Heat’s on Senate After Campaign Reform Victory

Fresh from their triumph in the House, sponsors of campaign finance reform legislation raised the pressure on Senate opponents Thursday to concede the fight and allow final passage of the measure.

Hours after the House passed the landmark measure, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) told reporters he would seek to call it up as soon as it arrives in his chamber, probably the week after next. Daschle asserted that he had at least the 60 votes needed to force action.

“It’s over,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the leading Senate advocate of the bill. “We’ve got to get back together and work on other issues.”

But the top Senate foe of campaign finance reform, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), held out the possibility of a last-ditch filibuster to squelch a bill that he says would harm political parties and impose unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.

Before deciding what to do, McConnell said he would spend next week’s congressional recess studying the fine print of the House-passed bill, which would ban the unlimited donations to national political parties known as soft money.

“Since we’re now shooting real bullets, and we’re talking about the potential of a real law, we want to be absolutely certain what’s in it,” McConnell told reporters.

Last April, the Senate voted, 59 to 41, for a campaign finance bill nearly identical to the measure the House passed early Thursday by 240 to 189.

If the Senate consents to the minor House-passed changes in its bill--the strategy that advocates plan to pursue--that would send the measure to the White House. President Bush’s aides continued to say nothing to encourage foes of the legislation that a veto was likely or even possible.

Reform advocates were boosted when Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), who voted against the bill last year, said Thursday he would support breaking a filibuster and vote for final passage. That would give advocates the 60 votes they need to break a filibuster--if they could keep all 59 of their previous supporters in line.

But McConnell said that if he could convince 41 of the Senate’s 49 Republicans that the House-passed bill would work to the disadvantage of the party, he could persuade them to maintain a filibuster. He said the filibuster would end only when the bill’s advocates agreed to appoint a House-Senate conference committee to iron out the small differences between the two versions of the bill.

Such a conference would be perilous for the legislation. House Republican leaders could load the House delegation to the committee with opponents of the bill.

Yet McConnell found provisions of the House-passed bill to praise, suggesting that Republicans might let the bill become law and then attack it in court.

While he disparaged the soft money ban and proposed new regulations on political advertising by interest groups, he endorsed a provision of the House-passed bill that would raise the campaign contribution limits for individual donors to $95,000 every two years, up from the current $50,000.

“As you can see, I’m somewhat conflicted,” McConnell said. “There are parts I like, parts I don’t like.” McConnell promised, however, to be the lead plaintiff in a legal challenge to the bill should it become law.

There was no sign that Bush would get in the way. Asked for Bush’s opinion of the House-passed bill, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said: “The president has been very clear that he wants to sign a bill that improves the current system. Parts of that legislation surely do.”

Last year, Bush came out in favor of a ban on soft money contributions by corporations and labor unions. But the president has not called for a ban on such donations by wealthy individuals.

The lengthy House debate, which began Tuesday night and concluded shortly before 3 a.m. Thursday, highlighted the political dilemmas for Bush. Some of his strongest supporters were vehemently opposed to the legislation--including GOP leaders and an array of special interest groups.

The National Rifle Assn., for instance, joined with House GOP leaders to sponsor an amendment to create an exception in the proposed regulations for any political advertising that pertained to the 2nd Amendment, which addresses the right to bear arms. The amendment failed on a 219-209 vote in the closest call for the pro-reform coalition.

In the end, 41 House Republicans joined with 198 Democrats and one independent to vote for final passage. Among the dissident Republicans were Reps. Doug Ose (R-Sacramento), Mary Bono (R-Palm Springs) and Stephen Horn (R-Long Beach), the only three lawmakers in the state’s 20-member GOP delegation to support the bill. Bono, however, voted for the NRA amendment.

California’s 32-member House Democratic delegation voted as one against the amendment and for the campaign finance reform bill.

As they celebrated their victory, reform advocates said that some of the toughest votes were cast by Republican freshmen in defiance of their leaders. Rep. Todd Russell Platts (R-Pa.), for instance, supported the bill on final passage and opposed the NRA amendment. “I voted my conscience,” Platts said. “It’s something I believe in. To me, [politics] is not about money, it’s about people.”

Platts, who appeared at a news conference with House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), McCain and other reform advocates, said he had “very frank” talks with Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) before the vote. Last week, the speaker had exhorted his party’s rank and file to help defeat the bill, asserting that it could threaten GOP control of the House. But Platts said he never felt threatened. Asked whether his future standing in the party would suffer, Platts said: “Others will have to speak to that.”