Finance Reform Suspense Builds as House Vote Nears

The fate of a sweeping campaign finance reform bill is shaping up as a political cliffhanger, with both sides scurrying to scrape together support in the final hours before a climactic vote expected in the House this week.

The measure’s proponents and opponents met into Tuesday night and planned a final flurry of lobbying sessions today, with still-wavering members who could determine the outcome of a bill that aims to dramatically decrease the role of big money in U.S. politics.

The frantic efforts underscore the heightened stakes surrounding legislation that is closer than ever to becoming law after clearing the Senate in April, and closer than most issues to lawmakers’ hearts because their careers could be affected by the outcome.

The House would seem an unlikely setting for the last-minute drama, given that the chamber passed similarly far-reaching bills twice in recent years by comfortable margins. But that once-reliable House coalition now is showing cracks.

House members know that Senate passage means their votes really count this time. As a result, dozens of GOP lawmakers who previously voted for reform are facing new pressure from party leaders who oppose the Senate bill. And Democrats, who have traditionally supplied most of the pro-reform votes, are seeing support erode within their ranks because some black and Latino lawmakers fear the bill would hamper parties’ ability to register minority voters and get them to the polls.

Both sides said Tuesday they are heading into a high-stakes debate that starts Thursday with no clear indication of the outcome.

“It’s pretty much a jump ball,” said House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas).

The battle centers on legislation that would prohibit national parties from raising or spending political funds known as “soft money,” the virtually unregulated, big-check contributions that typically come from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals.

Soft money contributions have soared over the last decade, totaling $500 million in the last election cycle, compared with $45 million in 1988. Such funds are supposed to be used for general party organizing activities, but because of loopholes are increasingly used to finance television ads that all but endorse or attack specific candidates.

Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) have led a crusade against soft money for years, and their bill passed by wide, bipartisan margins in the House in 1998 and 1999. But both lawmakers acknowledge passage this year is in serious doubt.

“Many members are looking more closely at the particulars of the bill than they ever have,” Meehan said Tuesday. “The votes aren’t clear at this point.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), who has introduced a competing bill that would limit but not eliminate soft money contributions, said he believes his measure is gaining momentum. He added, though, “it’s a very, very close vote right now either way.”

Ney and Meehan are both spending much of their energies targeting members of the black and Latino caucuses.

Ney crafted his bill largely to address the concerns of minority lawmakers. His measure would allow party committees to continue collecting soft money contributions up to $75,000 per donation, providing the money is spent on voter drives and other party organizing.

Ney secured a crucial endorsement when one member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Albert Russell Wynn (D-Md.), agreed to co-sponsor his bill.

But Shays and Meehan have so far succeeded in preventing other defections and secured endorsements from three key members of the black caucus: Reps. John Lewis (D-Ga.), Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.).

Late Tuesday, Meehan said he and Democratic Party leaders were working on a revision to their bill that would ensure state and local parties could continue to raise soft money contributions up to $10,000 for voter drives.

But that risks alienating Democrats who are staunch reformers and want to stamp out all forms of soft money.

Republicans are also aiming to drive Hispanic Caucus votes away from Shays-Meehan by offering an amendment that would bar legal immigrants who are not U.S. citizens from making political contributions. “If that amendment passes, it is very harmful,” Shays said.

Some of the difficulties in the House stem from compromises the sponsors of the Senate bill, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), struck to get their legislation approved.

Many House Democrats, for example, oppose a provision in the Senate bill that would raise limits on federally regulated “hard money” contributions to $2,000 per primary or general election, up from $1,000 currently. Democrats fear that would put them at a disadvantage to Republicans, who typically have a wealthier base of support.

Shays and Meehan have tried to ease those concerns by proposing a two-tiered system that keeps the $1,000 limit for House candidates but raises the limit for Senate candidates to $2,000.

Shays and Meehan also are struggling to hold onto the more than 50 Republican votes for their bill in 1998 and 1999. That number has now dwindled to fewer than 30 by most estimates, largely because of pressure from GOP leaders.

Rep. Thomas M. Davis of Virginia, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Tuesday he has been reminding other GOP House members how much support they got from the committee in their elections, and pointing out that such help might evaporate if soft money disappears.

Partly because of those reminders, “the vast majority of [Republican] freshman will support the Ney alternative,” Davis said.