Campbell Sets Off Fund-Raising Dispute

Rep. Tom Campbell, igniting a new controversy as he runs for U.S. Senate, says “five to 10” of his Republican colleagues delayed a House vote on his health care legislation so they could collect more campaign money from the bill’s competing interests--doctors and insurance companies.

“They wanted to delay a vote not because they thought I was wrong on the merits but because as long as a vote was pending, they could get money from insurance and from medicine,” the San Jose lawmaker said in a telephone interview from Washington.

“That outraged me,” he said. “In all my nine years, that was the clearest evidence of how the process has been corrupted by a pursuit of campaign contributions.”

The ire of Campbell, who is challenging Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, follows the third delay in recent months of a House vote on one of his most prized pieces of legislation, HR 1304. The bill, three years in the making, would exempt physicians from federal antitrust laws so they could collectively bargain with insurers and health maintenance organizations.

With more than 220 co-sponsors, Campbell said, he has long had more than the 218 votes needed for passage. He said he was ready for Speaker Dennis Hastert to bring the bill, after two previous delays, to a promised floor vote before the Memorial Day recess.

When that did not happen, Campbell said, he questioned Hastert about the latest delay.

“I said, ‘What is the point of working around here?’ ” Campbell recalled.

“I didn’t say, ‘Unless you schedule the vote, I will resign.’ But I did say to him, ‘Why should I stay part of this process when it operates in this manner?’ ” Campbell said.

Saying that the Bay Area congressman had hinted he might resign over the matter, a spokesman for Hastert dismissed the Californian’s claim that the vote was delayed because of the fund-raising hopes of some House Republicans.

“That’s fantasy,” said John Feehery, Hastert’s press secretary. “The reason the vote was delayed is that a lot of members don’t like the bill. It had quite a few co-sponsors who were telling us privately they don’t like it. We are trying to work through that . . . and hopefully get a vote sometime this month.”

Campbell’s actions and subsequent remarks have ignited the sort of backlash that could dent his support among fellow House Republicans. “It’s clear Campbell has burned a lot of bridges with this thing,” said one senior Republican staffer on Capitol Hill.

Not everyone agrees that the legislator’s accusation could backfire, especially given his embrace of campaign finance reforms.

“Every once in awhile, taking a stand on principle can actually be good politics,” said Dan Schnur, former communications director for Arizona Sen. John McCain’s unsuccessful campaign for the GOP presidential nomination.

“There is never anything wrong with stepping on toes in politics if your constituents see it as in their best interest,” Schnur said, likening Campbell’s stand to McCain’s populist attacks on the politics of Washington.

But Campbell’s accusations carry political risk. Said one GOP insider who supports him: “I don’t think he hurt himself with the electorate, but he isn’t helping himself with Washington, D.C., or fund-raising.

“It’s one thing to attack someone for not keeping their commitment to vote for [a bill]. It’s another to essentially accuse colleagues of a form of extortion,” the supporter said.

Moreover, the Campbell backer added, the congressman’s remarks reflect the sort of unconventional approach to issues and legislation that Feinstein can use to portray him as politically out of step. Even before he won the GOP nomination to challenge her, Campbell was criticized by Feinstein for several of his proposals, including a pilot project to distribute illegal drugs to combat crime.

“This is another example of Congressman Campbell double-talking with the voters of California,” Kam Kuwata, Feinstein’s campaign manager, said of Campbell’s broadside against the House Republicans.

“He is basically saying some members [of Congress] are on the take. So shouldn’t he tell us who they are?” Kuwata asked. “And if he has proof, he should give that proof to the Ethics Committee of the House.”

But Campbell said his colleagues’ comments, while troubling, did not represent the sort of breach that warrants an investigation.

“I think it would be an ethics violation if someone said, ‘I was given money to vote a specific way,’ ” Campbell said. “I think this is rather evidence of a system that is broken. I don’t think it crosses the threshold” of illegality.