Supporters Of Campaign Finance Overhaul Grow Wary As House GOP Leaders Signal A Summer Of Protracted Debate
By Jeffrey L. Katz, CQ Staff Writer
(CQ, May 23) -- The House reopened a debate on campaign finance legislation May 21, with GOP leaders signaling that they may try to stall any final action this year by debating proposals at length throughout the summer.
Some backers of proposals to overhaul campaign finance laws immediately complained that this was an attempt by leaders to back out of a commitment to a fair debate.
"The good faith of the leaders will be tested by whether they deal with this issue promptly, and whether they allocate enough time," said Tom Allen, D-Maine, co-author of one of the leading overhaul proposals.
Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, denied that there was a conscious effort to try to sink the proposals through a protracted debate.
"But there's no other way" to handle all the different measures, said DeLay, who contended that the leading initiatives unconstitutionally infringe on an individual's right to make campaign contributions. "The proponents of eliminating free speech want an open and fair debate," he said. "And they're going to get it."
On March 30, House GOP leaders tried to kill campaign finance legislation by strictly limiting debate. That strategy blocked a bipartisan group of lawmakers from advancing their own bill to restrict the unlimited contributions of party money and the independent issue advocacy ads that critics identify as key problems with the current system. (CQ Weekly, pp. 1283, 863)
A Reverse Tactic
Now GOP leaders may be attempting a reverse tactic -- extending the debate so deep into the summer that no substantive action is possible this year.
Such a strategy would risk energizing overhaul proponents all over again, however. After the first debate, they were so unhappy with the way the issue had been handled that they threatened to force it back to the floor on their own terms through a discharge petition. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., relented on April 22, agreeing to hold a wide-open debate in May. (CQ Weekly, p. 1057)
But Gingrich barely made good on the pledge. The only action the House took before the Memorial Day recess was to approve the procedural rule and begin the floor debate.
The rule makes a bill devised by a bipartisan group of freshmen (HR2183) the starting point for debate. It also permits 11 substitute amendments to be considered, all of which would replace the underlying bill. Whichever gets the most votes (and at least a majority) prevails.
The rule also permits each of the substitute amendments to be further amended, and it allows a constitutional amendment to be offered as well.
In all, Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B. H. Solomon, R-N.Y., said that nearly 600 amendments had been filed. No other bill in the House's history has ever attracted so many proposed amendments, he said.
Overhaul backers fretted at the possibility that the issue would be used as filler, to be shoehorned into House floor debate for an hour or two at a time over a period of months.
"Once we start the debate we should take it up and finish it," said Christopher Shays, R-Conn., a co-author with Martin T. Meehan, D-Mass., of the most widely known campaign finance measure (HR3526).
"If we have interruptions, it will be solely because we have a group of people trying to kill this bill," Shays said. "I think the Speaker does not want this to be a farce."
GOP Conference Chairman John A. Boehner of Ohio predicted that while the debate would be extensive, "I don't think we in the leadership want this hanging around for months."
Republican leaders can be confident that even if the House does pass a campaign finance overhaul, the Senate is unlikely to concur. Filibusters have stalled a bipartisan overhaul bill (S25) there twice in the last eight months. (CQ Weekly, p. 1287)
Key Amendments
Among the substitute amendments are those offered by:
- Shays and Meehan, based on HR3526. The favorite measure of outside groups that advocate overhauling the campaign finance system, the bill would take an aggressive stance against "soft money" (the largely unregulated donations to political parties) and independent issue advocacy advertising.
- Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., and Allen, based on the so-called freshman bill (HR2183), which is also the base bill. For their bill to succeed, though, all the amendments to it would have to fail. To give themselves a fighting chance, they are offering their own bill as an amendment as well. It would take a somewhat less aggressive stance against soft money and issue advocacy advertising; its advocates say that gives it a greater chance of getting enacted.
- Rick White, R-Wash., based on HR99. It would create an independent commission to recommend changes in campaign laws by next spring.
- John T. Doolittle, R-Calif., based on HR965. It would abolish political contribution limits altogether, substituting quicker and fuller disclosure.
- David R. Obey, D-Wis., based on HR243. It would finance campaigns with public money by combining public contributions with a 0.1 percent tax on corporate income above $10 million.
The rule also permits DeLay to offer a constitutional amendment (HJRES119) that would allow Congress and the states to go beyond court-set limits on the government's right to regulate campaign expenditures. DeLay opposes the amendment, which is identical to one (HJRES47) introduced by Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo., but would offer it as proof that "reformers are trying to gut the First Amendment."
|
News
Click here