Senators Vote to Assist Candidates Facing Rich Foes

After an election in which four Democrats spent millions of dollars apiece in personal funds to win Senate seats, the chamber on Tuesday approved a measure to loosen fund-raising limits on candidates who face such deep pockets.

If the amendment becomes law--by no means a given--it would create the first exemptions to the $1,000 limit on individual contributions to candidates per election since that cap was enacted in 1974. The contribution limit is a cornerstone of the current system of campaign finance.

The 70-30 vote for the proposal provided the first example of bipartisan consensus on campaign finance legislation as the Senate for a second day engaged in an unusually free-flowing debate on how to reform a political system flooded by money in recent years.

But the vote also underscored the fragility of the coalition behind the push to ban the unlimited donations to political parties known as “soft money.”

Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), sponsors of that legislation, voted for the amendment Tuesday. They insisted it would not hinder their crusade to diminish the role of big donors in politics. McCain even suggested that a more sweeping revision of candidate contribution limits--one that would affect all candidates--is inevitable.

“Everyone knows there will be an increase,” McCain told reporters. “The question is, how much?”

McCain said he could support easing the federal contribution limits for what politicians call “hard money”--funds that can be spent only on direct efforts to elect or defeat a given candidate--as long as the Senate approves his top goal: a complete ban on soft money donations. Combined soft money contributions during the 2000 election cycle to the Republican and Democratic parties totaled nearly $500 million.

But several prominent Democrats were angered that the first amendment approved in the reform debate was to ease fund-raising restrictions. The dismay expressed by Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) was significant because McCain and Feingold need the support of most Democrats if their bill is to have a chance at passage.

Daschle, the Senate minority leader, said approval of what some termed “the millionaire amendment” lessened the chances of passage for the McCain-Feingold bill.

“It was a disappointing vote, and we have to be very concerned about future votes of this kind,” Daschle said. He warned that if the Senate goes further in easing contribution limits, it would risk losing the chance for “meaningful campaign finance reform.”

Other opponents raised legal questions about the amendment.

A bill similar to the McCain-Feingold measure has twice passed the House in recent years. But until now the Senate GOP leadership has blocked efforts to force an up-or-down vote on the legislation, using a filibuster to block the bill. But with several reform advocates winning election last November--and the Senate now split 50-50 between the parties--McCain secured an agreement for an early, exhaustive debate. He hopes for a vote on final passage after debate ends late next week.

Opponents of the McCain-Feingold bill are hoping to load it with amendments that weaken support for it or, failing that, rely on a potential veto from President Bush.

Bush does not favor a ban on all soft money contributions, but he has refrained from threatening a veto.

Two Republican-sponsored amendments to McCain-Feingold were easily turned away Tuesday. One would have placed new restrictions on political action committees. Another would have prohibited lawmakers from raising money from lobbyists while Congress is in session. The Senate today will take up a Democratic amendment meant to reduce the costs of buying television advertisements.

The amendment approved Tuesday was the Senate’s response to a phenomenon that has drawn much notice in recent years: the millionaire-turned-politician.

Last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, four Democrats won Senate elections after spending more than $1 million of their own money. They were Maria Cantwell of Washington, Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin and Jon Corzine of New Jersey. Corzine, a former Wall Street executive, set a record by spending about $60 million from his fortune to capture an open seat. Cantwell and Dayton knocked off GOP incumbents, while Kohl won reelection.

The Corzine example provoked much of the drive for reform, senators said. Corzine himself voted for Tuesday’s measure. He brushed off questions about whether he took offense at being singled out. “It’s not awkward,” he told reporters. “I’ve been dealing with this.”

Kohl voted for the amendment; Cantwell and Dayton opposed it.

“This amendment will move toward a more level playing field,” said Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), a co-sponsor with Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) of the proposal.

Domenici offered a similar amendment Monday, but it was tabled. A compromise version then was hastily crafted.

The amendment would increase to as much as $6,000 the individual contribution allowed to a candidate facing a rival spending large amounts of personal funds. The amount of self-financing that would cause limits to rise would vary by state, based on population.

Also, politicians running against so-called super-spenders could receive unlimited aid from their parties. State-by-state details were sparse, but in an example provided by Domenici’s office, in New Mexico this provision would kick in once a self-financed candidate had funneled about $2 million into a campaign.

Both of California’s Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, voted for the measure.

Feinstein, recalling her tight race in 1994 against a wealthy, self-financed Republican challenger, Mike Huffington, said the measure was a matter of fairness. “If I put in millions of dollars, the limits ought to ease for you so you can go out and raise more money,” Feinstein said.

Feinstein said she also supports a general increase in contribution limits, but she is not sure by how much.

Some predicted the measure would face a constitutional challenge.