Progress Seen in Senate on Campaign Reform Deal

The search for a breakthrough on campaign finance legislation intensified Thursday as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) pitched a new reform plan and the second-ranking Senate Republican indicated a willingness to compromise.

With lawmakers bargaining hard behind the scenes, Feinstein offered a potential solution to the vexing issue of contribution limits that could draw significant bipartisan support: double the sum individuals can give to a candidate, to $2,000 from the current $1,000.

Meanwhile, Senate Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles (R-Okla.) staked out a position apart from President Bush and many other Republicans. Nickles told reporters he could support a ban on unlimited donations to political parties, known as “soft money,” but with several conditions.

A ban on soft money is the key element in the reform bill sponsored by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.).

In a floor speech, Nickles said: “I’m trying to look at bite-size improvements we can make to this bill.” His remark was significant because Nickles is part of the Senate GOP leadership that has resisted the push for campaign finance reform.

These movements toward a deal could yet founder. But as senators grappled for a fourth day with how to curb the influence of money in politics, approving a handful of proposals by acclamation and turning back one viewed as a deal-killer, it seemed that progress was being made.

The day’s action began with a 60-40 vote to table, or block, a proposal to require unions to disclose political activities to their members and require corporations to do so for shareholders. All 50 Democrats opposed the measure, joined by 10 Republicans, including McCain.

The vote was important because Democrats--the core of the McCain-Feingold coalition--are loath to accept certain provisions they view as hostile to organized labor. The Senate turned back another union-limiting measure Wednesday that Bush supported.

The amendments approved Thursday included two that would broaden campaign disclosure requirements. One, sponsored by Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), mandates the posting of campaign finance records on the Internet. Another, sponsored by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), requires certain television and radio advertisements attacking a political opponent to identify the sponsoring candidate.

But the day’s real action occurred off the Senate floor, as senators from both parties searched for an acceptable answer to a $500-million dilemma. That is roughly the combined amount of soft money the two parties raised during the 2000 election cycle. In considering whether to eliminate or cap such donations, lawmakers are wondering how to retool campaign laws to stop the funds from flowing in unintended directions.

Feinstein argued that a ban on soft money alone “skews the political world” by forcing more political funds into the hands of loosely regulated groups outside the two-party system.

In response, she said, the limit on direct contributions by individuals to candidates, established in 1974 and unchanged since then, should be doubled and periodically adjusted for inflation to help candidates raise federally regulated “hard money.” Such money, in contrast to soft money, may be spent on ads explicitly aiming to elect or defeat a candidate.

Feinstein’s proposal represents a compromise. Many Democrats and liberal groups want to keep the limit fixed because they fear an increase would just keep big money flowing into politics. Many Republicans want to triple the limit to bring it in line with what 1974 dollars would be worth today if adjusted for inflation.

In addition, Feinstein said she favored a new limit on the total amount individuals may donate to candidates and parties each year, up to $50,000 from the current $25,000. But she stressed that she was open to other ideas on that point.

Feingold, who is reluctant to raise the limits, concedes some adjustment is likely. He called Feinstein’s proposal “too steep” but said the Californian is playing “a constructive role.”

Nickles said a $50,000 overall cap could be a compromise, though he favored a higher figure for the individual limit.