House OKs campaign finance bill

Josey1

House OKs campaign finance bill Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., co-sponsor of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance bill. President Bush suggested Wednesday that he may sign a campaign finance reform bill if it gets to his desk. NBC's David Gregory reports on the fierce debate in the House over the Shays-Meehan bill. BREAKING NEWSBy Tom CurryMSNBC Feb. 14 - The House on Wednesday passed a sweeping measure sponsored by Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., and Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass, that would outlaw "soft money" contributions to national political parties and ban certain types of political advertising 60 days prior to an election. If the measure ultimately becomes law, it would represent the most significant overhaul of the nation's campaign finance rules since the post-Watergate reforms of the mid-1970s. `You can drive an Enron limousine - 60 million bucks worth - across the country through the loopholes in this bill.' - REP. BOB NEY, R- OHIOOpponent of Shays-Meehan measure THE SHAYS-MEEHAN BILL, approved 240-189, would outlaw "soft money" contributions to national political parties, but it would permit soft money contributions - up to $10,000 per donor per year - to continue to flow to any state or local party. The bill's foes tried offering amendments Wednesday night and into Thursday morning that, if adopted, would have made the bill unacceptable to the Shays-Meehan forces and difficult for the Senate to accept. But most of those amendments were rejected, before final approval of the measure shortly before 3 a.m. ET. Last March the Senate approved its own version of campaign finance legislation, which is substantially similar to the Shays-Meehan bill. But the Senate margin was one less than the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster and Sen. Mitch McConnell. R- Ky., has pledged to filibuster the Shays-Meehan bill. BUSH: WHY NOT IMMEDIATELY? Adding his voice to the debate, President Bush signaled his opposition to a provision that would delay implementation of the Shays-Meehan bill until after this November's elections, allowing both parties to continue to use unlimited "soft money" contributions from labor unions, corporations and individuals. Washington Post: Tactics, theatrics color finance vote "I want to sign a bill that improves the system, and it seems like, to me, that if they get a bill out of the House of Representatives that improves the system it ought to be in effect immediately," Bush told reporters at the White House. "But we'll see what comes my way." Later, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer criticized another provision in the bill that Republicans argue would open a new loophole by permitting "soft money" to be used to pay back any party debt. 'Hard money' vs. 'soft money' Defining two kinds of campaign contributions: 'Hard money': Donation to a specific candidate, limited to $1,000 per election by individual donors or $5,000 per election by a political action committee (PAC). 'Soft money': Donations to political parties ostensibly used for party-building and get-out-the-vote efforts, but often used to help specific candidates. There is no limit on 'soft money' donations, but they must be reported to the Federal Election Commission. DEBATE OVER AMENDMENTS The Shays-Meehan measure would also would ban advocacy groups such as the Sierra Club from broadcasting any ads within 60 days of a general election if the ads mentioned the name of a candidate or showed a photo or likeness of a candidate. Advocacy groups could set up political action committees (PAC's) or use their existing PAC's to pay for such ads. The ads that are the focus of the dispute discuss an issue such as pollution, but also mention a candidate. Instead of explicitly saying "vote for Bill Kelly," the ads use language such as "Call Sen. Kelly and ask him why he voted to weaken the Clean Water act." Critics of the Shays-Meehan bill say the 60-day ad blackout period would violate the First Amendment rights of advocacy groups, by making it impossible for them to get their message to voters before an election. A guide to the campaign finance debate Even supporters of the Shays-Meehan bill such as Sen. John Edwards, D- N.C., have said that its advertising ban poses "a very serious constitutional problem" on First Amendment grounds. Opponents of the Shays-Meehan bill offered amendments that they said were intended to protect the rights of advocacy groups, but which the Shays-Meehan forces said were "poison pills" designed to scuttle the bill. In roll call votes, the House: Rejected, 219-209, an amendment that would have exempted communications pertaining to the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees citizens' right to bear arms, from the Shays-Meehan ad ban. Rejected, 237-188, a proposed amendment that stated that nothing in the Shays-Meehan measure could be construed to abridge the First Amendment. Adopted, 327-101, an amendment by Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, striking from the bill a requirement that broadcasters sell advertising time to candidates at the lowest rate charged to commercial customers for the same time slot. Rejected, 237-185, a proposal by Armey to suspend restrictions on soft money advertising for matters pertaining to civil rights. Rejected, 228-200, another proposal by Armey that would have suspended restrictions on soft money advertising for matters pertaining to veterans, military personnel or older people. The Shays-Meehan side also offered two amendments to their bill, both of which passed. One would double to $2,000 the current "hard-money" contribution that individuals can make to House candidates, bringing it in line with the $2,000 limit in the bill which the Senate passed last year; the other would raise hard-money contribution limits for candidates facing millionaire opponents who finance their own campaigns. FIRST SKIRMISHES The House began its debate over campaign finance reforms Wednesday by rejecting an alternative to the Shays-Meehan bill offered by Armey that would have immediately banned all forms of "soft money." Armey's bill was defeated by a vote of 249-179. The House then voted 377-53 to reject a measure offered by Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, to resurrect a stronger version of the Shays-Meehan bill passed by the House in 1998. Shays-Meehan backers said Ney's measure was a ploy designed to siphon support for their legislation and undermine compromises agreed upon with the Senate last spring. USING ENRON AS A SYMBOL Ney opened his attack on the Shays-Meehan bill by arguing that it failed to truly ban "soft money" because unions, corporation and individuals "could still contribute massive amounts of `soft money' to state and local political parties. ... You can drive an Enron limousine - 60 million bucks worth - across the country through the loopholes in this bill." Democrats too deployed the word "Enron" to bolster their contention that unlimited soft money contributions had a corrupting effect on American politics. Soft money totals for 2001-2002 election cycle | 1 | 2 Organization Total to Dems to Repubs American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees $1,265,000 $1,265,000 0 The union representing 1.3 million state and local government workers American Financial Group $1,100,000 0 $1,100,000 Financial services firm headed by veteran GOP donor Carl Lindner Service Employees International Union $1,079,166 $1,059,166 $20,000 The 1.4 million-member union representing nurses, janitors and other workers Communications Workers of America $1,065,000 $1,065,000 0 Union representing half a million telecommunications workers AT&T $1,034,349 $485,250 $549,099 Leading telecommunications firm with 160,000 employees | 1 | 2 Organization Total to Dems to Repubs International Game Technology $940,350 $100,000 $840,350 Nevada-based manufacturer of gambling machines Loral $932,500 $932,500 0 Satellite company headed by veteran Democratic donor Bernard Schwartz Philip Morris $839,567 $56,988 $782,579 Owner of America's leading cigarette maker Bristol-Myers Squibb $837,797 $50,000 $787,797 Leading pharmaceutical maker with $21 billion in annual sales Marriott $751,189 0 $751,189 Leading hotel chain Source: Center for Responsive Politics, based on Federal Elections Commission data as of 1/1/2002. Totals reflect contributions made by individuals associated with each company or union as well as official company or union contributions. Printable version "In public life, appearances are as important many times as reality. One five-letter word ought to crystallize the point for us: Enron," declared Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "None of knows for certain whether that Texas energy company received any special treatment because of its enormous campaign contributions. ... But there's no denying these facts: When Enron began to implode, it called officials at the highest levels of our national government and those calls did not go unanswered. And when the Bush administration began to draft its energy policy it rolled out the red carpet for Enron's participation." Last October Enron officials and former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, now a top executive at Citigroup, one of Enron's creditors, called Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Treasury Undersecretary Peter Fisher and Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan to seek their intervention to forestall Enron's bankruptcy. O'Neill, Fisher and Greenspan rebuffed their pleas for help. Advertisement Officials of the now-bankrupt Enron were major contributors to Bush's 2000 presidential campaign and have also given campaign donations to many members of the House and Senate. Enron and its executives gave $1,138,990 in "soft money" contributions to the Republicans in the 1999-2000 campaign cycle and $532,565 in soft money to the Democrats. Enron's "soft money" contributions accounted for about 0.4 percent of total Republican "soft money" in the 2000 campaign and about 0.2 percent of total Democratic "soft money." BUSH PRINCIPLES Last March, Bush issued a set of principles that he said he wanted to see embodied in any campaign legislation. They include: Raising the current $1,000-per-election cap on individuals' donations to candidates; Banning corporate and labor union "soft money," but not individuals' "soft money" donations; Requiring labor unions to obtain prior authorization from dues-paying members before spending their money on political campaigns; Maintaining the right of advocacy groups to broadcast "issue" ads that mention a particular candidate.; Non-severability, which means that if the courts struck down any portion of the bill, the entire measure would be invalid. If Bush sticks to these principles, then he'd find Shays-Meehan bill - at least in its unamended form - unacceptable. How much can you give? Federal law imposes these limits on political contributions by individuals: $1,000 for the primary election and $1,000 for the general election to each candidate for federal office. $5,000 per year to a political action committee (PAC). $20,000 per year to a national party committee. No limit on "soft money" contributions for party-building and get-out-the-vote efforts, but the amount of donation must be disclosed to Federal Election Commission. Corporations and labor unions are forbidden to donate directly to a candidate, but may form political action committees which can donate $5,000 per election to a candidate. http://msnbc.com/news/705296.asp#BODY