This Time, It’s Personal for a Senate Captivated by Reform

WASHINGTON —  Something remarkable is happening during the Senate’s sprawling debate on campaign finance reform. Senators are actually paying attention.

At a time of growing dependence on staff and made-for-TV speeches delivered to a mostly empty chamber, they are suddenly doing what they are supposed to do--deliberate, write bills, try to persuade each other.

The irony is that the Senate is coming alive on a topic that, for much of the public, seems to inspire indifference, cynicism or befuddlement. But for the lawmakers themselves, few issues could be more captivating; fund-raising, after all, is the sprinkler system that waters the roots of their careers.

“These are all people who have raised millions of dollars to get where they are today,” said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The reform debate “may not be salient for the American people, but it sure is for them.”

This self-interest was vividly demonstrated when the first two major amendments added to the reform bill would make it easier to run for reelection. One, approved Wednesday, would drive down the cost of political ads on television; the other, passed Tuesday, would make it easier to fend off millionaire challengers.

Give and Take on the Floor Is Intense

Also striking is the air of unpredictability surrounding the proceedings: In an institution where the outcome of so many debates is preordained, no one knows how this one is going to come out. Some senators are downright exhilarated by actually doing the legislative dirty work.

“I like it,” Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said. “For many of us, it’s been a long time.”

The intensity of the give and take on the Senate floor is a reminder of one of the biggest reasons why it is so hard to reform the campaign finance system. Every senator has a direct personal stake in the outcome.

“This is a debate . . . where everybody is concerned because, of course, this could affect all of us in very profound ways in the future,” Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said.

Campaign finance debates usually prove raucous. The last time the Senate addressed the issue, in 1999, principal reform advocate John McCain (R-Ariz.) came under attack from members of his own party--barbs with a bitter personal edge rarely seen in the usually decorous Senate.

This year’s debate, so far, has been less emotional. But it has a new fervor because reform advocates have their best chance in years to prevail. The national following McCain gained during his presidential run last year gave the reform movement new energy, as did the election of several new senators committed to the cause.

At the same time, the vast number of amendments in the works shrouds the bill’s fate in uncertainty. There seems to be no way to know, hour to hour, let alone from day to day, what will be proposed. And each amendment added to the bill potentially scrambles the political coalition that has publicly embraced reform.

The result is much anticipation and speculation. When will reform opponents try to offer amendments they know would doom the legislation, if approved? Are some key Democrats secretly planning to bolt the pro-reform coalition? It’s not even clear when--if at all--the bill will be brought to a final vote.

“This is improvisational theater,” Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) said. “Everything else we do here is scripted.”

The unusual involvement of senators was driven home after defeat of the first version of the amendment aimed at helping candidates who face millionaire challengers. A bipartisan group of about a dozen senators retreated to the Republican cloakroom and figured out how to rewrite the measure so it would pass. That’s the kind of spadework that is traditionally done by aides.

The scene was repeated Thursday as the cloakrooms for both parties were filled with senators ironing out differences that enabled them to pass three modest amendments without dissent.

“You have senators taking this incredibly personally,” said Mark Buse, a top McCain advisor.

Indeed, lawmakers are viewing the debate through the prism of their own campaign experience, and they are bringing their tales of woe to the Senate floor.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) regaled her colleagues with the travails of her 1994 campaign against GOP millionaire Mike Huffington.

“It was February,” she said. “It was raining outside. I turned on the television to watch the Olympics, and what did I see? I saw a full spot--in February--by my opponent. A minute spot in the middle of the Olympics. My heart sank into my heels, and I knew I was in for a grueling campaign.”

Huffington spent a then-record $30 million on his campaign, most it his own money; Feinstein barely edged him in the November election.

Senators Talk of Personal Experiences

In a similar vein, Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) told of his experience in a 1992 primary against a wealthy opponent who spent $6 million of his own money. Bennett, noting that he spent $2 million of his own money in response, said he would have been overwhelmed if he had been forced to rely only on money raised in $1,000 chunks from individual donors--the federal maximum.

“I would not be in the Senate today,” Bennett said, adding a note of self-deprecation: “There may be many who would applaud that possibility.”

Senators have engaged in their discussions with a great sense of its historic importance--and the assumption that the whole world is watching.

“The nation and the world will be peeking in through their television windows to witness this Senate debate,” said Sen. Charles Hagel (R-Neb.). “Will they see dignity, respect for others’ opinions, honest discourse and elevated debate? I believe so.”

Viewers are equally likely to see a debate that dwells on complex proposals, such as the amendment making it easier for candidates to raise money if they face self-financed rivals. The amendment’s key provisions hinged on a formula that multiplied a state’s voting age population times four cents, plus $150,000.

“Our constituents want good government, but it is very hard to tune into an arcane discussion of campaign finance reform,” Dorgan said.

Recent polls indicate that many people think the campaign finance system should be reformed, but they consider other issues more pressing. The latest Los Angeles Times Poll found that 63% of those surveyed viewed campaign finance reform as an “important” issue, but only 15% thought it was a “top priority.”

Few Are Following Reform Debate Closely

A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll in early March found that only 10% of those surveyed followed the debate over campaign finance “very closely.” And an earlier survey found that campaign finance was a priority for far fewer people than a host of other issues, such as improving education, the economy and Social Security.

Kohut explains the findings as a reflection of public cynicism about politicians’ ability to reform their own campaign finance system.

“It’s not that people don’t want campaign finance reform,” Kohut said. “But people are so skeptical about whether fair and effective campaign finance reform will occur that they give it relatively low priority and don’t pay attention to it.”