Money, Politics Collide as House Again Debates Campaign Finance Reform; GOP Leads Attack

WASHINGTON —  The House on Tuesday opened a freewheeling debate on money in politics, with Republican leaders beseeching about two dozen undecided GOP lawmakers to help derail a proposal to limit large donations from unions, corporations and wealthy individuals.

The leaders, claiming that GOP control of the House could be at stake, today will try to amend a bill that would ban the unlimited donations to national political parties that are known as soft money. Their goal is to force negotiations between the House and the Senate that could scuttle the legislation.

To that end, Republican National Committee Chairman Marc Racicot wrote and telephoned lawmakers to remind them of the significant differences between the bill and the reform principles spelled out last year by President Bush.

Still, as the long-awaited House debate opened, the bill’s foes acknowledged that they could not count on allies in the Senate or the White House to stop it.

“There’s no longer any place to hide,” said Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), an opponent of the bill. “It’s going to be settled right here in the House of Representatives.”

Late Tuesday, GOP leaders were honing a strategy that would attempt to sink the bill by passing amendments with financing limits so strongly worded that they have no chance of becoming law.

Another would force parties to stop raising soft money immediately and require them to return millions of dollars in soft money they have already raised in anticipation of this year’s congressional elections.

Reform Advocates Win on Ground Rules Vote

In preliminary action earlier Tuesday, the House approved on a voice vote ground rules for the campaign finance debate, which will culminate in major votes today and perhaps Thursday. The procedural vote itself was a significant victory for the pro-reform coalition of Democrats and dissident Republicans.

Just last summer, after the Senate’s approval of a bill that includes a soft money ban, House GOP leaders had sought to impose ground rules that reform advocates said were stacked against them. A scheduled debate fizzled amid accusations of subterfuge on both sides.

But now, the sponsors of the legislation, Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.), say they have a clean shot at passing a bill very similar to what the Senate approved.

As the debate opened, they were confident of success. They cited public outrage over the Enron Corp. collapse, noting that the now-bankrupt and discredited energy company was the source of $1.7 million in soft money in the 1999-2000 election cycle.

Overall, the two parties collected nearly $500 million in soft money during those two years. And such a large amount of cash, reform advocates say, inevitably provides givers with unfair influence.

“I believe that a majority of the House has reached its breaking point with this soft money system,” Meehan said. “They know that this is a system that gives good people a bad name, and I believe they are ready to change it.”

Opponents say the proposed reforms are unconstitutional, and that there is no proof that contributors such as Enron gain an unfair advantage. On a more basic political level, the GOP House leaders claim that banning soft money would cripple the party’s ability to respond to the help that labor unions generally provide to Democrats.

Some unions, however, also oppose portions of the bill they believe would hamper their political activities.

Under the Shays-Meehan bill, the national parties would be barred from collecting soft money and would instead be forced to redouble their efforts to obtain smaller donations under a system regulated by federal law since 1974. To help the parties, the bill would raise those contribution limits, allowing an individual to contribute as much as $95,000 every two years to candidates and party committees. The current limit is $50,000.

The bill would also impose new regulations on political advertising by unions, corporations and other groups in a response to the proliferation of so-called “issue advocacy” attacks during the weeks before primary and general elections.

In a significant tactical shift, the bill’s sponsors said Tuesday that the soft money ban would not take effect until after the 2002 congressional elections. Previously, the proposal was to take effect 30 days after enactment.

Shays and Meehan said it was unrealistic to change the campaign law so close to the November elections. Opponents of the bill mocked the shift, asking why the sponsors would not want to ban soft money immediately if it is so pernicious.

The sponsors also said they planned to ask the House to vote on at least three amendments. One would set contribution limits for House candidates at $2,000 per individual per election, up from the current $1,000. The bill already would increase that limit for Senate candidates.

Another amendment would strip a provision from the Senate bill that limits the price of advertising that television stations can charge federal candidates in the days before an election. A third would propose steps to ease contribution limits for candidates who face self-funded wealthy opponents.

GOP Works to Keep Strategy a Secret

House GOP leaders were keeping much of their strategy under wraps, refusing to divulge several proposed amendments until today. Under the ground rules, the GOP leaders are allowed to propose two alternatives to the Shays-Meehan bill and up to 10 amendments.

Advocates on both sides of the debate were putting pressure on Republicans who have supported campaign reform in the past. Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.), a long-standing supporter of the soft money ban, complained that he couldn’t even go buy a Valentine’s Day card for his wife without being accosted by a pro-reform lobbyist.

Reform advocates are nervous that despite his record of backing campaign finance reform, now that he chairs the House Science Committee he may be under more pressure to toe the leadership line. Boehlert declined, for example, to sign the petition that forced House leaders to bring the Shays-Meehan bill to a vote.

Boehlert said Tuesday he would stick with Shays and Meehan on crucial amendments.

Other Republicans were less definite. Because many details of the competing proposals were not immediately known, uncommitted lawmakers had a convenient excuse for not taking sides publicly.

“We’re not sure what we’ll be called upon to vote on,” said an aide to Rep. Michael Ferguson (R-N.J.), one of those who has yet to announce his position on the bill.

New Jersey GOP Chairman Joe Kyrillos was among those lobbying Ferguson to oppose the bill. Also lobbying against it were top GOP officials such as Racicot and his deputy Jack Oliver.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), another swing vote, said he supports the Shays-Meehan bill but was noncommittal about the amendment that could determine the measure’s future.

“Fred will consider every amendment on its merits,” said his spokesman Mike Waldron.

Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley), another key vote, said he was distressed at the decision by the bill’s sponsors to postpone the effective date of their soft money ban. “If you need the bill, you need it now,” Gallegly said.

While House GOP members typically look to Bush for leadership on tough votes, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Tuesday the president would continue to avoid direct involvement in the debate.

Bush has said it is up to Congress to hash out the reform issue, and he will sign a bill sent to him if he believes it would improve the financing system.