Campaign Reform Gets New Life in House Upset

Caving to intense pressure from Democrats and a small band of rebellious Republicans, the House leadership abruptly reversed course Wednesday and agreed to allow a full, unrestricted debate on campaign finance reform next month.

The stunning turnaround markedly improves the odds--but certainly does not guarantee--that the House will approve legislation this year to limit the large, unrestricted “soft-money” donations that were central to the fund-raising abuses of the 1996 election cycle.

It came as House reformers were nearing success in a long and quixotic petition drive to force floor action on the issue--even after House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) thought he and his lieutenants had successfully buried the controversy for the year.

“This is a great day for democracy . . . and for those who have been fighting for reform,” said Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), a leader of the drive to revamp the nation’s election-financing laws. Another reform advocate, Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), exulted: “Newt Gingrich raised the white flag and surrendered to the will of the American people!”

Only a month ago, Gingrich had devised what even some Republicans characterized as a “rigged” procedure under which reform legislation was debated under highly unusual circumstances that essentially guaranteed failure.

“This was an important procedural victory,” said Rep. Thomas H. Allen (D-Maine), a key freshman reformer. “But an enormous challenge lies ahead.”

If the House enacts comprehensive reform, the GOP-controlled Senate would come under strong pressure to revisit the issue as well. But Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) is an implacable opponent who engineered the demise of campaign finance reform in the Senate in February, even though a majority of senators favored reform in a test vote.

As recently as Monday, Lott said that, even if the House acts, he would not bring up the matter again in the Senate. Still, Senate rules enable the minority party to force an issue onto the calendar with relative ease.

Lott “doesn’t have to take it up for it to come up,” observed Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.). “We’re going to raise it again.”

For the next few weeks, however, all eyes will be on the House.

Under a written agreement reached between Gingrich and the Republican dissidents, the starting point of floor debate will be a measure crafted by a bipartisan group of House freshmen led by Reps. Allen and Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.).

They and other reformers were elated by Gingrich’s public vow to allow a “full, open and fair” debate on whether to change the nation’s election financing laws.

But Gingrich has made such a promise before--only to renege, in the eyes of most reformers and independent analysts.

Last month, when it became clear that a small group of House Republicans was ready to join most Democrats in supporting a bill to ban soft-money contributions to the political parties, Gingrich imposed a procedural barrier that required a two-thirds “super majority” for enactment.

Under usual House parliamentary rules, legislation requires only a simple majority for passage. House leaders traditionally invoke the super majority requirement only when calling up noncontroversial bills.

Gingrich’s ploy effectively blocked passage of comprehensive reform measures. Only two narrowly targeted bills were approved. One would ban campaign contributions and expenditures by foreigners, including legal immigrants. The other would require more stringent and expeditious reporting of campaign donations.

The House debate on the issue now is scheduled for mid-May. The Allen-Hutchinson bill, which is sponsored by 50 Democrats and 21 Republicans, as currently drafted, would:

* Prohibit national parties from receiving soft-money contributions, which are unregulated because they do not advocate the election of specific candidates.

* Provide modest increases in maximum “hard-money” contributions to candidates, parties and political action committees.

* “Index” hard-money contribution limits to allow them to rise with inflation.

* Impose disclosure requirements on nonprofit organizations and labor unions that engage in issue advocacy.

Beyond the policy implications of Gingrich’s reversal, the manner in which it was announced reveals the extent to which the speaker has lost the trust of some rank-and-file Republicans. The GOP dissidents had Gingrich put his commitment in writing and distributed copies all over Capitol Hill.

Several reform-minded Republicans pointedly said that, if Gingrich fails to live up to the spirit and letter of his promise, they would resume the petition drive to force floor action.

“The petition can always be signed again,” said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.).

Rep. Tom Campbell (R-San Jose), who drafted the final agreement with Gingrich, came to the speaker’s defense, saying: “There won’t be any trickery or sleight of hand involved.”

In his statement, Gingrich said that campaign finance reform will be “fully debated under an open rule,” meaning that amendments and substitute legislation will be permitted, as long as they are germane.

“It is everything we wanted and hoped for,” said Shays. “I believe we will send a significant bill to the Senate.”

The petition drive, launched last year by a group of conservative Democrats, initially stalled at 187 signatures, far short of the 218 needed to force House leaders to “discharge” the legislation. But it picked up steam after Gingrich erected the super majority barrier last month.

This week, after returning from a two-week Easter recess, several members immediately signed the petition, bringing the total to 205--just 13 shy of the goal.

Among the signers were a dozen Republicans and all but about 12 Democrats and it appeared increasingly likely that the petition drive would succeed.

“It was pretty self-evident where things were going,” said Shays.

GOP aides said that Gingrich sensed the probable outcome over the weekend and began serious discussions with the Republican rebels, including Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-San Diego), who signed the petition Tuesday.

Bilbray told reporters that Gingrich confronted him several days ago by asking: “Why are you doing this?” Bilbray then said: “The best thing a friend can do is to confront [you] when [you] are wrong.”

The matter came to a head Wednesday morning during a contentious closed-door meeting of House Republicans. Amid the heated exchanges, Hutchinson rose and offered the freshman bill “as a means out of this impasse.” His suggestion was met with applause.

By the end of the meeting, Gingrich had bowed to the wishes of the reformers.

“Sometimes conflict is a needed ingredient with change,” said Rep. Zack Wamp (R-Tenn.), another reform advocate.

In recent days, a number of reform-minded GOP House members received calls from Republican senators urging them not to sign the discharge petition, according to Shays. But in the end, it was Gingrich and his leadership team that blinked.

As Rep. Merrill Cook (R-Utah) put it, referring to his GOP bosses: “In the last few days, I’ve seen them adjust and bend.”