Congress girds for action on CC's key issues - Common Cause

1994 IS A TIME of intense activity for Common Cause.

At press time the House of Representatives had voted to reauthorize the independent counsel statute, which establishes an independent process for prosecuting alleged wrongdoing by high-level administration officials. The act expired in 1992; reauthorization passed the Senate last November.

The Senate was scheduled to consider a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget in February; the House could vote in March. CC has long opposed such an amendment as a political an budgetary hoax that would trivialize the Constitution.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

Campaign finance reform moved forward when H.R. 3 passed the House in November, 255-175. The Senate passed S. 3 last June by a vote of 60-38.

Action now moves to a House-Senate conference. CC is urging congressional leaders to send President Clinton a bill that combines the strongest elements of S. 3 and H.R. 3. Such a bill would provide clean campaign resources, limit campaign spending and PAC contributions, and close loopholes in the current law.

Under H.R. 3, House candidates who agreed to $600,000 spending limits could receive up to one-third of the spending limit in vouchers to buy television time, print advertising and mailings. Each individual contribution to the campaign of up to $200 would be matched with vouchers. The vouchers, the key reform in the House bill, represent a breakthrough in increasing resources for challengers, enhancing the role of small contributions and diluting the role of special interest money. Still unresolved is how to fund the vouchers.

In the Senate, communication vouchers were sacrificed to end a Republican filibuster. The Senate-passed bill does give candidates who agree to spending limits discounted TV time and mailings. And candidates would receive substantial public financing if their opponents refused to abide by -- and spent more than -- the limits.

One possible way to restore direct, clean resources would be to provide Senate candidates with free TV time instead of the 50 percent discount in the Senate bill. President Clinton, Sen. Robert Dole (R-Kan.) and Ross Perot all have publicly supported free TV time.

The Senate bill's spending and PAC limits are more effective than those in the House bill, and would have cut one-third of the $117 million spent by Senate incumbents in the 1992 elections. The limits would have had minimal impact on challengers.

The Senate bill bans PACs, which most likely is unconstitutional, and has fall-back provisions that cut PAC contribution limits and limit the total amount of PAC money Senate candidates could accept. If these provisions had been in effect in 1992, PAC contributions to Senate incumbents would have been cut by two-thirds.

The House bill starts with limits on PAC contributions and large individual contributions -- $200,000 each, or one-third of the spending limit. Candidates who agreed to the limits would be eligible to receive up to $200,000 in communication vouchers. The bill also contains exemptions and other provisions that would push spending and PAC limits significantly higher.

In contrast to the reform legislation Congress passed and President Bush vetoed i 1992, the House bill fails to ban PACs created by members of Congress.

CC is urging the conference committee to strengthen the House spending and PAC limits and adopt the Senate's ban on member PACs and approach to ending soft money. The soft money ban supported by the White House -- would have taken more than $80 million in special interest money out of the last election cycle.

The Senate bill also takes a tougher approach on bundling. (Interest groups evade contribution limits by delivering individual checks in a single envelope.)

Both bills contain some provisions that may be ruled unconstitutional and need to be removed in conference.

LOBBY DISCLOSURE

Last May the Senate passed legislation to overhaul ineffective lobby disclosure laws. The bill includes a crucial amendment by Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) requiring lobbyists to itemize and disclose all gifts and financial benefits -- including meals, vacations and tickets to sporting and entertainment events -- provided to members of Congress, on a member-by-member basis.

The Senate also passed by a 98 to 1 vote a non-binding resolution offered by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) committing the Senate to enact gift ban legislation before the end of 1993. However, the year ended without Senate action on gift ban legislation.

In the House, Rep. John Bryant (D-Texas) introduced H.R. 823 which builds on the Senate bill and goes beyond it to establish a gift ban. But the bill creates major loopholes in the ban and eliminates important elements of the Wellstone disclosure provisions

CC has urged both the House and Senate to pass strict bans on gifts from lobbyists. Any gifts that are not banned should be disclosed.

COPYRIGHT 1994 Common Cause Magazine
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group