The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The campaign finance debate moved to the House yesterday and members who want to reduce the influence of big money in elections said they have the momentum, following a big vote in the Senate, to get a bill through Congress.
"We're going to win this battle in the House, the wind is behind our back," Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., said at a news conference yesterday. His remarks came a day after the Senate voted 59-41 for legislation that would ban the hundreds of millions of dollars in "soft money" that corporations, unions and rich individuals give political parties every year.
Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., chief sponsor of the House campaign finance bill with Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., said he hoped to meet with the Republican leadership this week and win approval of a House vote by the end of May.
He said that of the many obstacles they face, one of the biggest is the possibility they will pass a bill so different from the Senate bill that it would require a conference to work out differences. The fear is that Republican leaders in both chambers, who generally oppose the legislation, would use the conference to either kill or weaken the bill.
"If you go to conference you are basically allowing the opponents of campaign finance reform to write the bill," Shays said.
"We are not going to let a bill be written in conference that would emasculate campaign finance reform," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., author of the Senate bill with Sen. Russ Feingold. "We've come too far. That's not democracy."
Shays said a conference could be avoided either by House approval of the Senate bill without changes or by sending a bill back to the Senate that senators could quickly approve and send to the president.
President Bush has voiced opposition to the soft-money ban that is at the heart of the McCain-Feingold bill but has said he was willing to sign a bill that "improves the system."
If he does, the new law still would run into almost instant court challenges from opponents who argue that many of its provisions, including items that restrict the political advertising of interest groups in the final 60 days of an election, violate First Amendment free speech rights.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., chief adversary of the McCain-Feingold bill, said he will meet with allies this week to plan legal strategy to strike it down in the courts.
"I'm sure there are going to be court challenges on all parts of it," said Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., who voted against the bill. "So it still has a way to go."
House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, acknowledged that the House has supported campaign finance change in the past. "I think you're talking about a compelling issue that will find its way on the calendar."
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., hasn't made any commitments on a date yet. "We've been focused on getting tax relief for the American people, and that will take precedence right now," said his spokesman, John Feehery. Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, the third-ranking Republican in the House, has pledged to do whatever he can to defeat the bill.
The House has passed campaign finance legislation twice, in 1998 and 1999, only to see the bill die in the Senate, and Shays and Meehan are confident they still have a solid majority.
McConnell said the 41 votes against the bill sent a "clear message" to both the House and the White House that Senate opponents have the votes to sustain a presidential veto if the bill that emerges from Congress is not to the president's liking.
Meehan said the Senate-passed bill was very similar to his and "meets the test of true reform." But some House Democrats, including Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, have expressed concern about provisions in the bill to raise the direct "hard money" contributions an individual may make to candidates and parties. The donation to a candidate is doubled to $2,000 per election.
That provision, and another allowing hard money contributions to rise when a candidate faces a rich, self-financing opponent, apply only to Senate candidates and some adjustments will be needed in the House bill.
In the background is a formidable coalition of groups - ranging from the AFL-CIO and the American Civil Liberties Union to the Christian Coalition and the National Rifle Association - that see the bill as a violation of their right to influence the political process.
