McCain Counting on House Payback

Sen. John McCain crisscrossed the country last fall to stump for Republican candidates--appearances that helped his party keep control of the House by a whisker.

Now, with McCain’s signature campaign finance legislation on the verge of Senate approval Monday, leaders of the House GOP majority that the Arizonan fought so hard to preserve loom as his bill’s greatest obstacle.

Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas vows to do whatever he can to kill the measure. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois says it has “real problems.” Rep. Robert W. Ney of Ohio wants to stall it in the committee he chairs.

And the House GOP campaign chief, Rep. Thomas M. Davis of Virginia--who only months ago praised McCain’s party activism--attacks his campaign finance bill as a gift to special interests and “an incumbent-protection program for senators.”

By all accounts, McCain has the votes to prevail in the House. His bill’s core provision--a ban on unlimited donations to political parties, known as soft money--has twice passed the chamber, most recently in 1999 by a lopsided vote of 252 to 177. The previous bills died in the Senate. Now, with the upper chamber suddenly leading the way, House backers say they have even more support.

“We’re going to start laying the groundwork for the House to take up this bill soon,” said Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.), who is sponsoring the House version with Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.). “I want a debate on this in May. There’s no reason to delay this.”

As McCain and his allies turn their attention to the other side of the Capitol after an intense two-week Senate debate, opposition from House leaders comes as no surprise. DeLay, Hastert, Ney, Davis and many other Republicans for years have opposed efforts to ban soft money.

The current bill, as written by McCain and Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), also would restrict political advertising funded by corporations, unions and single-interest advocacy groups. And, while barring soft money, it would increase limits on direct contributions to congressional and presidential candidates. The cap on these donations, known as hard money, would rise to $2,000 per election, up from $1,000.

On Friday, the Senate wrapped up debate on the bill, approving some final changes. One amendment, adopted on a 57-34 vote, altered a provision restricting the coordination of political activities between lawmakers and outside groups.

McCain called it a technical amendment. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the leading critic of the bill, called it a break for unions. “What it does is let big labor continue to coordinate its ground game with the Democratic Party,” he said.

All of those opposing the amendment were Republicans.

Still, judging from other test votes during the debate, perhaps a dozen or more GOP senators could break ranks to vote for the bill on final passage. A total of 60 votes or more for the measure would give it significant momentum heading into the House.

President Bush has opposed a complete soft-money ban but has refrained from threatening to veto the McCain-Feingold bill. Indeed, his recent comments have caused the bill’s foes to say they are not counting on him to kill it.

So, barring intervention by Bush, the legislative battle has come down to the House. And the House GOP leaders, who still hold out hope of thwarting McCain-Feingold, are reviewing their parliamentary weapons.

One option is to bottle up the bill in committee. Ney, chairman of the House Administration Committee, has scheduled a series of hearings on the legislation. But Meehan and other backers say the issue has already been well hashed out.

If the committee fails to act, the bill’s supporters could force it to the floor by submitting a petition to House leaders with signatures from a majority of the House’s 432 members (there are three vacancies).

During floor debate, GOP leaders could seek--as their Senate counterparts did--to kill the bill through amendments. But given the size of the House coalition backing the measure, that seems like a difficult prospect.

A third option is to force the House to adopt a slightly different version of the bill and then send the matter to a House-Senate conference committee. Such committees are supposed to reconcile differences, but they are frequently a legislative graveyard.

A conference committee is quite possible--especially given comments by House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) earlier this week that he wants to reconsider the Senate’s move to increase the limits on contributions to candidates. Gephardt, like many other Democrats, worries that Republicans generally are more successful at hard-money fund-raising.

If a bill that passes the House differs from the Senate version, House GOP leaders could stack a conference committee with McCain-Feingold opponents who would simply thwart any compromise.

But McCain-Feingold backers might avoid such problems by obtaining Senate agreement to House amendments--a procedure that would skirt a conference committee and simply send the bill back to the full Senate for another vote.

Given all the ways his bill could still be derailed, McCain warns that the House fight will be “no day at the beach.”

But he has plenty of allies. Among them are many of the 29 House members whom he campaigned for in battleground districts--such as Rep. Rob Simmons (R-Conn.), who knocked off an incumbent Democrat in an upset and is now co-sponsoring the House version of campaign finance legislation.

John Weaver, McCain’s political advisor, said the senator will be contacting all 29 representatives to remind them of the support he gave them when they needed it.

“We’re going to follow up,” Weaver said. “They’ll know that we’re watching and communicating with voters back in their districts. People are going to know how these people vote on reform. It’s difficult to hide when the public is watching.”