House passes campaign-finance bill
By The Associated Press
02.14.02
Printer-friendly page
WASHINGTON — After marathon debate, the House gave its approval early today to the most sweeping overhaul of campaign-spending rules since the Watergate scandals a generation ago.
Meanwhile, President Bush's spokesman was noncommittal this morning about whether Bush will sign the legislation, which critics say violates free speech by restricting soft-money donations and limiting certain political advertisements.
The bipartisan vote of 240-189 sent the measure back to the Senate, where opponents held out the threat of a filibuster. The Senate passed a nearly identical bill last April.
House Republican leaders battled to the end against the bill designed to reduce the role of money in politics, arguing it was stacked against their party and unconstitutional as well.
But in an era in which Enron was the new national shorthand for scandal, they were checked at nearly every turn by a bipartisan coalition led by Reps. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Martin Meehan, D-Mass.
With so many lawmakers directly affected by the legislation, feelings ran high throughout more than 15 hours of debate. Supporters and opponents routinely accused one another of hypocrisy as they bickered their way through a string of votes.
Even so, well after midnight Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt predicted, "I think we're on the threshold of passing this bill." And in the end, 198 Democrats, 41 Republicans and one independent voted for the bill, while 12 Democrats, 176 Republicans and one independent were opposed.
Senate backers, led by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., need 60 votes to stop a likely filibuster and win approval for sending the bill directly to Bush for his signature. The Senate vote last year was 59-41.
If the Senate does not accept the House version, a conference committee would be needed to reconcile the differences — albeit minor ones — between the two measures.
Bush has stayed away from the congressional battle over campaign spending and, despite some reservations about the Shays-Meehan bill, is expected to sign the measure if it reaches his desk.
Spokesman Ari Fleischer would not say as much today.
"Many aspects of the bill improve the system. There's some other things that don't improve it to the degree the president would seek. But ultimately, the process is moving forward, and the president is pleased,'' Fleischer said.
Although Bush has generally stayed above the fray, the White House did step in during debate over the bill to criticize a late change inserted by supporters as "unfair, unwise and unwarranted."
"The president believes that this should be removed," Fleischer said, addressing a provision that Republicans charged would benefit Democrats and create a loophole permitting party committees to use soft money to pay off any debt — a reversal of current law.
Meehan and others insisted Republicans had incorrectly interpreted the provision, which related to long-standing rules governing permissible uses of different types of campaign donations. At the same time they drafted clarifying language and agreed to insert it into the bill before final passage. "I want everyone to feel good about what we're doing," said the Massachusetts Democrat.
And despite Fleischer's comments, two senior Republicans who advise the White House said that Bush's political team had determined that the bill would pass, and that the president had decided against a veto.
Still, the developments on and off the House floor underscored the unpredictability of an issue that has long veered between lofty constitutional concerns and bare-knuckled political combat.
"The current campaign-finance system is a disaster, and it's an embarrassment to American democracy," said Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., one of a parade of lawmakers who argued that legislation was needed to rein in special interests. Several supporters made mention of the scandal surrounding Enron, the bankrupt energy-trading company.
But critics argued just as passionately the bill was unconstitutional, and a fraud as well. "This bill does not contain real reform. Instead, this bill strips citizens of their political rights and unconstitutionally attempts to regulate political speech," said Rep. Tom DeLay, the House GOP whip.
Affected groups said they were already planning court challenges. "We'll be at the courthouse door if this misguided legislation becomes law,'' said U.S. Chamber of Commerce political director Bill Miller.
"Ultimately I think this issue is going to be decided by nine men and women in black robes (at the Supreme Court),'' said Wayne LaPierre, executive director of the National Rifle Association.
The House bill would ban unlimited soft-money donations to the national political parties, typically five- and six-figure donations made by corporations, unions and individuals.
State and local parties would be permitted to raise soft money, but only in amounts of $10,000 or less. None of the funds could be spent on political commercials.
The bill, pushed to the floor over the opposition of Republican leaders, also would ban the use of soft money to buy issue ads within 60 days of an election or 30 days of a primary. These ads are typically purchased by interest groups, and while they stop short of expressly advocating the victory or defeat of a candidate, they often are harshly critical.
The measure also would allow candidates for the House to raise their own campaign money in amounts of up to $2,000 per election, an increase from $1,000. Supporters of the bill declared themselves neutral on the change, and it passed, 218-211.
Another provision, added during debate, stripped out a requirement that would have tightened existing law requiring political broadcasting to be sold at a preferential rate. The legislation's backers nominally opposed the amendment — but the National Association of Broadcasters supported it — and Shays and Meehan carefully avoided calling it a "poison pill" that would doom the measure.
By contrast, they worked intensely to defeat numerous other changes proposed by the GOP leadership.
One change, proposed by Majority Leader Dick Armey, stated that nothing in the bill could violate the First Amendment. It was rejected, 237-188.
Another, backed by the powerful National Rifle Association, would have suspended the restrictions on soft-money advertising for "any matter pertaining to the Second Amendment," which guarantees the right to bear arms. It was narrowly defeated, 219-209.
House members also rejected proposals to suspend restrictions on soft-money advertising for matters pertaining to civil rights, veterans, military personnel, older people, workers, farmers or families.
Backers of the bill established their command over the House floor early in the proceedings, brushing aside two Republican-backed alternatives before winning preliminary approval for their own bill.
The tally included 200 Democrats, 39 Republicans and one independent in favor, and 180 Republicans, 10 Democrats and one independent against.
Update
Opponents ready to fight campaign-finance bill in court
'The whole question about issue advocacy is going to be front and center,' says ACLU's Laura Murphy. 'It's a clear free-speech issue.'
02.21.02
Previous
Campaign-finance bill heads to House floor
Supporters gain 218 signatures needed to force vote on legislation to ban soft-money donations.
01.25.02
Related
Broadcasters want political-ad provision stripped from campaign bill
Critics say requiring TV, radio stations to give politicians their lowest advertising rates violates free speech.
02.11.02
Unusual alliances form to support, oppose campaign-finance bills
Analysis NRA, ACLU contend Shays-Meehan would restrict free speech; environmental groups, business execs team up to back soft-money ban.
07.10.01
Money troubles: Campaign-finance orthodoxy takes a hit
Commentary Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch editorial explains why proposed 'reform' would be like telling people how much they're allowed to donate to their churches.
08.01.01
