Campaign finance reform needed now more than ever

A popular campaign finance reform bill that would ban congressional candidates and political parties for raising unlimited "soft money" contributions and make other changes to campaign funding faces an uncertain future in the House of Representatives today, with a final vote scheduled for no later than Friday.\nHouse support has been dwindling since the Senate passed its version of the legislation, the McCain-Feingold bill, April 2. Republican Senator John McCain (Ariz.) had made campaign finance reform, an idea that polls show is popular among American voters, the centerpiece of an unsuccessful run for the Republican presidential nomination last year. He vowed then to halt all Senate action through procedural motions until the bill he co-sponsored with Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) passed that body. \nAnd after a fight in the Senate, it did pass, 59-41, with Indiana's Senators Richard Lugar (R) and Evan Bayh (D) voting in favor.\nIronically, the House passed similar measures banning soft money in both 1998 and 1999. But both times members of Congress knew their colleagues in the Senate would keep the measure from becoming law. That meant they could support the reform measure, use it in campaign speeches during election season, and still continue to raise and spend soft money for their political parties.\nLiberal Democrats have been successful in raising soft money in the last few years, especially with the help of former President Bill Clinton, and without it, they would fall even further behind their Republican Party rivals in fund-raising revenue. The bill under consideration would increase the limits on regulated "hard money" contributions, which Republicans have done a vastly better job at raising in the past than Democrats.\nThe lobbying efforts have focused this week on two groups of traditionally liberal groups of Democrats: blacks and Hispanic lawmakers. Rep. Martin T. Meehan of Massachusetts, the Democrats' chief sponsor of the bill, said Tuesday that his coalition was "not only making sure that we appease the black caucus, but making sure we don't create a loophole in the process" that would permit soft money to flow back into campaign war chests. Half of then 36-member Congressional Black Caucus has committed its support to the bill, but that's far fewer votes than in the past from the group. All but three supported the bill in previous years.\nRep. John Lewis (D) of Georgia, an outspoken supporter of the Shays-Meehan bill, said of his fellow Caucus members, "More than any other group in Congress, we should be for reform, for a way to level the political process. I don't understand some of my colleagues."\n"Soft money is polluting the political process," he said.\nBut some analysts argue that the bill would hurt Democrats, who are already millions of dollars behind Republicans each year in contributions, while helping Republicans.\nSoft money revenues from unlimited contributions that are made to the parties by corporations, unions, and individuals have skyrocketed in the last decade.\n"Total soft-money donations grew from about $45 million in the 1988 presidential campaign, when contributors exploited the loopholes in the election law to great effect, to $500 million in the campaign cycle that ended in November's elections," according to a July 10 article in The New York Times.\nOther provisions in the bill may also help Republican candidates.\nLimits on direct contributions to candidates rise under H.R. 380, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform bill. Political action committees (PACs) could contribute $10,000 per election to each candidate, twice that allowed under current law. The current limit of $25,000 per year that individuals can spend on hard money on all candidates combined rises to $30,000.\nA key provision, but little talked about, would limit the amounts candidates could spend on their own campaigns, currently unlimited, to $50,000 per election. Several senators were elected in the last few years having used millions of their own dollars to finance their campaigns, money used mainly for expensive television advertisements.\nSenator Jon S. Corzine (D) of New Jersey was elected last year by doing just that. Many reform-minded voters believe unlimited personal contributions give an unfair advantage to wealthy candidates. If passed, the provision is not likely to stand-up to court challenges based on the First Amendment's right to free speech. The Supreme Court has said Congress cannot limit candidates' expenditures on their own behalf.\nEven if campaign finance reform supporters manage to pass Shays-Meehan this week, it still faces a veto threat from the White House.\nIt's way past time to reform the way our nation funds it's political campaigns. Let's hope enough members of Congress see Shays-Meehan as the vastly better alternative it is to current law.\nOur congressman, John Hostettler (R), can be reached by phone at (202) 225-4636 by fax at (202) 225-3284, or via E-mail at John.Hostettler@mail.house.gov.