Democrats Argue Campaign Reform : Financing: House leaders are struggling with the membership over debate procedure. One key bloc is demanding a vote on modifications.

With the final hours of this year’s legislative session running out, House Democratic leaders were wrestling with their membership Sunday night to act on a bill setting voluntary campaign spending limits for House candidates.

Although both houses of Congress have passed similar campaign finance reform measures in the last few years, this marks the first time that one, if passed, is likely to be signed into law.

The House leaders’ immediate struggle was not so much over the bill itself but over the procedures under which it would be debated. Some Democrats, led by Rep. Mike Synar of Oklahoma, were insisting that they be allowed a vote on modifications that they want to make.

Yet the leadership was holding firm and, without the votes of Synar and company, was finding itself about a dozen short of the number needed to proceed on the legislation.

Rewriting the rules of campaign finance is the top priority of the congressional reform agenda.

House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) said that runaway spending is “at the heart of our concern about campaign trends.”

Ostensibly, the bill would offer candidates strong incentives to limit their campaign spending to $600,000 per election, although exemptions and an inflation factor built into the bill would actually allow many to spend close to $1 million.

Those who were willing to live within the limits would be eligible for partial federal funding of their campaigns. However, the bill’s authors have yet to come up with a means of providing that funding.

The bill also would put a first-ever limit on the total contributions that a candidate could accept from political action committees. They would be allowed to take a maximum of $200,000 from PACs, whether or not they agree to live within the spending limits.

Synar, a popular lawmaker whose views on campaign finance reform carry significant weight, is attempting to block consideration of the bill unless leaders allowed a vote on his proposal, which has sharper restrictions on PACs and none on total spending.

Meanwhile, Republicans were pushing their own alternative, which would require that the majority of campaign funds come from people who live within a lawmaker’s home district.

Although early in the day Foley had confidently predicted passage of the Democratic bill, it was clear Sunday night that he did not have the votes to proceed.

As the House passed time by taking up one non-controversial matter after another, the Speaker’s lieutenants were out in full force on the House floor and throughout the Capitol, meeting with and cajoling recalcitrant House members.

The Senate passed its version of campaign finance reform in June. It put an outright ban on PAC contributions, which is not considered likely to survive if and when the House and Senate meet to work out the differences between their two versions.

Last year, Congress approved a campaign finance reform bill that is virtually identical to the bill that is before the House. But in that earlier instance, the exercise was largely for political symbolism’s sake, because all sides were fully aware that the legislation would be vetoed by then-President George Bush.

This year, with President Clinton promising to sign the bill, lawmakers are confronting the issue with a new realism, because each knows that his or her political survival is riding on it.

Not surprisingly, lawmakers have had a far more difficult time agreeing on limitations that they would actually have to live under.