Senate OKs Campaign Reforms, Spending Caps

In a significant victory for the White House, the Senate on Thursday passed a campaign finance bill that would impose voluntary spending limits on congressional races and ban campaign contributions by political action committees.

But in a warning that the legislation still faces an uphill struggle, House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) indicated that the House may wait months before taking up its version of the bill--and most likely will reject or modify many of the provisions approved by the Senate.

Public interest groups that have long lobbied for the reforms also served notice that they will fight to restore the public financing provisions dropped in a compromise with Republicans to ensure Senate passage of the measure.

That fight was joined even before the Senate ended three weeks of bitter debate by passing its modified version of the campaign finance reform bill by a vote of 60 to 38.

“This bill is deeply flawed,” said Becky Cain, president of the League of Women Voters. “You can’t have clean and fair campaigns without public financing . . . , financing with no strings attached.”

The criticism irked Senate Democrats who noted that without the compromise the bill would have been killed by a Republican filibuster. “Like many compromises, this bill will not please everyone. . . . Nevertheless, it represents a fundamental reform of the way we elect members of Congress,” said Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.).

“This will stop the congressional money chase . . . and reduce the influence of special interests,” added Sen. David L. Boren (D-Okla.), the bill’s chief sponsor.

However, stiff challenges lie ahead for the two most controversial provisions left in the Senate bill: the ban on PAC contributions and a delicately balanced mix of incentives and disincentives to ensure compliance with the new spending limits--which for Senate races would range from $1.2 million to $5.5 million, depending on the voting-age population of the state.

Foley told reporters that the ban on PAC money is certain to be rejected by the House, where Democrats are much more dependent on those forms of contributions than they are in the Senate.

“I do not believe the Senate provisions in many cases are either effective for the House or constitute reform . . . and I reject rather wholly the argument that (political action committees) are somehow an evil part of campaign financing,” Foley said in predicting that the House will reject the Senate language on PACs as it pertains to House members.

Suggesting that the House will not take up the legislation until sometime after the August congressional recess, Foley added that the House also will resist the Senate’s attempts to apply the new restrictions to next year’s congressional elections. The Senate moved up the effective date of the regulations from 1996 to 1994 but Foley indicated that changing the rules in the middle of an election cycle would only increase the odds against passage in the House.