House Has Chance to Show Campaign Reform Is Alive

Reformers of campaign financing have been trying to clean up Washington since Congress approved limits on political contributions in 1974 to address the perception that Watergate had left the Capitol covered in dirt. The Supreme Court ruled those limits unconstitutional, and in the succeeding 22 years no federal legislation has been passed to overhaul a system in which money buys unparalleled access to power.

Thus U.S. senators from states with high media costs, like California, often find themselves forced to raise more than $10,000 a day, seven days a week, throughout their six-year terms to build war chests for reelection campaigns. And you can bet this doesn’t leave them much time to discuss political issues with less affluent constituents.

In the last few months, however, a flurry of finance reform legislation has been whipped up, largely by freshmen legislators trying to live up to their 1994 campaign promises to “transform government as we know it.” One bill, a ban on gifts from lobbyists to legislators, became law last November. But while the gift ban prohibited the most obvious kinds of influence--the Hawaiian golfing weekends and other incentives that lobbyists once showered on House and Senate members--it did nothing to limit check writing. As veteran lobbyist Tom Korologos said after the gift ban passed, “Now, you can give them $10,000, but you can’t buy them a hamburger.”

House leaders had promised to give representatives an opportunity to vote on HR 3760 today. They reversed themselves last night, scheduling a vote for next Wednesday. Though the bill had promised to limit the influence of big money on politics, in effect it would do the opposite. It would allow individuals to give up to $3.1 million annually to political parties. Currently individuals can give only $25,000 annually to all candidates and parties.

The bill also fails to limit the use of “soft money,” the funds that corporations and labor unions may send to political parties.

Campaign finance reform advocates like Common Cause President Ann McBride say they will endeavor in the next week to modify a bipartisan compromise bill, known as Smith-Shays II, so that it can be offered next Wednesday as an alternative to HR 3760. Smith-Shays II prohibits legislators from taking soft money and from organizing, coordinating or appearing at fund-raisers within 50 miles of Washington.

Neither of these bills stands much of a chance of becoming law: President Clinton is likely to veto HR 3760, while the Smith-Shays notion of banning fund-raisers around the capital is about as feasible in today’s politics as eliminating the campaign mailer. As one of the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Linda Smith (R-Wash.), put it, “Every night Congress is in session, the members hold fund-raisers within blocks of the Capitol. . . . The members run back and forth to vote on legislation--one minute, they are talking to check-toting lobbyists and the next, they are in the House chamber, pushing the voting button.”

Even so, while Smith-Shays may not make it into law, supporting those who support it sends a message that the flame of reform has not been doused yet.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

‘Soft Money’ by Party

Soft money totals soared in the first three months of 1996

1st Qtr 1992

GOP /Dem: $12 mil

1st Qtr 1994

GOP / Dem: $10 mil

1st Qtr 1996

GOP / Dem: $25 mil

Source: Common Cause