Divided Senate Approves Campaign Finance Curbs

The Senate, bitterly divided along party lines, approved a broad overhaul of campaign finance laws Wednesday night after voting to bar senators from accepting outside speaking fees known as honorariums.

The Democratic-sponsored measure, adopted by a vote of 59 to 40, is aimed at cutting the soaring cost of Senate campaigns and the growing use of special interest money in them.

“The President certainly will veto a bill in this form, and I’m sure a veto will stand up,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

The legislation calls for voluntary spending limits that would vary according to a state’s size. Candidates who accepted the limits would be rewarded with taxpayer-funded broadcast subsidies, mail discounts and--if an opponent rejected the limits--direct cash infusions.

The bill also would outlaw political action committees, or PACs, the much-criticized money-giving arms of business, labor and other special interest groups. In addition, the measure would restrict “soft money” and “bundling,” two practices widely used to get around existing federal limits on campaign contributions.

Soft money refers to contributions made to state parties but spent on federal campaigns and exempt from federal restrictions. Bundling refers to a method by which interest groups evade the $10,000 limit on PAC contributions by gathering checks from individuals in the group and delivering them in a bundle.

“The public is rapidly losing confidence in the federal election process,” said Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.). “It is clear we have gotten to the point that the worst alternative is to do nothing.”

Bush and Senate Republicans sought a PAC ban and some limits on contributions from out of state, while favoring looser curbs on individual donations to political parties on the assumption that they are a healthier source of campaign funds.

But Bush and the Republicans strenuously objected to the Democratic measure, arguing that spending limits would boost the Democrats’ hold on Congress and that public funding would further bloat the deficit.

House Democratic leaders are expected to bring up a similar bill in that chamber Friday.

The 77-23 vote on an amendment to ban senators’ honorariums reflected a growing sensitivity about ethics. But for the time being, the proposed ban may be more symbolic than real because of the dubious future of the campaign finance bill.

Nevertheless, Senate leaders said a ban was inevitable. They indicated that they hoped to couple it with a pay raise for senators after the congressional elections in November. Such a move would bring the Senate in line with a ban on honorariums that goes into effect for the House and the executive branch on Jan. 1.

“The practice of accepting honoraria is fundamental to the continuing erosion of public trust in this representative democracy,” Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) said shortly before the Senate vote to ban the fees effective Jan. 1.

Senators accepted a total of $2.7 million in honorariums last year, keeping $2 million of it to supplement their $89,500 salaries and donating the rest to charity.

House members decided last November to stop accepting honorariums Jan. 1, 1991, in exchange for two hefty pay raises--7.9% this year and 25% next year, boosting representatives’ salaries to $120,750.

But senators, fearful of voter reaction against big pay increases, chose a different course last year. They elected to phase out their honorariums over several years as a 10% pay raise and cost-of-living adjustments took effect. Thus, senators’ salaries are due to increase to about $100,000 on Jan. 1, while their honorarium limit drops to about $25,000.

However, pressure to impose a total ban on senators’ honorariums steadily has mounted over the last several months as the Senate Ethics Committee probed the conduct of seven senators and as outside groups criticized the influence of money in politics.

Last week, the Senate formally denounced Minnesota Republican Dave Durenberger for cheating on honorarium limits, among other things. On that charge, he was ordered to make restitution of $95,000 plus interest.

Although the Senate accepted the honorarium ban proposed by Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), the issue stirred up a multitude of frustrations. As a result, the Senate immediately adopted, by 51 to 49, a Draconian amendment that was widely viewed as merely mischievous and unlikely to become law.

That amendment, offered by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), called for limiting senators’ outside income--including dividends, interest, rents and capital gains--to 15% of their official salary.

Voting against it were most of the Senate’s two dozen millionaires, including Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), John Heinz (R-Pa.), Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), John C. Danforth (R-Mo.), Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.), Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) and Pete Wilson (R-Calif.).

“Some senators voted for the amendment on outside income because they don’t like their honoraria being taken away, and they’re worried they would be earning less than House members,” explained a senator who requested anonymity. “Others were mad at the wealthy senators who don’t understand why the rest of us need a pay raise. And others just wanted to add something that would help sink” the underlying campaign finance bill.

In a floor statement, Moynihan said that he did not understand how the Senate could vote to limit outside earned income “while leaving untouched the large amount of unearned income based on accumulated capital and property . . . that is rather concentrated in this body.”

He added: “I ask that in order that there be a level playing field, let everybody be a little equal in the Senate. It doesn’t mean you have to have equal numbers of houses and cars, but income will be equal, earned or unearned.”

His amendment did not spell out what senators would have to do if their interest, dividends and other such income exceeded the 15% limitation.

Dodd said that he had wanted to combine his honorarium ban with an offsetting pay raise, but was told by leaders that votes for a raise were lacking in this pre-election period.

The amendment to ban honorariums was supported by 53 Democrats and 24 Republicans, including Cranston and Wilson. It was opposed by 2 Democrats and 21 Republicans.