GOP Tactic on Campaign Bills Draws Fire

In a move that outraged campaign finance reform advocates, House Republican leaders on Friday scheduled for Monday a series of votes on the issue that will require a virtually insurmountable two-thirds majority vote for passage.

“Campaign finance reform is as dead as a doornail,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) said after the announcement by House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas).

Reformers, including some Republicans, also were angry because--under House rules Armey invoked--floor debate will be limited to 20 minutes per side.

Such procedure normally is reserved for legislation that has little or no opposition--and is highly unusual for a controversial bill.

Armey’s tactic, backed by the full House GOP leadership team, provoked a series of verbal assaults from Democrats. It also prompted an extraordinary colloquy between Armey and Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), a reformer who asked a series of pointed questions about the GOP majority’s true intentions.

Armey insisted that Monday’s balloting would provide “a wonderful opportunity to vote for campaign finance reform in the best interest of honest elections.”

But critics were not convinced. Becky Cain, president of the pro-reform League of Women Voters, called Armey’s move “an egregious abuse of the democratic process” that will produce only “rigged votes” on campaign finance reform.

Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.), Shay’s co-sponsor on a major reform bill that is being barred from reaching the House floor, called the GOP move an “outrage . . . [and] a disgrace.” Rep. Sam Farr (D-Carmel) called it “a sham.”

During the verbal fireworks on the House floor, the chamber’s newest member, Rep. Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara), stood up to announce her support for campaign finance reform, prompting Democrats to burst into applause.

Friday’s developments underscored the volatile nature of the uphill drive to revamp the nation’s election financing system after nearly two years of revelations of widespread abuses by both parties during the 1996 campaigns.

Earlier this year and in 1997, the GOP-dominated Senate killed a major reform measure that would have banned “soft money,” huge unregulated donations to the political parties that are intended for party-building activities. But in the Feb. 26 vote, Republicans had to resort to a filibuster to block the measure.

Normally, only a majority is required in either house to pass legislation. But the 51 senators who went on record in favor of reform fell short of the 60 votes needed to overcome the GOP filibuster.

*

In the House this week, Republican leaders began devising a strategy to make good on the pledge by Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) to bring up the issue by the end of March.

But conferring behind the scenes, Gingrich and his lieutenants realized that the reformers might muster a majority vote for a bill modeled after the Senate version that would ban soft money.

As a result, Gingrich and Armey abruptly postponed floor action on the bill, which had been set for Thursday or Friday.

That evoked a chorus of public protests not only from Democrats but also from Republicans, who charged that GOP leaders were blatantly thwarting the will of the House majority.

Hours later, Armey announced that votes would occur Monday night on four separate campaign finance reform bills written under the supervision of Rep. William M. Thomas (R-Bakersfield), chairman of the House Oversight Committee.

One measure would ban national (but not state) political parties from receiving soft money. Another would ban contributions from noncitizens. A third bill requires labor unions to obtain authorization from members before using their dues for political activities. The fourth requires fuller reporting and disclosure of all donations.

The Thomas proposals originally were packaged in one bill, which was widely considered fatally flawed--perhaps by design, critics charged--because of these “poison pill” provisions that one side or another finds objectionable.

Thomas did not respond to a request for an interview Friday. But Armey said that he was “proud of the work” done by Thomas and his committee.

The votes are scheduled for Monday night because many House members plan to fly to New Mexico that day to attend funeral services for Rep. Steven Schiff (R-N.M.), who died Wednesday. They plan to return that evening.

Despite Armey’s plans, however, the scenario may not unfold as neatly as he hopes.

Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) vowed to disrupt proceedings by demanding roll call votes for the House to adjourn. House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) urged Gingrich and Armey to put off the Monday votes altogether in deference to Schiff’s funeral.

“This whole thing is fluid,” said Rep. Constance A. Morella (R-Md.).

Reformers also are trying to rejuvenate their drive to gather the necessary 218 signatures to activate a “discharge petition,” which would force the House to fully consider the scores of campaign finance reform proposals that have been introduced.

That effort had been stalled at 187 signatures--until Capps with some fanfare signed the petition during Friday’s acrimonious floor debate.

In the meantime, Rep. Scotty Baesler (D-Ky.) said that he and his allies will escalate their efforts to persuade other members to sign the petition, especially the two dozen Democrats who have yet to do so.

Noting that Gingrich had promised “a very fair, bipartisan process of voting” on campaign finance reform, Baesler charged: “Obviously, the promises made by the speaker are not going to materialize.”