House OKs 2 Narrow Campaign Reform Bills

After limited debate, the House on Monday night easily approved two Republican campaign finance reform bills, but even Democrats who voted for them derided the measures as “fig leaves” that do little to address the fund-raising abuses committed by both parties in 1996.

At the same time, two other GOP-sponsored measures, including a far-reaching proposal to limit unregulated “soft-money” contributions and restrict union spending in campaigns, failed to win the two-thirds “super majorities” needed for passage under an unusual procedure imposed by House leaders.

One of the bills that passed would ban campaign contributions and expenditures by foreigners, including legal immigrants. The other would require more stringent and expeditious reporting of campaign donations.

Both measures won the support of more than two-thirds of the House.

Despite the narrow scope of the two bills, their passage gives House Republicans something to brag about--particularly in light of the failure of their Senate counterparts to enact any reform legislation.

“Disclosure is very important,” said Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas).

But Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.) retorted: “To say that disclosure will fix campaign finance reform is like saying school uniforms will fix public education.”

Armey and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) turned to the controversial super-majority procedure for the votes after a small group of House Republicans seemed ready to join most Democrats in supporting a sweeping ban on soft-money contributions to national and state political parties.

Under standard parliamentary rules, legislation requires a simple majority for enactment. House leaders generally employ the super-majority requirement only when calling up noncontroversial bills that are expected to pass by large majorities.

The unusual maneuver effectively killed any possibility of congressional action this year to curtail soft-money contributions-- large, unregulated donations that were at the heart of the 1996 fund-raising improprieties.

Comprehensive reform legislation already has been killed in the Senate, but advocates had hoped that House passage of a meaningful reform bill might keep the effort alive. Even before Monday night’s vote, however, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) had expressed a distinct lack of interest in revisiting the issue this year.

Republicans oppose sweeping soft-money bans because the party is far more reliant than Democrats on such contributions. Democrats, on the other hand, depend much more on labor support and are bitterly opposed to GOP proposals to restrict union giving.

During Monday night’s debate, outraged reform advocates fiercely criticized Gingrich and Armey for assigning a highly complex and contentious issue like campaign finance reform to the procedure normally reserved for noncontroversial bills.

*

“This is a cynical maneuver that will come back to haunt Mr. Gingrich,” said Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.).

Other critics, including a few Republicans, denounced the parliamentary process because it limited debate on each proposal to 20 minutes per side--with no amendments allowed.

“The process has been rigged. . . . This is a mockery of democracy,” said California Rep. Sam Farr (D-Carmel).

“It shouldn’t take a super majority to pass meaningful campaign finance reform,” said Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), co-sponsor of a soft-money ban that enjoys bipartisan support but has been barred by Gingrich and Armey from floor consideration.

“The biggest issue is not what was passed but what [GOP leaders] would not even let come up for a vote,” said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

Like their Senate GOP counterparts, most House Republicans have made little or no effort to disguise their distaste for sweeping campaign finance reform--or their intention to kill it.

According to Shays, House Republican leaders repeatedly have said in private meetings that “the American people don’t care” about revamping the nation’s election-financing laws.

In the Senate, Lott last month devised a legislative stalemate in which neither side was able to get the necessary 60 votes to end a filibuster, even though a majority of 51 senators clearly favored a bipartisan bill to ban soft money.

That standoff enabled Lott to declare a deadlock and table the bill.

*

In the House, GOP leaders adopted a more calculated and complex approach, which may offer Republicans some political cover should campaign finance reform emerge this fall as an election issue.

The Senate GOP majority came under severe criticism after blocking a bill in that chamber, sponsored by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), that would have banned soft money amid warnings from reformers that voters would punish Republicans in November.

Monday night’s vote may inoculate Republicans--and supporting Democrats--against charges of doing nothing on campaign finance reform.

That GOP strategy in part may have prompted many Democrats to vote for the measures banning foreign contributions and requiring greater disclosures of donations.

The first of the four measures taken up by the House was written by Rep. William M. Thomas (R-Bakersfield), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, and backed by the GOP leadership team.

It would have restricted, but not eliminated, soft-money contributions; doubled the amount individuals may give to candidates (to $2,000); tripled the amount individuals may donate to state and local parties (to $15,000) and to national parties (to $60,000); required unions to obtain authorization from members before using their dues for political purposes; banned donations from all noncitizens; and required more expeditious reporting of contributions.

When Thomas unveiled his bill, it was vehemently attacked by interest groups spanning the ideological spectrum. At the same time, reform advocates accused GOP leaders of deliberately crafting a bill so full of “poison pill” provisions that it was doomed from the start.

House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) called the measure “anything but reform,” saying that the greater spending limits “would be a bonanza for wealthy special interests.”

The bill was defeated, 334 to 74.

Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.) said the measure that would ban donations by noncitizens amounted to “a mean-spirited attack on immigrants.” But it passed, 369 to 43.

The disclosure bill passed, 405 to 6, whereas the proposal to restrict union dues failed, 246 to 166.

Despite his strong objections to the process, Shays voted for the measures that would restrict use of union dues and impose new disclosure requirements.

But Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.), Shays’ co-sponsor on the soft-money ban, said the two measures represent “one small piece that won’t correct” the abuses committed during the 1996 campaigns. “We need comprehensive reform,” he said.