New Compromise to Be Offered : Fifth Vote Fails to Cut Off Election-Funds Filibuster

For the fifth time in nine days, Senate Democrats Thursday fell well short of breaking a Republican filibuster against legislation to restrict special-interest contributions and give public funds to Senate candidates who limit campaign spending.

The Senate voted 50 to 47 to end the filibuster, but 60 votes are required to accomplish that. All but three Democrats voted to force action on the bill, and all but two Republicans voted for more talk.

Faced with a continuing impasse, Senate Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) said that Democrats soon will make their second compromise offer since June 12 in an attempt to obtain GOP support for limits on campaign spending and contributions to candidates by special-interest political action committees.

GOP Willing to Talk

Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.), who opposes public financing of Senate campaigns, said that four key Republicans are willing to enter into compromise talks with the Democrats.

Democratic sponsors Byrd and Sen. David L. Boren of Oklahoma already have cut the amount of public financing in their bill by at least half. They are under pressure to drop the idea altogether and find other incentives to induce candidates to accept spending limits.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that mandatory spending limits are unconstitutional but suggested that limits may be accepted voluntarily in exchange for public financing or other inducements. Incentives proposed in a House bill by Rep. Al Swift (D-Wash.) include discounts on media advertising and postage.

Spending Curbs Emphasized

Byrd contended that Republicans are using opposition to public financing as a smokescreen to hide their more fundamental opposition to spending limits. He said that “there cannot be meaningful campaign reform unless we have a spending limitation.”

Republicans have proposed alternative campaign-finance revisions that do not involve spending limits or public financing. A bill sponsored by Sens. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would eliminate direct PAC contributions in congressional races. Another bill, by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), would tighten the limit on each gift made by a PAC while raising the limit on contributions made by individuals.

The Byrd-Boren measure would place a ceiling on the total amount of PAC money that congressional candidates may receive. Common Cause, the citizens’ lobby that is spearheading outside support for the bill, said that PAC contributions to Senate candidates in last year’s elections would have been cut by almost two-thirds--to $16 million from $45 million--if the legislation had been in effect.

‘Unlimited Sums’

Common Cause President Fred Wertheimer contended that, although the Packwood-McConnell bill purports to ban PAC money, it would “simply lead to PACs’ changing their method of providing money to congressional candidates and would open the door to providing unlimited sums” through indirect contributions.

Spending limits proposed by Byrd and Boren for Senate candidates would vary from $950,000 in the smallest states to a maximum of $5.5 million. The government would match private contributions to candidates in amounts ranging up to 40% of the spending limit. The cost to taxpayers would be about $50 million.

Meanwhile, two Democrats and a Republican in the House introduced legislation similar to the Byrd-Boren bill that would provide partial public financing for House candidates who accept spending limits.

Limit on PAC Gifts

The legislation, co-sponsored by Rep. Tony Coelho (D-Merced) and Reps. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) and Mike Synar (D-Okla.), would limit total PAC gifts to $100,000 for House candidates and set a $400,000 spending limit for those wanting public financing.

“If the trend toward more expensive races, and thus heavier financial obligations for candidates, is not curbed,” Leach said, “individuals elected to Congress will increasingly become indebted to either big business or big labor.”