NRA: Court Challenge next for Campaign Finance Reform

Josey1

Court challenge next for campaign finance By Jill ZuckmanChicago Tribune DENNIS COOK / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., right, and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., celebrate yesterday's vote. E-mail this article Print this article Search web archive Related stories Campaign-finance bill's main elements WASHINGTON - The first major overhaul of federal campaign-finance laws in nearly 30 years achieved final congressional approval yesterday as the Senate voted 60-40 to pass the measure. President Bush pledged to sign the bill, which would not go into effect until Nov. 6 - after the midterm elections - and which faces a rocky future. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he would challenge its constitutionality before a three-judge federal panel. The National Rifle Association (NRA) also vowed to challenge the ban against corporations and unions spending their treasury money on television and radio ads that mention a candidate for federal office within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. "King George threw the colonists in jail for pamphleteering against the crown," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA. "What's the difference here?" Bush, however, expressed support for the reduction of the flow of big money into U.S. politics. "Like many Republicans and Democrats in the Congress," he said, "I support common-sense reforms to end abuses in our campaign-finance system. The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall." Congress has not made major changes in federal rules governing the way candidates raise money and run campaigns since shortly after the Watergate scandal in 1974. Since then, concerns about soft money and an out-of-control system grew but with little result. This time, the implosion of Enron, which made large contributions, seemed to galvanize legislators. "This is a landmark piece of legislation that will be written about in the history books for years to come," said Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. Eleven Republicans joined 48 Democrats, including Washington state's Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, and one independent in support of the measure. The Senate earlier voted 68-32 to cut off a potential filibuster. Besides banning so-called soft-money fund raising and barring corporate treasury and union money from advertising close to an election, the bill would double "hard money" limits placed on individual contributions to candidates from $1,000 to $2,000 per election. Legislators also agreed to assist candidates facing wealthy, self-funded opponents by tripling the number of hard dollars they can collect per person. Finally, the bill would allow state and local parties to accept donations of up to $10,000 a year per donor for activities affecting federal candidates. Campaign strategists disagree on which party might benefit more. The two parties raised roughly the same amount of soft money in the past election. Republicans typically raise far more in hard-money contributions and presumably will benefit more from a provision that will increase hard-money limits. But Democrats still will benefit from campaign activities by labor unions and other groups that have vowed to step up fund raising for hard dollars. The crusade for campaign-finance reform was led by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Reps. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Marty Meehan, D-Mass. The four argued that legislators are tainted when they ask special-interest groups to contribute huge sums to their parties. Those requests, they said, make it difficult for legislators to consider public-policy matters on their merits. Since the mid-1990s, unregulated donations from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals have mushroomed, financing large advertising campaigns as well as traditional, get-out-the-vote efforts. The parties raised $500 million for the 2000 election, compared with $86 million in 1992. "With the stroke of the president's pen, we will eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars of unregulated soft money that has caused America's citizens to question their elected representatives' integrity," said McCain, who made the issue the centerpiece of his 2000 presidential campaign. "I hope this will help restore the public's faith in government." Critics, however, said the bill would gut political parties, prohibit free speech and increase bureaucracy. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., compared the legislation to Armageddon, saying GOP control of the House was at stake. "Proponents say that this bill will remove unregulated donations from politics," McConnell said. "It won't do that. It will take the money away from the parties and shift most of it to unregulated outside groups." Indeed, many lobbyists and party officials acknowledge they have begun picking through the language, searching for ways to maintain big-money donations without violating the letter of the law. Ken Goldstein, a political-science professor at the University of Wisconsin, said the bill is unlikely to help or hurt the system to the degree portrayed by key players. "Both proponents and opponents of campaign-finance reform are exaggerating what the effects are going to be," Goldstein said. Over the years, campaign- finance legislation has been killed multiple times on both sides of the Capitol and by members of both parties. In 1992, then-President George Bush vetoed legislation to provide partial public financing for candidates who promised to curb their spending. Two years later, the House and Senate passed campaign-finance bills but couldn't agree how to combine them in conference. While the legislative battles ended with yesterday's votes, advocates of the bill said they must fight legal challenges in court and press the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce the law. McCain and Feingold insisted that the bill would pass constitutional muster. McCain said outside groups still would be allowed to run ads in the weeks before an election, but they would be required to raise the money to pay for those ads in $2,000 increments - just like the candidates. "That's why we think it withstands scrutiny," McCain said. McCain and his colleagues, however, said they are worried that the FEC will refuse to enforce the legislation. At least two members of the six-person commission, David Mason and Brad Smith, have spoken out vigorously against the measure. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134423606_campaign210.html