Washington Outlook
Will the Democrats Kill Campaign-Finance Reform?
As the Senate prepares to spend two grueling weeks debating the campaign-finance-reform bill of GOP Senator John McCain, the good news for reform backers is that the measure now has 60 votes. That's also the bad news.
Sixty is the magic number needed to overcome the talkathons that kept the bill bottled up in the Senate for years. And with overwhelming support in the House, those 60 votes are enough to enact a ban on unlimited donations from corporate fat cats and labor unions--so-called soft money.
But if the measure, co-sponsored by Senator Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), becomes law, candidates could no longer say they support fund-raising limits while hitting up lobbyists and Hollywood moguls for big bucks. And that's causing heartburn among Democrats, who have been sopping up soft money. In Campaign 2000, Dems raised $243 million, about dead even with the GOP's $244 million, according to the Federal Election Commission.
So far, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe is not backing down, says a spokeswoman. But special interests ranging from the AFL-CIO to the Alliance for Justice, a coalition of liberal groups, are having second thoughts. The result: The McCain-Feingold consensus is fraying. In the end, the bill could lose some of those 60 votes or get totally watered down.
Soft money is supposed to be spent by parties on such efforts as get-out-the-vote drives but is increasingly used to buy TV time for candidates. So some Dems question the wisdom of shutting off the spigot just as they're likely to take control of Capitol Hill in 2002. They also fret that the GOP is miles ahead in the race for hard money--checks of no more than $2,000 per election that can be spent directly by candidates. Last cycle, Republicans raised $447 million to the Democrats' $270 million.
Plans by GOP Senators, such as Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, to cap soft money in exchange for higher hard-money limits--which haven't been adjusted for 26 years--are a trap, Dems say. Indexing the $2,000 limit to inflation would bring it close to $6,000, a move backed by that once-implacable foe of reform, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). No wonder, says one Dem campaign consultant: "If we're already behind in hard money, we'll be in a deeper ditch" if the limit is raised.
But an even bigger problem looms for the bill's attempt to limit issue ads. Many campaign-finance experts predict that, once soft money is verboten, funds will flow to special-interest groups that will buy ads that are thinly veiled campaign spots. So the McCain-Feingold measure bans political messages--those mentioning candidates by name--by unions and corporations within 60 days of an election. That would effectively block their ads after Labor Day, which is when most legislation gets passed. For example, notes AFL-CIO lawyer Laurence E. Gold, unions couldn't run ads urging specific lawmakers to raise the minimum wage during election season.
President Bush says he wants to sign a campaign-finance measure as long as it requires unions to get members' permission to spend dues on political activities. One Democratic senator says such a provision might win approval as long as corporations get shareholders' consent. But Labor says obtaining permission from 13 million people would be a nightmare and that adding that provision would cause it to urge the bill's defeat. Should that happen, a handful of labor's Senate allies, now part of the McCain-Feingold 60, would almost certainly drop off. That could give McConnell and the GOP leadership a dream victory: They allow campaign finance reform to come to a vote--only to have it defeated by the Democrats.
By Paula Dwyer
Bush Budget Woes
Bush's tax and spending plan for fiscal 2002 is already running into roadblocks on Capitol Hill. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, doesn't have the votes to pass a Bush-based budget resolution in his panel. So Republicans may take the unusual step of bringing the resolution directly to the full Senate without any committee recommendation. Republican leaders think they may have more luck persuading Democrats to back the budget framework on the Senate floor.
Meanwhile, in the House, Bush's $842 billion reserve fund is in trouble. The President wanted to hold back those funds for things like future defense spending or more tax cuts. But more than $500 billion would come from general-fund money that is now earmarked for Medicare. That won't fly in the House, where 403 members recently voted to keep those dollars in a Medicare "lockbox." "Medicare is for Medicare is for Medicare," says House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa).
By Paula Dwyer
Prescribing a Benefit
Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) may soon introduce a comprehensive prescription-drug-benefit bill. Sources say it offers something from both the Democratic and GOP plans of last year. Like the White House proposal, benefits are relatively generous, but it also relies more on the private sector to deliver the benefits, as in the GOP scheme. Kennedy is trying to line up sponsors on both sides of the aisle, believing that only a truly bipartisan bill stands a chance of passing.
By Paula Dwyer
|
Copyright 2001 , by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.
Printer-Friendly Version
