By
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Senate took its first step toward rewriting campaign spending rules, approving a proposal to help candidates compete against rich, self-financing opponents.
Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, said the measure would help restore fairness to a situation where "personal wealth has changed the whole dynamic of today's federal elections."
The proposal, adopted 70-30 yesterday, would create a complex three-stage formula for raising and eliminating contribution limits to candidates facing wealthy foes.
While there was little quarrel that the emergence of wealthy individuals trying to buy elections was a growing problem, some Democrats argued that the proposal was unconstitutional and, by raising contribution limits, ran contrary to their overall goal of reducing campaign spending.
"It puts even more of the aggregate political power in the hands of fewer and fewer people," said Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
The proposal was offered as an amendment to campaign finance legislation written by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., that would bring about the most significant changes in spending laws in a quarter-century.
The Senate on Monday began two weeks of debate on McCain-Feingold, which would ban unregulated "soft-money" donations from corporations, unions and individuals to political parties.
The amendment, offered by DeWine and Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., would increase contribution limits according to a formula based on a state's population, with limits rising more quickly in less-populated states. When personal spending by a wealthy candidate reaches the first level, the contribution cap, now $1,000, rises to $3,000. The cap goes up to $6,000 at the second level and at the third level party coordinated spending limits are eliminated.
"We have come down to two categories of candidates in America, the M&M categories - the multimillionaires and the mere mortals," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who helped craft the compromise after a first version by Domenici was defeated 51-48 Monday evening.
During the 2000 election cycle four Senate candidates, all Democrats, spent more than $1 million of their own money in their campaigns. All four, led by Sen. Jon Corzine of New Jersey, who used $60 million from his personal fortune, were elected.
The larger issue was the future of campaign spending laws, with supporters of McCain-Feingold asserting that the integrity of the nation's election system was at stake. Opponents said First Amendment free speech rights were at risk.
"This is the beginning of two weeks of a wild ride," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the leading opponent of the various McCain-Feingold bills that have failed to win Senate support over the past six years.
This year the chances of passage are considered to be the best ever. Democrats, who in large part support the bill, now hold 50 seats in the Senate, and McCain and Feingold say they have enough Republicans on their side to gain the 60 votes needed to overcome an opposition filibuster.
The bill also would put limits on issue ads placed by corporations and unions in the final 60 days of an election and requires greater disclosure. But the centerpiece is the ban on soft money, which nearly doubled from the 1996 election to $487 million in the 2000 election cycle.
"We've got senators who can't sleep," Feingold said. "We've got senators who feel like they have to take a shower after doing fund-raising calls. We've got a pretty bizarre system. This system cheapens us all."
But McConnell said many provisions in McCain-Feingold would be unconstitutional violations of free speech and that the system would be better served by tripling, to $3,000, the current $1,000 "hard money" limit on contributions individuals make directly to candidates.
The biggest obstacle McCain and Feingold face is an alternative offered by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., that would limit soft money contributions to political parties to $60,000 a year, while raising the current caps individuals may make to candidates and political parties.
