vote against," "defeat," or "reject"--the court lists the magic words here--it's not really gray. And I think the reason the court did this is that they wanted to encourage citizens to be free to be critical of us any time they want to.

KWAME HOLMAN: Senate debate on campaign finance reform continues through this week, with votes on amendments expected next week.

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner has more.

MARGARET WARNER: With me now are former Democratic Senator and Vice President of the United States Walter Mondale--he most recently served as ambassador to Japan--and former Republican Senator Nancy Kassebaum-Baker. Last March, President Clinton asked them to investigate and make recommendations on reforming the campaign finance process. In June, they responded with three recommendations: a ban on soft money, more rapid, in-depth disclosure of political contributions and expenses, and stronger enforcement of campaign finance laws by a more independent Federal Election Commission. Today, as reported earlier, they released a list of 79 other former members of Congress who have joined in support of those recommendations. Welcome both of you. Mr. Vice President, McCain-Feingold, that bill has many of the same elements as your recommendations. Do you think it comes close enough to what you all thought--think has to be done?

WALTER MONDALE, Former Vice President: Yes, I support McCain-Feingold.

NANCY KASSEBAUM BAKER, Former Senator [R) Kansas: Yes, we certainly do support the concept. I think both of us also believe that the concept issue advocacy advertising should be tightened.

MARGARET WARNER: Which is what we just saw this debate about.

NANCY KASSEBAUM BAKER: Yes.

WALTER MONDALE: The key point in our proposals and in this issue is what happens to soft money. Soft money is a loophole that has taken over campaign financing just the last say eight years at the most. There are no limits in how much people can contributions. Almost every example in these recent Senate hearings is of soft money. Mr. Tamraz gave $300,000, said he was going to give $600,000. Money can come from corporate treasuries, and it can come from union treasuries, and it is a--the system has broken down. That's what we're talking about, closing that loophole so that we can get back not to stopping people from speaking or campaign-- that will continue--but to have some kind of reasonable restraints upon how much can be given--the disclosures and so on, so that the public can trust this thing again. That's what's at issue.

MARGARET WARNER: Of course, these soft money contributions are to the parties. Do you think, Senator, that the parties could survive without these huge infusions, I mean, millions and millions of dollars, if they had to collect them in $1,000 increments?

NANCY KASSEBAUM BAKER: I certainly do. In fact, we feel strongly that it will help broaden the contributions because people will then feel their own individual contribution will matter more. I think it will encourage people to get out and work in their blocks and in their communities and contribute because everybody should contribute. This isn't cutting off access to anybody. And I think it makes people feel that they've got more at stake in the process than just some very wealthy contributors. So you may have to work a little harder but it will be more important in the long run, I think, to strengthening the parties.

MARGARET WARNER: And the Senator raised the issue advocacy. It has several different terms, but the gist of the recommendation is that if one of these independent groups runs ads mentioning any candidate by name near the election, then, as I understand it, there--any donations made would be subjected to the same restrictions, thousand dollars, or whatever it is. Why is that important?

WALTER MONDALE: It's important because what we're seeing now are ads that do everything but name the candidate and say vote for him, or vote against him. As Sen. McCain pointed out, this one example of all this money being spent accusing this person of all kinds of things, but not saying those last words, "vote against him"-- there is the argument that this is what they call "issue advocacy." In other words, it's not campaigning. Everybody knows it's campaigning. That's what's going on. So in addition to closing off the soft money loophole for direct campaigning, you need to define what is campaigning in a way that this sort of thing that is campaigning but now is not so construed will be included in the basket. Otherwise, the fear is we'll close this one loophole and more money will just show up in the other way.

MARGARET WARNER: The Tamrazes will just end up giving to these new groups or old groups that funnel the money.

WALTER MONDALE: A different way of doing it, right.

NANCY KASSEBAUM BAKER: Margaret, I think it's important to show that this really didn't become a problem until after 1988. In 1980 and '84, only $20 million was spent on so-called "soft money": get out the vote, voter registration and so forth. In the last election $270 million was spent. So, you know, it's been an enormous growth.

WALTER MONDALE: And I just heard yesterday that the rate of soft money raising now is at two and a half times that of four years ago. So this is going straight up. And this is--this is serious business. And this is new, and it's different, and it is--it raises the risk of corrupting the whole system.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. But what do you say to a group, an established group, whether it's pro- environmental or anti-abortion, that says, we want to tell our members we're not trying to--we're not coordinated with any other campaign, but we want to get out there and criticize incumbent members of Congress whose voting records we don't like and this would restrict us?

NANCY KASSEBAUM BAKER: They can do it. Why does it restrict them? It doesn't tell them they can't do it.

MARGARET WARNER: It just says they have to use a different kind of regulated money to.

NANCY KASSEBAUM BAKER: Well, yes, as does everybody else, as do the candidates, themselves. I think it doesn't limit one's voice. There are so many means now of being on the air, of being able to reach people that these types of ads, though, are distortions. And they're not just issue. You can raise the issue, and if you want to tell a candidate's record, there are many ways that pamphlets are put under windshield wipers in parking lots and, you know, attending public meetings, and there'severy means of getting out a candidate's position in a way that it should be.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me turn to the other most contentious issue that came up today having to do with labor unions and how they get money from their members. Now, as you know, in McCain-Feingold it would at least let the non-union members say, hey, I don't want my money used for political contributions. The Republicans would like to extend that to all union members. Do you think that's a good idea?

WALTER MONDALE: If you close off soft money, there will be no union treasury money used in these campaigns. Today the federal system allows unions to go out and collect voluntary money called PAC money. That's the money they can use. But they can't get it unless a member gives it. It's voluntary. It's different from what you just heard described.

MARGARET WARNER: So you're--

WALTER MONDALE: What permits the use of union treasury money is the soft money loophole. We propose to close that loophole and then this kind of money cannot be raised. That's the answer to the question we just heard debated together with redefining what is campaigning in a way to include these where names are used just before the election. And that is--that answers the question. So, No. 1, most money would--all money would be raised voluntarily if that law--if the McCain-Feingold passed.

NANCY KASSEBAUM BAKER: And, of course, the PAC money is under federal election laws, so it's limited.

MARGARET WARNER: But then why are Republicans so eager to get that provision, if it's essentially meaningless?

WALTER MONDALE: It's what's called a killer amendment strategy. This--it's undeniable that if you close off the soft money loophole, which we propose, it applies to union treasury money, as well as corporations and wealthy Americans, then the only way that unions can spend money in a federal election is with PAC money. All that money has to be raised voluntarily.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me ask you a political question about the Republicans. Right now only four Republicans in the Senate have declared their support for McCain-Feingold. I mean, you just left the Senate a year ago. What do you think it's going to take to move enough of your former colleagues in support of it, enough to break a filibuster, which is essentially ten more, even more members?

NANCY KASSEBAUM BAKER: A growing realization that it is important to the public. We believe it is, and we feel strongly it should be bipartisan, that it shouldn't just get on to the floor as a very partisan political debate, that it's important to everybody. And I think there is growing momentum, but the key will be if the public really believes something can be done.

MARGARET WARNER: What more--how does the--they tell pollsters that they want campaign finance reform--I mean, what more can they do?

NANCY KASSEBAUM BAKER: Because not much has happened, and there's a lot of cynicism about, oh, well, it's just going to continue the same old way. I think the press paying attention to it makes a difference. I think the belief that there is some growing momentum will come, and understanding that this is not a First Amendment issue. I truly believe as long as you're not cutting off access you really can make some changes that are going to be beneficial to the process. And I think the public, as they come to see this through this debate--and I think the debate is very useful--because much of this just sort of happened without Congress really getting into a major debate on how things have changed and why we need to then begin to look at it in ways that can make it more effective.

MARGARET WARNER: Your assessment of the prospects of something this year.

WALTER MONDALE: I am encouraged but I realize it's difficult. I think we've made a lot of progress from four months ago. It's now on the Senate floor. These arguments are being heard. I think we have an improved chance. Now, with the announcement of support by all these former Senators and members of the House and so on, three--there are three former Presidents of the United States called for the end of soft money--I think we've got a chance. But it's still a struggle.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, Mr. Vice President, Senator, thank you both very much.

JIM LEHRER: There are those who disagree with Vice President Mondale and Sen. Kassebaum Baker and tomorrow night we will look at the other side of this debate with two political activists who are opposed to restricting soft money and similar contributions. FOCUS - CHURCH & STATE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight Russia's new law on religion and to Phil Ponce.

PHIL PONCE: The law signed by Russian President Boris Yeltsin last Friday recognizes the Russian Orthodox Church for a special historic role in Russia and Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism, as traditional faiths. But the law divides all religious groups into two categories: those that can prove they have been active in Russia for 15 years or more received full legal rights. Those groups that cannot prove they've been acting 15 years must register with local authorities and face a variety of government restrictions. Lawrence McDonnell of Independent Television News filed this report when the law was passed.

LAWRENCE McDONNELL: Outside the parliament building in Moscow Hari Krishnas out-sung the followers of other faiths who, like them, gathered to protest against the lawmakers. They were effectively all singing with one voice, demonstrating against a new religious law that they say will restrict their freedom and violates the Russian constitution. They were given short shrift by extreme nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who told them to pack their bags. And inside the duma they got the same treatment. The law was passed almost unanimously. Today the head of the committee that drafted the bill signed it off. He said the country needed protecting.

VIKTOR ZORKALTSEV, Committee on Religious Affairs: [speaking through interpreter) In the last decade the country has been flooded with new religions, pseudo religions, and totalitarian sects, and this law will limit the expansion of this sort of religion. U.S. Vice President Al Gore, in Moscow for talks with Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, said the law was discriminatory that acknowledged his objections were all but ignored. The call for restrictions on religious freedom came about when the Orthodox Church realized it was losing young followers to groups like Aum Shin Rikyo, the cult held responsible for the gas attack on the Japanese underground. But traditional religions say they too will lose out under the new legislation. Roman Catholics are worried because the operation of any church not registered under Soviet law could be curtailed. At the Church St. Louis Father Gei should be where the KGB once installed a camera to monitor the comings and goings of worshipers in the dark days of religious repression. He thought those days were over. Now, he's not so sure.

FATHER ANATOLY GEI, Church of St. Louis: [speaking through interpreter] We hoped that with democracy would come full religious freedom. And, to start with, that's what happened. People could worship without fear of persecution. Now, the situation has taken a turn for the worse.

LAWRENCE McDONNELL: The Orthodox Church has enjoyed a new prominence in post Soviet Russia and lobbied hard for a new law, encouraged by Boris Yeltsin's newfound faith, now they stand accused of religious nationalism.

PHIL PONCE: Joining us now are Lauren Homer, and international lawyer who specializes in religious liberties and human rights issues in the former Soviet Republics and Father Leonid Kishkovsky, an orthodox priest and the ecumenical officer of the Orthodox Church in America, which is independent of but in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church. Lauren Homer, if I may go to you first, what, in your opinion, is the motivation behind this law? Why was it passed?

LAUREN HOMER, International Lawyer: Well, I think it's an attempt by the Russian government and by the Moscow patriarchate of the Orthodox Church to try to keep people from thinking for themselves in Russia.

PHIL PONCE: Excuse me, the official you alluded to, he is, or that person, the role is--

LAUREN HOMER: The Moscow patriarchate is the official organization of the Russian Orthodox Church. It's the largest of a number of Russian Orthodox religious organizations in Russia.

PHIL PONCE: And do you see them as having been mutually involved in promoting this bill?

LAUREN HOMER: They were very much involved. And I think they would acknowledge their participation in trying to shut down activities of religious organizations that have started to be organized in Russia since the Brezhnev era and certainly since the beginning of perestroika in the early 1990's.

PHIL PONCE: Would you say it's--would you say it's specifically aimed at protecting membership in the Russian Orthodox Church?

LAUREN HOMER: Well, it's much broader in its scope than that. It will regulate all religious organizations in Russia in a much more extreme way than has been the case since 1990.

PHIL PONCE: Father Kishkovsky, why do you think this law was passed?

LEONID KISHKOVSKY, Orthodox Church in America: There is general support in Russian society for this legislation I have found in recent visits to Moscow. There's broad support in this society I suppose because it's a reaction of anxiety to the in-rush of new religious groups that did occur in the former Soviet Union after its collapse. And I think it's very important to remember that less than 10 years ago Russia and the other parts of the Soviet Union were closed totalitarian societies and the in-Russia freedom, which we all welcome and certainly the Russians welcome, brought with it also a very massive and aggressive missionary effort from North America, Western Europe, and Asia, and that very high profile and well-financed missionary effort by groups coming from outside certainly created some social tensions. And I think that they are understandable tensions; they are tensions that would exist in our own American society should there be such a massive in-rush of missionary activity coming at a weak moment in national history when people are disoriented, anxious about the future, hopeful for freedom, but also not certain how to live in free circumstances. And we have to remember that Russia entered this last period with no tradition or habit or custom of living in a free society. All of this is entirely new and the newness of it has created I think the political moment where a certain reaction has set in against this unlimited religious freedom.

PHIL PONCE: Once upon a time, not that long ago, there was a perception inthe West that religion and Russia were not two words that necessarily went together, but are you saying there is--there is a strong interest, resurgent interest in--

LEONID KISHKOVSKY: Yes. Under the Communists, religions, all of them, and certainly the Russian Orthodox Church, were the object of persecution and genocide, and the plan of the Communist Party was to eliminate religious life in the Soviet Union.

PHIL PONCE: Now, though, how many adherents does the Russian Orthodox Church have in Russia percentagewise?

LEONID KISHKOVSKY: Percentagewise I'm told that something like 80 percent of the population of the Russian Federation identify themselves as Russian Orthodox. That doesn't mean that all of them or most of them are religiously observant, but it does meant that they have a cultural historical connection to the Russian Orthodox tradition. Many of them are rediscovering that as a religious belief as well.

PHIL PONCE: Lauren Homer, who is this going to hurt?

LAUREN HOMER: Well, it's going to hurt all Russian churches. Unfortunately, 15 years ago in the Brezhnev era many Russian churches were not allowed to register. That includes many Baptist churches, Pentecostal and--

PHIL PONCE: Excuse me. When you say all Russian churches, are you including the Russian Orthodox Church? I take it you're not.

LAUREN HOMER: Well, I would think that it would also hurt the Orthodox Church because it is going to be-- along with all the other churches--subject to much more state regulation. And its believes are going to have less freedom.

PHIL PONCE: One has gotten the impression that the aim of this--that the aim of this law might have been these miscellaneous sects. Will it also hurt established main--so-called main line religions?

LAUREN HOMER: Yes, it will. And certainly the activities of the sects, and I agree with Father Kishkovsky, their very public missionary activity has had a negative impact, and that has definitely been the excuse for passage of this law.

PHIL PONCE: Specifically, how is it going to hurt religious activity? What will religions be not allowed to do on a daily basis?

LAUREN HOMER: Well, it's going to reduce the number of religious organizations that have what we might call full legal rights: They can set up seminaries; have educational programs; get clergy exemptions and produce and distribute religious literature. That's going to be limited to groups that have been--that existed in Russia for more than 15 years. So, for instance, if you're a Baptist group and you wanted to create your own church, you can't have any of those rights. If you're not registered now, you won't be able to get them until you've been active for 15 years. If you are registered now, you can get very limited rights but not the ones that I just mentioned.

PHIL PONCE: And as far as--say a Roman Catholic parish wants to bring in a priest from overseas to help with proselytizing, whatever, would that kind of activity conceivably be affected as well?

LAUREN HOMER: Well, very much so, and I think that is one of the--that's one of the open questions Father Kishkovsky and I both know that the Russian government is claiming that they're going to interpret the law in a way that's rather different from the way that it's written. But right now only the organizations that existed in the Soviet period will be allowed to invite foreign visitors. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church they only had two congregations in all of Russia at that time, and so there may be some substantial problems for them both with bringing in foreign priestsand most priests in Russia actually even in the Orthodox Church--

PHIL PONCE: That's because there's a three-congregation sort of base line.

LAUREN HOMER: That's right.

PHIL PONCE: And so even Roman Catholicism can be affected. How do you respond to this as a clergy person to seeing this kind of law passed?

LEONID KISHKOVSKY: Well, as an American Orthodox I'm very concerned about negative results that may well result, that may well occur because of this legislation. It depends on how it is implemented certainly but the intent of the legislation is to limit and to restrict. But, again, I think I must return to the point about the previous period under a rather chaotic freedom. Let me give you one illustration. Several years ago the Unification Church, which we all know in the United States, in Russia reached an agreement, signed a kind of contract with the Russian federation's Ministry of Education and through that contract had direct access into the public schools of Russia providing a curriculum on moral values. Now, understandably, that created a real unhappiness for the Russian Orthodox Church and I would guess for Baptists and for Catholics in Russia as well. And it's that sort of un--I don't like the word "regulation," but it is this--this kind of chaotic reality of how religion entered into the public arena that has produced what I think is a very unfortunate reaction. And I am hoping that through engagement with the Russian government and with Russian religious communities we in America may assist them, accompany them on the way towards religious liberty which is not chaotic, which is somehow built on law, on custom, on tradition of democracy and freedom.

PHIL PONCE: Is there a realistic expectation on the part of the religious in this country that they can have that kind of an influence in Russia?

LEONID KISHKOVSKY: I believe we can. For example, it seems to me that the conversations of Vice President Gore with Prime Minister Chernomyrdin just about a week ago were conversations that tried to build a certain mechanism, a possibility of further consultation. I was at a conference in the Hague about 10 days ago--a small group, about half from Russia, half from Western Europe and the U.S.--and we were meeting in order to discuss the implications of the law. And the last day of the meeting President Yeltsin's aide on these matters specially came to the Hague to speak with us. And he was attempting to persuade us that by working together it is possible to provide benign mechanisms that are inclusive rather than draconian and exclusive for the future of religious life and liberty in Russia.

PHIL PONCE: Father Kishkovsky, Lauren Homer, I thank you both.

LAUREN HOMER: Thank you. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Monday, jury selection began in the trial of Terry Nichols, charged with conspiracy and murder in the Oklahoma City bombing. At the United Nations Secretary of State Albright announced the Middle East peace talks will resume October 6th. And artist Roy Licktenstein died at a New York hospital at age 73. He was a pioneer of the pop art movement and was known for his oversized comic book-like images. An editor's note before we go: Many of our viewers have asked what Robert MacNeil has been up to since his retirement from this program two years ago. Well, today he was up to receiving an award from President and Mrs. Clinton at the White House. He accepted a National Medal of Arts on behalf of the McDowell Colony, a 450-acre farm in rural New Hampshire that offers artists time, space, andinspiration. Robin is chairman of the McDowell board. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.