Election Finance Reform Bill Is Beating Odds

WASHINGTON —  Against long odds, a major campaign finance reform bill to ban unregulated and unlimited “soft money” contributions emerged intact in the House on Friday, withstanding weeks of assault choreographed by GOP leaders.

The bipartisan legislation now is poised to win House approval Monday--a stunning testament to the staying power of an issue that reform foes steadfastly have denigrated.

“People underestimated this bill,” said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

Whether the legislation, sparked by the widespread fund-raising abuses that marred the 1996 presidential campaign, becomes law remains doubtful. A similar measure already has been killed by the Republican-controlled Senate.

House reformers, inspired by their success, urged voters to demand renewed Senate action on the issue. Barring unforeseen developments, however, the Senate appears unlikely to revisit the issue.

Still, reformers believe that House passage of the bill will help their cause by focusing public attention and laying the groundwork for possible success in the future.

“Will it start to make the Senate look pretty bad on this? I think it will,” said Rep. Greg Ganske (R-Iowa).

The outlook for Monday’s vote on the House bill, authored by Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.), is promising because a majority of the House has rejected one “poison pill” amendment after another during on-again, off-again debates that began in late May and took place mostly late at night. These amendments were aimed at fracturing the coalition that has stood firmly behind the bill.

*

“The prospects for passing a significant reform bill are higher than it’s ever been,” said Rep. Tom Allen (D-Maine), a reform advocate.

On Friday afternoon, Shays and Meehan fended off the last of nearly 30 “killer amendments” designed to scuttle their bill.

The measure’s core provision is its prohibition of so-called soft-money donations from corporations, unions and individuals to political parties at both national and state levels. This money is exempt from the limits on contributions to office-seekers and is supposed to be used for party-building activities. Over the years, the Democratic and Republican national committees have used the exemption to raise millions of dollars.

Soft money was at the heart of the campaign finance irregularities during the 1996 campaign, most prominently the flow of donations to the Democratic Party by foreign companies and individuals, which is against U.S. election law.

The Shays-Meehan bill also would place restrictions, including stringent reporting requirements, on independent groups and party organizations that buy radio and television ads in the closing weeks of elections.

Opponents of the measure have argued that these provisions would impinge on free speech.

Even if, as the reformers predict, the legislation is approved Monday, it still must navigate one more legislative minefield--all part of a byzantine process devised by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) to kill it.

The primary rival to the Shays-Meehan measure is a less far-reaching bill crafted by a bipartisan group of House freshmen. It would ban soft-money contributions to national political parties--but not to their state counterparts, which Shays and Meehan consider a major loophole.

To prevail, Shays and Meehan must ensure that their bill wins more votes than the freshmen’s bill, also scheduled for action next week. The arithmetic is dictated by the “queen of the hill” rule invoked by Gingrich and his lieutenants, which says that the bill that gets the most votes is the one that ultimately survives.

“We still have a ways to go,” Shays conceded.

This is the second time this year that the GOP-dominated House has taken up the campaign finance issue.

In March, when a dozen or more Republicans were ready to join Democrats to form a majority in support of the Shays-Meehan bill, Gingrich responded by erecting an extraordinary procedural barrier, requiring that any reform legislation would need a two-thirds majority for enactment.

Because legislation normally needs only a simple majority for passage, Gingrich’s ploy effectively blocked enactment of all serious reform measures. But his actions also touched off a firestorm of criticism, forcing him to change tactics.

Gingrich next decreed that a full, unrestricted debate would occur on the issue. And almost overnight, nearly 600 amendments were filed, targeting the 11 competing pieces of reform legislation. No single subject in congressional history has drawn so many amendments at its outset. And most of the 11 competing bills were far less sweeping than the Shays-Meehan bill.

Undaunted, Shays and Meehan continued to push their measure, forging a coalition of near-unanimous Democratic support joined by some 30 Republicans.

Among those were proposals to require photo identification at voting places and to repeal the federal mandate allowing for “motor-voter” registration. Such amendments, if adopted, may well have splintered the coalition that Shays and Meehan had marshalled.

“Everybody’s a little surprised by the margin and consistency of the ‘poison pill’ amendments going down--by 30-40 vote margins,” said Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.).

“The reformers have stuck together,” added Allen.

The one amendment that reformers deemed “a poison pill,” which they failed to defeat, offered by Rep. Vito J. Fossella (R-N.Y.), would prohibit noncitizen legal residents from making campaign contributions. But the ban was later softened to exempt green-card holders serving in the armed forces, satisfying some of those who opposed it.

*

While opponents of campaign finance reform blithely maintain that voters care little about the issue, some nevertheless conceded Friday that some House Republicans will keep backing the Shays-Meehan bill to avoid being attacked in the upcoming campaigns for opposition to reform.

“I don’t think people think it will pass” in the Senate, Rep. Anne M. Northup (R-Ky.) said, suggesting that some regard Monday’s vote as a type of political free ride.

Whatever the motives, Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) predicted a resounding victory for reformers Monday. “We’ve got the big mo [momentum] on our side.”

He added that he had overheard a reform foe conceding: “We failed to put enough weight on the ship to sink it.”