47 House Democrats Fault Clinton’s Campaign Reform

In a warning that another major item on President Clinton’s legislative agenda is in jeopardy, 47 Democratic congressmen released a letter Thursday saying they cannot support his campaign finance reform proposals if they include public financing for congressional campaigns.

Public financing is “a killer” that guarantees Clinton’s pledge to curb runaway campaign spending--a major promise of his presidential campaign--will not pass Congress this year, Reps. Glen Browder of Alabama, Charles W. Stenholm of Texas and 45 other conservative House Democrats said in a letter sent to House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.).

“While elements of the President’s campaign finance reform are commendable . . . (public financing) will erode support for this legislation in the House and among the public, and possibly cost us a chance to make meaningful reforms of the campaign system,” the letter warned.

Along with voluntary spending limits, partial public financing is the cornerstone of the Clinton reform proposals. They face their first test today in the Senate, where Republicans are threatening a filibuster.

Although the House will not take up the reforms until late summer, the Browder letter affirmed that Clinton’s proposals will face an even tougher fight in the House, where the Democrats can afford no more than 42 defections if they are to pass the proposals intact.

Advocates of the Clinton plan say that partial public financing--in the form of communications vouchers and matching funds--is indispensable to the reforms, which seek to impose voluntary spending limits on all federal election campaigns.

The Supreme Court struck down mandatory spending limits as unconstitutional in 1976, and the only way to induce candidates to voluntarily limit their campaign spending is with the carrot of public financing, the advocates argue.

But while most Senate Democrats support public financing, House Democrats are deeply divided, with many believing Republican challengers will use the issue against them in the next election. With Republicans comparing public financing to “welfare for politicians . . . most Democrats are going to have a difficult time explaining to their constituents why they voted to spend taxpayer dollars on their own campaigns,” one Democratic House aide said.

Rep. Sam Gejdenson (D-Conn.), a key supporter of the reforms, acknowledged that winning support for public financing is “the biggest challenge” the Clinton plan faces in the House. But he insisted that there was still a good chance of it passing, provided it is portrayed in the press and the public debate “as the sincere reform that it really is.”

Clinton’s proposals would cap campaign spending for House races at $600,000 per candidate and at anywhere between $1.6 million and $8.9 million for Senate candidates, depending on the population of the state. House candidates who comply would receive up to 33% of the spending limit in matching funds, while Senate candidates would get 20% of their spending limit in vouchers to buy broadcast time.

The plan also imposes restrictions on contributions by special interest groups and on so-called “soft money” contributions that currently are not regulated by federal election laws. The plan would be financed by eliminating tax deductions by lobbyists and raising the voluntary presidential campaign checkoff on tax forms from $1 to $5.