Steps Planned to Curb Special Interests’ Gifts : Congressional Support for Sweeping Change in Federal Campaign Law Is Highest in Decade

Congressional support for sweeping change in federal campaign law has risen to the highest level in a decade, largely because of “excessive” spending fueled by record donations from special interest groups in last year’s Senate and House elections, legislative aides and reform advocates said Thursday.

According to latest estimates, Senate and House candidates spent more than $340 million on their 1986 campaigns after collecting more than $125 million from the political action committees of business, labor and other special interest groups. Those figures mean that total spending jumped roughly 14% and that PAC contributions jumped about 23% in the two years after the 1984 elections.

Directly related to the soaring numbers was an unprecedented wave of negative television advertising and money-chasing by candidates that turned off many voters last year, reform advocates charge.

Limiting PAC Gifts

When the 100th Congress convened last month, newly installed Senate Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) made campaign reform a top priority and threw his weight behind far-reaching legislation that would limit PAC contributions and provide partial public funding to candidates who voluntarily adhere to spending limits.

Byrd protested “the high cost of running for Congress, the excessive time it takes to raise funds and the dangers of undue influence gained by special interests that contribute large sums of money.”

At the same time, newly elected House Democratic Whip Tony Coelho (D-Merced), who had actively courted PACs as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, signaled a willingness to back major changes in the campaign finance system. Coelho, whose support is considered crucial to broad reform, said Thursday that he is “leaning” toward public financing of campaigns but that the Senate and House might wind up with two different systems.

‘A Very Short Fuse’

Reform advocates such as Fred Wertheimer, president of Common Cause, the citizens lobby, expressed optimism about comprehensive changes this year. Others, however, said they are uncertain.

“We’re on a very short fuse here,” said Rep. Leon E. Panetta (D-Monterey), who is involved in efforts to work out a consensus bill. “Fund raising is nearly a two-year process, and if we get into the summer months without acting, we’ll begin to lose members (of Congress) who are beginning to depend on the very (PAC) system we’re trying to change.”

A Senate bill introduced by Byrd and Sen. David L. Boren (D-Okla.) attracted 26 Democratic and two Republican co-sponsors, and prompted an outpouring of attacks on the present campaign system.

Sen. Lawton Chiles (D-Fla.) said last month that “a large part of the American public thinks this Congress is the best money can buy.” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) went so far as to declare that “the scandal over congressional campaign financing is even worse than the scandal over Iran.”

Embarrassing Publicity

Ironically, the reform effort may have gained momentum from embarrassing publicity given last week to the PAC-wooing activities of Byrd and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex.). Both set up clubs through which lobbyists could meet regularly with the senators by making campaign contributions of $10,000 each. Bentsen quickly disbanded his club but Byrd pressed ahead with his, saying he was acting within the law.

One potentially serious obstacle to the Boren-Byrd bill is Sen. Wendell H. Ford (D-Ky.), chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, which will open hearings on various proposals March 5. Ford told the Public Affairs Council last week he does not consider PACs “the major problem.” He also said he fears that “if we try to limit (spending by) candidates voluntarily through some sort of public financing scheme, they may not be able to effectively respond to attacks from independent groups or individuals.”

Wertheimer said he believes there is “a real chance” of achieving public financing of congressional campaigns, which his Common Cause group has sought for 15 years.

Filibuster Killed Effort

Congress has not seriously considered the idea since 1977, when a Senate filibuster killed the politically sensitive effort to extend public financing beyond presidential races. Boren did not include the provision in a PAC-limiting bill he pushed through the Senate last year, 60 to 29. The bill died in the House.

But Boren and Byrd made public financing the centerpiece of their pending bill, Wertheimer said, largely because “the 1986 election drove home the fact that the current system is a scandal. There was excessive spending, excessive TV advertising, excessive negativism, all of it fueled by special-interest PAC money in record amounts.”

If the complex Boren-Byrd plan had been operating last year--and if all 68 Senate candidates had taken maximum advantage of it--they would have received nearly $90 million in public funds and their total general election spending would have been limited to $104.6 million.

Actual 1986 spending was $178.9 million.