Senate Democrats, in Switch, Urge Ban on PAC Money for Congressional Races : Elections: Prohibition is key element of sweeping campaign reform plan. Bill also provides for spending curbs and partial public financing.

In a dramatic reversal, Senate Democrats joined their Republican colleagues Thursday in calling for a ban on the millions of dollars in political action committee contributions that they routinely collect for their reelection campaigns.

The PAC money ban is a key aspect of a sweeping campaign reform proposal unveiled by Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.). The Democratic plan is designed to stimulate negotiations between the two parties on possible compromise legislation that would reduce special interest influence in congressional elections.

In the past, Democrats have stubbornly refused to ban PAC contributions, primarily because they are the recipients of most of these funds. To make the PAC ban more palatable to Democratic candidates, the bill sets limits on Senate campaign spending and provides for partial public financing of congressional campaigns--proposals that the GOP staunchly opposes.

PAC funding of congressional elections has grown dramatically in recent years, causing many citizens to complain that members of Congress are influenced too much by special interests. From 1983 through 1988, Senate candidates received $49.2 million of their $200.3 million in total contributions from PACs.

By proposing to ban PAC contributions to individual candidates, the Democrats have effectively robbed Republicans of one of their most popular political positions. But unlike Senate Republicans, who would ban all PAC activity in federal elections, the Democrats would continue to allow such contributions to be made to party committees.

Even though there appears to be bipartisan interest in the Senate in prohibiting PAC contributions, such a ban surely would meet with stiff resistance in the House. About half of all House incumbents financed at least half of their campaigns last year with PAC money.

As written, the proposals introduced by Senate Democrats and Republicans would apply only to Senate races, but any legislation emerging from Congress also will affect House campaigns. House leaders have deferred action on campaign reform until the Senate acts.

Despite knotty disagreements in Congress on a variety of campaign finance issues, there is a growing consensus that current ethics investigations involving contributions--particularly the “Keating Five” investigation involving Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) and four other senators--have convinced lawmakers that reform is necessary.

Mitchell said the prospects for enacting campaign finance reform have been enhanced by “increased public awareness” of the excesses inherent in the current system. “The system by which American campaigns are financed is out of control and getting worse,” he said.

Both the Democratic and Republican bills, which will be debated on the Senate floor perhaps as early as next week, seek to trim the rising costs of buying campaign advertising on television and radio.

They also would limit to varying degrees the growing reliance of federal candidates on “soft money” contributions, which escape federal regulation by being funneled through state party organizations.

At the heart of the Democratic proposal is a system under which Senate candidates would receive public funding up to a specified limit after raising 10% of that figure from small contributors in their home states and after agreeing to voluntarily abide by specified spending limits. Those limits would vary according to the voting age population in each state.

In addition, a qualified candidate would receive federally funded vouchers amounting to 20% of the allowable limit to be used for purchasing broadcast advertising. In an effort to eliminate 30-second, attack-style ads, the vouchers could only be used to buy time blocks of between one and five minutes. The candidates also would receive reduced mailing rates.

In California, for example, a Senate candidate would have to raise $550,000 in donations of $250 or less from California voters to qualify for $3.8 million in direct public funding in the general election and $1.1 million in broadcast vouchers. Also, to qualify the candidate could spend no more than $2.75 million in private donations in the primary election.

Although the bill sets a limit of $5.5 million for candidates running in California in the general election, one clause allows for some additional spending. A candidate would be permitted to spend an extra $1.375 million in private donations, but only if they were raised within the state of California in denominations of $250 or less.

Thus, a California Senate candidate could spend a combined total of $9.6 million in public and private funds during the entire election cycle. That compares to the nearly $20 million that Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) is estimated to have spent on his reelection during the last election cycle.

The limit in California would be the nation’s highest. By comparison, New York Senate candidates could spend no more than $8.35 million--including the extra money raised through small, home-state contributions--and a Rhode Island candidate would be limited to an expenditure of slightly less than $2 million.

Although the Democrats’ bill does not specify how the public financing for elections would be raised, Sen. David L. Boren (D-Okla.), a principal author of the bill, said that it likely would come from a voluntary $3-a-year individual income tax checkoff, similar to the $1 checkoff that has been used to finance presidential contests since 1976.

Republicans, who traditionally have been far more successful than Democrats in raising campaign money through small individual contributions, staunchly oppose most of the key elements of the Democrats’ bill, except the ban on PAC contributions. But the two parties have similar proposals dealing with a number of other issues.

For example, the GOP bill would encourage Senate candidates to raise money from within their home states by reducing from $2,000 to $1,000 the maximum contribution that an out-of-state resident can make to a candidate.

The GOP proposal would provide candidates with discount rates for broadcasting in the final days before elections, although it would not go as far as the Democrats’ bill. The Democrats would not only provide public funding for broadcast ads, it also would require the candidates themselves to appear in the ads and take credit for them.