Washington's fear of reform - Congressional campaign finance reform - Editorial

One year ago, voters had just elected a new president and the largest number of new members of Congress in decades. Most of the freshman representatives had campaigned as agents of change, and hopes for a wave of reform were high. But while some important progress has been made in this Congress, and at press time the House was expected to consider key reform measures before adjournment, 1993 has proven once again insider Washington's resistance to change.

Campaign finance reform - the single most important step toward restoring congressional accountability - should have been one of the first orders of business for the new Congress to enact. After all, Congress passed (and President Bush vetoed) a comprehensive bill last year. Most of the new members had signed statements pledging to support and vote for legislation that included all the key elements of last year's bill. And President Clinton had spoken forcefully in the campaign of the need for even stronger reforms.

But Congress had yet to convene when insiders started urging President Clinton to avoid angering Congress before tough fights on the budget and other administration priorities got under way.

Months passed before the Senate took up the issue. Under the leadership of Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-Maine) and Sen. David Boren (D-Okla.), a comprehensive bill passed in June. Minority Leader Robert Dole (R-Kan.) and other Republican senators filibustered against it, as they have done repeatedly over the past two decades.

An all-out grassroots lobbying campaign focusing on key Republican senators was crucial to the eventual defeat of the filibuster and the passage of the bill.

In late spring, President Clinton and House Democratic leaders announced a House campaign finance reform plan. Resistance within the House was immediate. Many representatives who voted for reform when they knew it would be vetoed were alarmed at the prospect of passing a bill that would become law.

A number of freshman members, once considered the vanguard of change, seem to have quickly accepted the benefits and campaign contributions that flow to incumbents. At the same time, some House freshmen - led by Karen Shepherd (D-Utah), Eric Fingerhut (D-Ohio), Eva Clayton (D-N.C.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) - pressed their colleagues to clean up the discredited campaign finance system.

Shepherd and Fingerhut also took the lead in fighting inside the House for tough new gift ban and lobby disclosure legislation. They were joined by two Republican freshman reform leaders, Tillie Fowler (R-Fla.) and Peter Torkildsen (R-Mass.), in a bipartisan freshman effort to press for effective reforms in this area.

Currently, lobbyists with an interest in pending legislation provide a wide range of gifts and financial benefits to members of Congress; and their top aides, from meals and tickets to the Super Bowl to vacation trips thinly disguised as congressional business.

There's a simple solution - to ban most gifts and financial benefits, and require public disclosure of anything that is not banned. No one is suggesting that members of Congress be prohibited from going to golf or tennis tournaments or dining at their favorite restaurants. They simply should pay their own way.

For both the givers and receivers, the prospect of reform is alarming. Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) faced heated behind-the-scenes resistance when he announced plans to require member-by-member disclosure of the benefits provided by lobbyists to, members of Congress and their staffs. When it came to a public vote, however, his amendment was passed in the Senate without opposition.

In October the House leadership abruptly canceled a subcommittee markup of legislation to restrict gifts and require meaningful lobbyist disclosure. The leadership instead appointed a task force to "study" the issue. Task force member Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who claims he is in favor of reforming the institution, called the current lobbying and gift system "honest and reasonable to a fair person" and said he saw no reason to change it.

Common Cause attacked the delays and called on the task force to recommend changes that would end special-interest subsidization of representatives' lifestyles.

CC founder John Gardner intended Common Cause to look out for the best interests of citizens outside of Washington's inner circles. Insider resistance to change in this "year of reform" has once again demonstrated the need for constant citizen vigilance.

COPYRIGHT 1993 Common Cause Magazine
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group