Clinton Offers Reform Plan for Campaigns : Elections: It aims to curb the influence of lobbyists and reduce spending on congressional races. GOP threatens a Senate filibuster.

Unveiling a proposal that his strategists hope will win over large numbers of Ross Perot loyalists, President Clinton on Friday outlined a campaign finance reform plan designed to limit the political influence of lobbyists and reduce overall spending on congressional races.

The bill would not drastically reduce the money spent on political campaigns. Nor would it eliminate the ability of financially well-endowed interest groups to influence the political system. But it would eliminate several of the largest loopholes in current campaign laws and, if adopted by Congress, would mark the first toughening of those laws in nearly two decades.

The proposal drew endorsements from several major groups that have battled for campaign reform in the past, but attracted criticism from reformers who said Clinton has not gone far enough.

Republican leaders vowed to fight the plan, arguing that it would amount to “welfare for politicians,” and threatened to stage another filibuster in the Senate that could prevent a vote on the measure.

“Despite the friendly ‘reform’ label, it’s nothing new or bold, it’s a partisan package designed to protect the Democrat congressional majority,” said Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.).

But at least some Republicans indicated that they would be willing to negotiate and the Senate could begin debating the proposal later this month. House leaders seem likely to await Senate action before moving.

At the heart of the Administration’s plan is an effort to limit spending in House and Senate races. Strategists hope that, if candidates do not have to spend as much, they will have less need to raise money from special interests.

In return for accepting voluntary spending limits, candidates would receive vouchers allowing them to buy below-cost advertising time on television and radio and to send mailings at reduced rates to voters. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress cannot impose mandatory spending caps but it may provide inducements to candidates to accept voluntary limits.

The vouchers would cost the government about $80 million annually, White House officials estimated. To pay for that, Clinton would repeal the current tax deduction for corporate lobbying expenses--a deduction that now costs the government about $170 million each year, according to Treasury estimates.

In addition, Clinton would increase to $5 the current $1 checkoff that allows taxpayers to earmark money to go to fund political campaigns. As is the case now, using the checkoff would not increase a person’s tax bill.

Clinton and his aides hope that financing the plan in that way will eliminate public opposition to the idea of using tax money to help pay for campaigns. “No expenditure now going to the education and welfare or national defense of this country will be diverted to pay for this bill, not one red cent,” he said.

But Republican leaders argued against any use of public funds for politics no matter how it is financed.

Nominally, the bill would limit spending in House races to $600,000. But that cap exempts several categories of spending, such as fund-raising costs and legal fees. Because of that, the actual spending allowed would be closer to $1 million, a sum that only a handful of House races currently exceed.

In the Senate, the ceiling would vary depending on a state’s population, going as high as $8.25 million for primary and general election spending in the largest states. Statewide candidates in California have spent more than that on several races.

The bill also would enact several other reforms in the political process, including a ban on lobbyists contributing to or raising money for officeholders whose votes they try to influence, toughened enforcement of campaign spending laws and an end to unlimited “soft money” donations to presidential candidates and political parties. Soft money contributions are unrestricted donations that often are used by political parties to help individual candidates.

The result, Clinton said, will be to ensure that “the voice of the people as a whole is heard over the voices of the special interests in Washington.”

“Without fundamental change in the way we finance campaigns, everything else we seek to improve in the lives of our people--from creating jobs to providing a secure system of health care to educating our people better and enabling us to compete in the global economy--everything will be harder to achieve,” Clinton said.

White House aides said they hope that Perot voters, in particular, will favor the ban on fund-raising by lobbyists. Under the proposal, a lobbyist who contacts a member of Congress or congressional staff would not be able to contribute to that member of Congress for a year or solicit contributions for that person from others. A lobbyist who tries to influence an executive branch agency would not be able to contribute to or solicit for the campaign of the incumbent President.

Over the last four years, partners at Washington law firms--many of whom lobby--have contributed $8 million to congressional campaigns and have solicited millions more. Many legal experts believe the ban may violate constitutional protections for free speech. But if the ban survives a likely court test, it would “change the culture of Washington,” said White House aide Michael Waldman, who led the Administration effort on the bill.

Another key element in the bill would close the current loophole that allows wealthy Americans, corporations and unions to contribute unlimited amounts of unregulated soft money to political parties. Under the new proposal, those contributions would be banned. Individuals would be allowed to give up to $60,000 every two years to political candidates and parties combined.

Privately, White House aides welcomed GOP threats of a filibuster, calculating that any such attempt would harm Republicans in the eyes of independent voters. “It’s a no-lose situation for us,” said one senior White House aide, “either we get the bill or we get the issue.”

Many Republicans oppose the idea of public financing. They also want restrictions on the amounts unions and other groups can spend for get-out-the-vote drives, voter registration campaigns and similar efforts on which many Democratic candidates rely.

While the main opposition to the bill in the Senate will come from Republicans, it faces substantial opposition in the House from Democrats, some of whom complain that it would limit their spending and fund-raising too much and others who object that it would do too little.

Rep. Mike Synar (D-Okla.), a leading House reformer, for example, criticized Clinton for not going far enough, saying the proposed bill “does not meet the smell test” because it would not limit House spending enough and would not do enough to limit the influence of political action committees.

During his campaign, Clinton proposed limiting to $1,000 the amount a PAC could contribute to a candidate. That would equal the amount an individual can give. But House Democrats balked at that idea. To gain their support, Clinton agreed to a compromise under which PACs could give only $1,000 to a presidential candidate and $2,500 to a Senate candidate but could continue to give $5,000 to a House candidate--the limit currently in the law. Republicans charge that provision helps Democrats because PACs overwhelmingly give to incumbents.

Clinton would limit to $200,000 the total PAC contributions a House candidate could take. In the last election cycle, 246 House candidates, nearly all of them incumbents, took more than that.

Times staff writer Michael Ross contributed to this story.