House Weighs Campaign Reforms : Politics: Lawmakers debate measure setting voluntary spending limits for candidates. Democratic leaders are pushing hard for action.

With the final hours of this year’s legislative session running out, the House began debate Sunday night 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 voted 220 to 207 to take up the measure after several hours of arm-twisting by the Democratic leadership, which had to quash an effort by Republicans and some Democrats to block consideration of the bill. Both groups had sought to force a House vote on additional proposals for campaign reform.

The bill is expected to come up for a House vote today.

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.”

But critics said the bill was at best a half-step toward fixing the problem. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) described it as “incremental changes, when what we need is a drastic overhaul.”

Ostensibly, the bill would offer candidates strong incentives to limit their campaign spending to $600,000 per election. However, certain 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 in the form of vouchers to buy radio and television time, postage and other means of communicating with the electorate.

However, the bill’s authors have yet to come up with a means of providing that funding--a crucial question, considering that the entire bill cannot take effect without it.

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

Rep. Mike Synar (D-Okla.), a lawmaker whose views on campaign finance reform carry significant weight, attempted to block consideration of the bill because House leaders refused to allow a vote on his proposal, which has sharper restrictions on PACs and none on total spending.

However, his bid to stop the bill fell short.

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

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 House and Senate negotiators meet to work out the differences between their two versions of the legislation.

Last year, Congress approved a campaign finance reform bill that is virtually identical to the bill that is before the House. But that 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 legislation, lawmakers are confronting the issue with a new realism because each is keenly aware 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 abide by.

“Last year was a sham. You knew you didn’t have to live with it. This year, you have to live with it,” Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Bakersfield) said.