Reprinted from The Washington Times , 5am -- April 23, 1998
Flanking move by GOP advocates revives debate on campaign finance
By Nancy E. Roman
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Under pressure from within their party, GOP leaders agreed to consider a massive rewrite of federal election law governing the financing of federal campaigns, assuring that the issue will be debated on the House floor.
"This is a great day for democracy," said Rep. Christopher Shays, Connecticut Republican, who led 13 Republicans in a tactical maneuver that ultimately overcame leadership's resistance to campaign finance reform. "Leadership is responding to the membership."
House leaders issued a statement that said "following the model of listen, learn, help, lead," they discussed campaign finance reform and decided to bring it to the floor "in May."
Mr. Shays said some members are angry with the outcome. Others felt "intimidated at times." But he said the GOP is like a family with "a lot of differences," who finally agreed that the country was ready to debate money in politics and the many possible ways of regulating it.
"Now the hard part will be to build a consensus," said Mr. Shays, who along with 12 other Republicans including Reps. Constance A. Morella of Maryland and Frank R. Wolf of Virginia joined Democrats in signing a discharge petition that could have forced a bill to the floor.
By yesterday morning, GOP leaders realized they were in danger of being overtaken. They discussed possible strategies for campaign finance legislation in a closed meeting of House Republicans that was at times contentious. Leaders urged members not to sign the discharge petition, which they argued would give Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, Missouri Democrat, the upper hand.
But some believed they had no choice.
"The speaker asked me why I was doing this," said Rep. Brian P. Bilbray, California Republican. "I said I had no other vehicle."
While the agreement assures a House debate on campaign finance reform, it is not clear what -- if anything -- will pass. If the House can muster 218 votes for any reform, it would likely embolden the Senate.
Senate Democrats have been trying to rewrite federal election law for years, and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle praised House Republicans who led the campaign finance fight yesterday.
"I give great credit to the brave souls, especially on the Republican side, who are signing that," the South Dakota Democrat said. "It's keeping the issue alive. We can't afford to let this die."
Democrats, joined by a handful of Republicans, hope to eliminate "soft money" -- party-building funds that are not given to specific candidates. Democrats have had trouble competing with Republicans to raise these funds.
Mr. Shays and a handful of Republicans embraced that version of reform, but leadership blocked it just before members went home for Easter recess.
Rep. Rick Hill, Montana Republican, said something has to change.
"Both political parties have become addicted to large-money contributions," he said.
Rep. Kevin Brady, Texas Republican, said the campaigns are "crazy."
"People are reluctant to run for office because they don't have a million dollars," he said.
Advocates of reform were flush with victory after their procedural triumph but remained cautious.
Rep. Zach Wamp noted that with the economy thriving, most Americans do not care about campaign finance reform.
"This is still not on the radar screen of the average citizen," the Tennessee Republican said.
The beginning point for debate next month is a bill drafted by Rep. Asa Hutchinson, Arkansas Republican, and other freshmen from both parties that would:
- Ban soft money that individuals, businesses, unions and other organizations give to parties for issue advocacy.
- Raise the limits that individuals may contribute from $25,000 every two years to $25,000 every year.
- Increase PAC contribution limits from $15,000 to $20,000 per year.
- Require candidates to report the names and occupations of their contributors after they raise $50,000 or more.
- Require that third-party groups, including unions and nonprofit groups, that donate $25,000 in a single district or $100,000 nationwide disclose who they are and their agenda.
If this bill or anything like it survives the House, it will put enormous pressure on the Senate, which has killed campaign finance proposals six times.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi said on Tuesday that he would do "nothing," even if the House passed campaign finance reform.
But the evidence suggests that at least some senators are worried about House action.
"If you don't think the Senate is concerned, speak to some of the members who got calls from senators," Mr. Shays said.
Until now, most of the action on campaign finance reform has occurred in the Senate, where Democrats have pushed various incarnations of a bill sponsored by Sens. Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat, and John McCain, Arizona Republican.
Republicans have pulled out the stops to kill that effort, with Sen. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican and chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, arguing that curbing political contributions is tantamount to curbing free speech.
That bill, backed by the Clinton administration and all 45 Senate Democrats, also would bar wealthy candidates who spend more than $50,000 of their own money in a campaign from receiving political subsidies from their parties. It creates new rules surrounding what advocacy groups may say in the 60 days before elections of congressional candidates.Copyright 1998 News World Communications, Inc.
Reprinted with permission of
The Washington Times.
To subscribe to the Washington Times National Weekly Edition, click this icon or call 800-363-9118.
