Partisan Outbursts Mark Debate on Campaign Reform : Politics: The anger reflects intense maneuvering on Capitol Hill. Both sides are seeking to break a deadlock on how money is raised.

Senate and House Democratic leaders ignited partisan warfare Monday by pushing for action this week on proposals to revise the much-criticized system of financing congressional campaigns.

As debate began in the Senate, Republicans hurled a veto threat from President Bush at a Democratic proposal calling for spending limits and partial public funding of campaigns.

Meanwhile, in the House, GOP leaders angrily denounced Democratic efforts to severely restrict their ability to offer amendments to a campaign finance measure due to be taken up Friday. It is similar in key respects to the pending Senate legislation.

The outbursts reflected intense political jockeying on the issue.

Both parties are seeking to break a long-standing deadlock amid growing public pressure to clean up a system widely perceived as corrupt. But neither side wants to surrender political advantage in making changes. And neither wants to be accused by voters of torpedoing reform if no legislation is passed this election year.

In both the Senate and the House, Democratic and Republican negotiators have been trying for months to reach a compromise.

Most of the progress has been in the Senate, where Democrats have agreed to a Republican proposal to outlaw political action committees, the money-giving arms of corporations, unions and other interest groups. The Democrats also have sharply modified their proposal for extending the public financing of presidential campaigns to the Senate arena.

In exchange, Senate Republicans have acceded to some limits on contributions from out-of-state sources. They have balked, however, at Democratic insistence on state-by-state spending caps for senatorial candidates, protesting that incumbents would increase their advantages over challengers. GOP concern is intensified by Democratic control of both houses of Congress.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) disclosed a May 24 letter from President Bush that threatened to veto any bill containing spending limits or taxpayer financing of campaigns. Bush said that spending limits “would simply entrench incumbents further.”

Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) strongly disagreed, arguing that spending limits are essential to ending the “money chase” that gobbles many senators’ time and undermines public confidence in government. He insisted that limits, ranging from $950,000 in Wyoming to $5.5 million in California, would be “fair to Democrat and Republican, challenger and incumbent alike.”

The spending caps would be voluntary, but a candidate who accepted them would be rewarded with reduced postal rates and broadcast subsidies as well as partial public financing if an opponent rejected limits.

A GOP attempt to delete public funding from the bill failed Monday night, 49 to 46.

The Republican alternative calls for state-by-state limits on total contributions in excess of $250 that are received from out-of-state individuals. Also, the limit on each out-of-state contribution would be reduced from the current level of $1,000 to $500.

Both parties’ plans also would clamp down on “soft money” and “bundling,” practices widely used to get around federal contribution limits. Soft money is given to state parties but spent in federal campaigns outside federal restrictions. Bundling is a method by which interest groups evade the $10,000 limit on contributions from a PAC by gathering contribution checks from individuals in the group and delivering them in a bundle.

House Democratic leaders unveiled a package that calls for a $550,000 spending limit on House campaigns and up to $100,000 in public matching funds for all individuals’ contributions under $50. PAC contributions would be held to $220,000 for a House candidate.

Republican leaders, demanding a PAC ban and no spending caps or public funding, called the Democratic plan “a joke.”