Senate Squares Off Over Campaign Finance Bill

The Senate dived into a bracing, unpredictable debate on campaign finance reform Monday, narrowly blocking a Republican-sponsored proposal to help candidates whose opponents use personal fortunes to get elected.

At day’s end, it appeared the Senate was groping for compromise on a proposal by Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) to raise quarter-century-old contribution limits under certain circumstances for candidates who square off against wealthy, self-financed opponents.

For a time, the debate shifted the Senate’s attention from so-called “soft money,” the unlimited donations to parties that have been the focus of reform proposals, to “hard money,” the federally limited contributions that candidates may use to fund election advertisements.

But the day’s action underscored the parliamentary strength of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who hopes to enact the most comprehensive overhaul of campaign laws in more than two decades. His legislation would ban soft money.

At McCain’s urging, the Senate voted 51-48 to table, or block, Domenici’s proposal. It was the first of what could be many amendments offered to the reform bill that McCain is sponsoring with Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.). Three Democratic senators--Jon Corzine and Robert Torricelli of New Jersey and Herbert Kohl of Wisconsin--switched their votes at the last minute to back McCain.

The outcome was an initial setback for the Senate Republican leadership in a debate that could take many turns over the next two weeks. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the chief opponent of the McCain-Feingold measure, both voted to move the Domenici plan forward.

After the vote, Domenici complained that he had been treated unfairly. McCain and Democratic leaders, though, pledged to offer a compromise as early as today.

Domenici had proposed to force wealthy candidates to declare whether they would dip into their fortunes and how much they would spend. Under his proposal, candidates opposing those who intend to spend $500,000 of their own money could seek contributions at three times the current limit ($1,000 for individuals and $5,000 for political action committees). Those up against $1 million or more in personal wealth would be allowed unlimited aid from their parties.

Several senators in recent years have spent millions from their own fortunes to get elected. Last year, Democrats Corzine, Mark Dayton of Minnesota and Maria Cantwell of Washington ran largely self-financed campaigns. Their victories helped lift the Democrats to an unprecedented 50-50 tie with Republicans in the Senate. Corzine, a former Wall Street financial executive, broke all records by spending more than $60 million of his own money.

Domenici noted that under current law, candidates are allowed to spend as much of their own money as they wish. “Whoever chooses to do that has a huge unfair advantage over their opponents,” he said.

Coming on the first day of the most extensive Senate debate on campaign reform in at least eight years, the proposal was the opening gambit by opponents of the McCain-Feingold bill. The opposition strategy is to replace the bill with a less-restrictive version or to kill it through amendments.

Proponents said the McCain-Feingold bill, which also would impose new restrictions on advertising by outside groups during campaigns, is the only viable solution to a system run amok. Soft-money donations have exploded in recent years as the two major parties engage in a political arms race.

“I am ready to truly clamp down on this obscene situation,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who lamented that running a winning campaign in the nation’s most populous state in 1992 forced her to raise about $12 million and in 1998 about $20 million. Now, Boxer says, the tab may be up to $30 million. She said she would have to raise more than $10,000 a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, for the full six years of her term, to reach that sum.

“What a way to be a United States senator, when you are constantly worried about how to raise money,” Boxer said.

But McConnell mocked those who believe campaign finance is a pressing national issue. “It ranks right up there with static cling as one of the concerns of the American people,” he said.

McConnell said banning soft money, the top goal of McCain-Feingold, would render the two major parties ineffective and increase the power of incumbents, independent news media, political consultants, wealthy candidates and special interests--in short, nearly everyone except challengers.

For years, Republican Senate leaders have prevented an up-or-down vote on the McCain-Feingold bill through the threat of a filibuster. Now, proponents have enough support that they have forced an extended debate on the Senate floor.

McConnell, a leading opponent, said the bill and similar upcoming proposals are likely to crash and fall against the 1st Amendment guarantee of free speech.

“A lot of what we will be dealing with over the next two weeks will fall well short of the constitutional mark,” he said. He urged the Senate to amend McCain-Feingold with a provision President Bush supports--one that would nullify the whole bill if the courts rule any part of it unconstitutional. Proponents are resisting such a provision.

The start of the debate represented a dramatic pause in legislative business on Capitol Hill as Washington turned its attention from tax cuts and education reform, two of Bush’s top priorities, to the seamier side of politics: the endless chase for money to fund what have become perpetual campaigns.

The atmosphere in the Capitol was tense. Few observers were willing to predict what would happen.

Even such details as what amendments would be offered, and when, were unknown or secret. Shortly before noon, about an hour before the debate began, Lott was asked by reporters how the day’s proceedings would unfold.

The majority leader knows better than anyone what will happen on the floor, and normally uses news conferences to explain forthcoming action to reporters. But if Lott knew, he wasn’t talking publicly. Instead, he likened the debate to “a jump ball” in basketball. “I’m not going to try to shape it or force it,” Lott said.

Lott, however, indicated that he would support an alternative bill proposed by Sen. Charles Hagel (R-Neb.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.). The bill would cap soft-money donations to national parties at $60,000 per donor per year and raise hard-money limits for candidates. But it would not limit soft-money donations to state parties, a point McCain and Feingold say renders the Hagel-Landrieu bill meaningless.

For McCain and Feingold, the debate represented the best chance they have had to enact broad reform since they first teamed up on the issue in 1995.

To dramatize their crusade, the two senators took reporters on a 45-minute walk around Capitol Hill on Monday morning. They started at the Capitol, then marched to the Republican Party headquarters, then to the Democratic Party offices and back to the Capitol. At each stop they denounced soft-money fund-raising.

“Free the congressional 535!” the Wisconsin Democrat cried at the doorstep of the Republican National Committee, referring to the 100 senators and 435 members of the House of Representatives.

“These are the parties of the people, not the parties of special interests,” the Arizona Republican proclaimed outside the Democratic Party’s offices.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

The Debate Over Reform

Two major bills are at the heart of the Senate’s campaignfinance debate. Here is a comparison of the bills on hard and soft money, including President Bush’s stated positions:

*

On Soft Money

Sometimes called non-federal money, it is raised by political parties. It is not subject to federal contribution limits and technically may not be spent on advertisements explicitly aimed at electing or defeating a candidate for federal office.

*

McCain-Feingold: Would bar national parties from raising, spending or transferring soft money. It would forbid state parties from spending soft money on certain activities connected to federal elections. And it would bar federal candidates or officeholders from raising soft money, except when they are running for local or state office.

*

Hagel-Landrieu: Would cap annual soft-money donations to national parties at $60,000 per donor. The caps would not apply to donations to state parties.

*

Bush: Would ban soft-money donations by corporations or labor unions. However, he would continue to allow such donations by individuals without limits.

*

On Hard Money

Hard money is raised by candidates and political parties and may be spent on advertisements expressly advocating election or defeat of a candidate. It is subject to federal contribution limits, set in 1974, of $1,000 per individual per election and $5,000 per political action committee per election. (Typically there are two elections in each cycle.) In addition, no individual may give more than a total of $25,000 per year in hard money to parties and candidates.

*

McCain-Feingold: Would raise the aggregate limit to $30,000.

*

Hagel-Landrieu: Would triple the individual limit, to $3,000 per candidate per election. It would raise the PAC contribution limit to $7,500 per candidate per election. And it would triple the individual aggregate annual limit, to $75,000.

*

Bush: Proposes to increase the 1974 limits on individual donors.