House Rejects Campaign Finance Bill

In an embarrassing blow to Republicans who claimed to be in the vanguard of political reform, the House soundly rejected legislation Thursday intended to overhaul the campaign finance system.

The issue had been the centerpiece of the drive by many Republicans to end business as usual in Washington. The bill was defeated, 259 to 162, as 68 Republicans joined unanimous Democrats in voting against the leadership-backed measure. The defections came from young members who thought that the measure did not go far enough to clean up the campaign finance system and from older lawmakers who did not want to tinker with the present system.

“Some of us realized this bill didn’t change anything,” said Rep. Linda Smith (R-Wash.), a freshman campaign-reform advocate who voted against the bill. “But the oldest members [who voted against the bill] didn’t want their lifestyle changed.”

The bill would have required House candidates to raise most of their campaign money from their home districts. And in a departure from recent reform efforts to rein in campaign spending, the bill would have allowed individuals to contribute more money to candidates and political parties.

“This bill returns control to the people of the United States,” House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said before the vote. “It is a good reform bill. It is a first step in the right direction.”

But many critics said the bill was not real reform because it failed to address the most pressing problem of the current system. “There is too much money with too much influence in our political system,” said Rep. Vic Fazio (D-West Sacramento). “The bill does absolutely nothing to fix the problem.”

Gingrich and his lieutenants in the leadership did not lean heavily on the rank and file to support the bill. And even before the House voted, the campaign finance issue had been considered dead on Capitol Hill. The Senate earlier this year had killed a more ambitious campaign bill and Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said Thursday that there was “no chance” the Senate would revisit the issue.

The House vote marked the end of a long, tortured path through Congress that showed how thorny the political reform issue has been for the GOP. Republicans won control of Congress in 1994 thanks in part to the triumph of challengers who ran for the House on promises to revamp the campaign finance system. However, that system has been rewarding Republicans handsomely with increased political action committee contributions since they took control of Congress.

*

Drafted by House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Bakersfield), the legislation was designed in part to shift the focus of fund-raising and strengthen the hand of political parties. The bill would have required House candidates to raise at least half their money from residents of their districts.

However, critics said that restriction would put at a disadvantage candidates in poor and rural districts where money is scarce--and would hurt women and minorities particularly.

The bill also would have reduced the limit on donations from political action committees from $5,000 a year now to $2,500. Other provisions would have abolished “leadership PACs,” which top lawmakers now set up to give money to their colleagues.

The most controversial parts of the bill would have increased limits on the amount individuals can contribute. The bill also would have allowed the current $1,000 limit on individual contributions to candidates to rise with the rate of inflation and would have increased the amount an individual can give to federal candidates and political parties from $25,000 a year to $50,000 a year.

The bill also would have permitted far greater spending for politicians running against wealthy opponents: Candidates could receive contributions from individuals, political parties and PACs in excess of federal limits if they face an opponent who spends more than $150,000 of their own money.