Senate Kills Campaign Spending Reform

Despite many Republicans’ 1994 election-year promises to overhaul the campaign finance system, the Senate effectively killed legislation Tuesday designed to curb special interest influence and provide powerful new incentives to limit spending.

Republican leaders pulled the reform legislation from the floor after the Senate failed to cut off a threatened filibuster by GOP lawmakers who consider the measure an unconstitutional and ineffective attempt to break the link between money and politics.

“It is very hard to get campaign finance reform in an election year,” said Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who opposed permitting a vote. “Passions are running too high.”

The 54-46 vote to cut off debate fell six votes short of the 60 needed to end a filibuster. All but eight Republicans, most of them moderates, voted to block the bill. All but one Democrat--Alabama Sen. Howell Heflin--voted to push the measure forward.

Sen. Frank Thompson (R-Tenn.), a leading sponsor of the bill, chided his Republican colleagues after the vote. “Democrats have killed this legislation for years,” said Thompson. “Now that Republicans are in power, we’re trying to return the favor.”

On the House side, reform advocates are still pressing the issue, in part because many Republican freshmen are convinced that their reelection prospects are tied in part to their promises to clean up the political system.

The Senate measure calls for abolishing all political action committee contributions--a change that critics said is an unconstitutional violation of contributors’ free-speech rights. If the ban were approved but struck down in court, a fall-back provision in the legislation would reduce the limit on PAC contributions from $5,000 to $1,000 per candidate.

The bill also would require senators to raise most of their contributions from home state donors and would set voluntary limits on campaign spending, offering any candidate who abides by them free television time, reduced mailing rates and other benefits.

Critics disputed the assumption that campaigns cost too much. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who led opposition to the bill, maintained that the 1994 congressional elections cost about $3.74 per voter--and totaled less than Americans spend on bubble gum in one year.

Opponents also objected to requiring broadcasters to absorb the cost of giving free or reduced-rate time to political candidates. And they said that PACs are not objectionable tools of special interest, but an important way for individuals to band together and express their views.

“What’s wrong with this bill?” asked McConnell. “Just about everything you can think of.”

Supporters said the legislation is needed to rein in the enormous and growing cost of running for Congress and the huge amounts of time senators must spend raising money.

“I’m kind of a walking, talking case for campaign spending reform,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said that she spent $8 million in her first race for the Senate in 1992 and another $14 million when she ran again in 1994.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) estimated that a senator from California now has to raise the equivalent of $10,000 a day, seven days a week throughout a six-year term to have enough to finance a reelection campaign.

Proponents also argued that eliminating political action committees and limiting out-of-state contributions would help curb the influence of special interests, and help restore the public’s confidence in Congress as an institution.

Reform advocates vowed to keep the issue alive in the fall elections and beyond. “Sooner or later we will prevail,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), another leading sponsor of the bill.

In the House, the companion campaign finance bill has been rejected by GOP leaders, who are trying to draft a consensus measure to be brought to the floor during the week of July 15, which they are dubbing “reform week.”