|
|
||
 
|
|
|
On Campaign Finance
By Helen Dewar Not that legislation to overhaul campaign fund-raising laws is likely to be enacted before the 105th Congress adjourns in early October. The Senate fell eight votes short of the 60 needed to break a Republican filibuster against the measure earlier this year, and opponents of the bill, including Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), appear as determined as ever to keep it from coming to a final vote. But the proposal -- the legislative equivalent of the "Energizer Bunny" -- has shown formidable resilience, inspiring its backers to keep on fighting against the odds, including more than a decade of vetoes, filibusters and political gamesmanship by one or both parties. "This is a bill that will not die," said Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), co-sponsor with Rep. Martin Meehan (D-Mass.) of the House version of the legislation that stalled in the Senate. If nothing else, Meehan added, the bill's passage by the House, coupled with support from a majority of all senators, "sets a real marker for next year," when some lawmakers feel the issue will have more urgency because of the approach of the 2000 presidential elections. By mid-afternoon Friday, the House version of the legislation had survived everything the Republican leadership could throw at it over 10 weeks of off-again, on-again debate and votes that often stretched late into the night. The barrage included nearly 20 "poison pill" amendments that, if approved, could have destroyed the fragile coalition supporting the bill. All the lethal amendments were defeated, most by large margins. "We survived the minefield. We're still intact," Shays said after the last amendment was defeated. In fact, the bill may even owe its survival to House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and others who last spring enraged many members -- and energized Democratic leaders -- by scheduling votes on campaign finance but excluding Shays-Meehan. The bill has been on a roll ever since. The Shays-Meehan bill, like Senate legislation sponsored by John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), would ban the unregulated "soft money" contributions to political parties that lay at the heart of 1996 presidential campaign abuses, regulate late-campaign advertising by outside groups that indirectly promotes candidates and tighten many other requirements. In a final round of voting on amendments, the House by comfortable margins turned back efforts to restrict out-of-state fund-raising and to allow states to ban mail-in registrations and impose new restrictions at the ballot box, including photo IDs and proof of citizenship. Sponsors had to accept some proposals that rankled Democrats, such as writing a fund-raising ban for the Lincoln Bedroom into federal law, and ran into trouble from pro-immigration lawmakers when the House voted to ban political contributions from non-citizens who are legal residents. It still faces two critical hurdles in the House. The first will come Monday on a vote to approve or reject the Shays-Meehan proposal. Its sponsors have said they can count more than enough votes for passage. Then, later in the week, under a pledge from Armey that the House would complete action on the bill before leaving at week's end for its August recess, the House is to vote on the major alternative to Shays-Meehan, a less far-reaching proposal from freshmen of both parties. Whichever gets the most votes wins, so long as it survives a vote on final passage. Despite Armey's assurances, some lawmakers are worried that GOP leaders may again try to delay a final vote, putting it over until September, where it could easily get trampled in the adjournment rush. Others say the tactic would backfire so badly it would provide another boost for the bill. Another question is whether foes of campaign finance overhaul, who have opposed both leading bills, will back the freshman measure in order to defeat Shays-Meehan -- and whether they can succeed in light of broad apparent support for the stronger measure. The bill's success so far stands in stark contrast with other bills that once seemed to have a much better change of passage. Legislation to curb teenage smoking foundered in the Senate. A bill to regulate managed-care health plans passed the House but appears to be caught in a partisan buzzsaw in the Senate. The Republicans' big education bill, which would provide savings accounts for private as well as public school expenses, was vetoed. Congress still hasn't passed a budget, and Republicans are arguing over the size of a pre-election tax cut. The bill's advocates see the large margins by which House members rejected "killer" amendments as evidence of what they describe as a groundswell of public demand for action. But polls show that, even though most Americans say they want their political system cleaned up, they rate campaign finance as a low-priority issue. In a July poll by The Washington Post, it ranked 15th among 15 specific issues as "very important" to people, outstripped even by foreign affairs. Some have said lawmakers are simply playing it safe in case the issue does catch on with voters.
The Senate is not required to take up legislation passed by the House and often does not do so. However, Democrats can -- and probably will -- try to add the campaign finance bill to other legislation if the House passes it. McCain said Thursday he will only push for the bill if it seems "viable." Said Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), principal foe of the legislation: "I think it's over for the year. . . . Everyone's very locked in."
© Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company
Go to Campaign Finance Report | Go to Politics Section
|
|||||||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
