 |
May 1990, Page 17 Congress
The Dance of Dollars: Congress Considers Campaign Finance Reform
By Dennis J. Wamsted"It is evident that if we do not reform the manner in which election campaigns are financed, we will forfeit the trust of the American people." —Sen. George Mitchell (D-ME), in his agenda-setting address to the Senate in January, 1990. Many members of Congress share the concern expressed by Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, quoted above. Unease with the current system is so high that Congress is seriously considering campaign finance reforms that would dramatically reduce the influence of political action committees (PACs) in US electoral politics. Although unintended, this congressional initiative could significantly reduce the influence of pro-Israel PACs, potentially freeing congressmen from the monetary shackles that have distorted US Middle East policy. For the past several years, a number of congressmen, notably Sens. David Boren (D-OK) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY), have been pushing for reforms in the campaign finance system. However, their efforts, riven by partisan bickering, have been spectacularly unsuccessful. Consequently, the system has remained largely unchanged for the past 10 years, a period when the influence of PACs, particularly single-interest ones such as the pro-Israel groups, has soared. Initially, little progress was expected this year either, largely because the debate was still split along party lines. But the outlook changed dramatically in March. A bipartisan panel appointed by Majority Leader Mitchell and Minority Leader Robert Dole (R-KS) released a series of innovative suggestions on campaign finance reform that may break the logjam that has bottled up reform legislation in recent years.
The RecommendationsThe key decision by the six-member panel, which included political operatives, lawyers and academics, was to embrace what it termed, "flexible spending limits," for election campaigns. These limits would be set "reasonably high" and would only apply to out-of-state contributions and money from special interest groups, while leaving candidates free to raise as much money as possible from in-state contributors. Money spent by the two parties for voter registration efforts and so forth would also be exempt from the spending limits. This compromise proposal is a stroke of genius, since it allows the Democrats to claim they have succeeded in their effort to establish limits on campaign spending. Similarly, the proposal enables the Republicans to focus on their well-documented ability to raise money within the party and from individual contributors. The effect of this proposal could be dramatic, since it would essentially prohibit the influx of out-of-state, pro-Israel dollars that played such a crucial role in Sen. Paul Simon's (D-IL) successful campaign against former Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Charles Percy (R-IL) in 1984. In that race, which was decided by less than 90,000 votes out of the more than 4.7 million votes cast, Simon received more than $300,000 from pro-Israel groups, many of them located outside Illinois. In addition, the panel suggested halving the permissible maximum PAC contribution from $5,000 per election to $2,500, once a candidate's total PAC contributions hit a preestablished ceiling. The proposal would also prohibit PACs from contributing after an election to help retire the campaign debts of first-time candidates. These two proposals also would have a significant impact on the ability of pro-Israel PACs to influence congressional elections. Slicing allowable PAC contributions in half is particularly important, since it will temper the pernicious effect of the pro-Israel community's quiet effort to funnel contributions to favored candidates. The panel also recommended. that ideological or lobbying PACs, such as those supporting Israel, should be banned from the practice of "bundling" contributions. Under current law, these PACs are able to accept contributions from individuals and then bunch these funds together for presentation to a particular candidate. In addition, these PACs would be prohibited from making independent expenditures on a candidate's behalf. Other key recommendations include:
Congressional ReactionThe proposals were hailed by Sens. Mitchell and Dole, who said the panel's work demonstrated "the issue is capable of being resolved," despite the strong differences between Republicans and Democrats. More importantly, the panel's findings were supported by Sens. Boren and McConnell, who have championed their respective parties' reform efforts in the past several years. Indicative of this new climate, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which has jurisdiction over campaign finance issues, approved a measure (S. 137) in March that would limit PAC contributions and establish incentives for candidates for the Senate to adhere to spending limits. Under the terms of a 1976 Supreme Court ruling, which held that campaign spending is a form of free speech and thus protected by the First Amendment, all campaign spending limits must be voluntary. The bill, which was introduced by Boren, is generally viewed as the "Democratic" bill. But, in keeping with the new cooperative approach, Senate leaders expect to substitute a bipartisan bill for theBoren measure when the legislation is brought up for consideration on the floor.
Action in the HouseAlthough moving more slowly than the Senate, the House is also considering campaign finance reform measures. The House leadership has appointed a bipartisan task force, chaired by Rep. Al Swift (D-WA), to craft a compromise bill. The House proposal has not yet been publicly released, but it is likely to include some form of cap on campaign spending, as well as limits on PAC contributions. As in the Senate, spending caps have traditionally been anathema to House Republicans. But that categorical Republican opposition has been eroding gradually in recent months, spurred in part by House Minority Leader Robert Michel's (R-IL) announcement at the end of 1989 that he would consider supporting a cap. While the timing remains uncertain, Speaker of the House Tom Foley (D-WA) is, likeSen. Mitchell, committed to enacting reform legislation this year, and he has vowed to bring the legislation to the floor for debate no later than the summer. Dennis J. Wamsted is a free-lance writer specializing in Middle East affairs and the US Congress. SIDEBAR
FACTS FOR YOUR FILES:President Bush's statement earlier this year that Israel should stop building "settlements" in East Jerusalem, as well as the West Bank, sparked an outcry in Congress. Israel's supporters in the House and Senate scrambled to register their opposition to Bush's statement, while urging the administration to reconsider its position. In the House, Reps. Ed Feighan (D-OH) and Dan Burton (R-IN) organized a so-called special order to allow representatives to register their opposition publicly. All told, some 34 members either spoke out on the subject or submitted statements for the record. Meanwhile, in the Senate, Daniel Moynihan (D-NY), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Rudy Boschwitz (R-MN)crafted a non-binding resolution that emphasized Congress's support for Israel. The carefully drafted statement, which was adopted by the Senate by voice vote and without debate, included a section stating "That the Congress acknowledges that Jerusalem is and should remain the capital of the state of Israel.'' Congressional admonishments aside, this is not US policy. Each successive administration since the 1967 war has refused to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and has maintained the US Embassy to Israel in Tel Aviv, which is generally recognized as the official Israeli capital. The Senate resolution was sponsored by at least 47 senators, who are listed below in alphabetical order by party, along with the total of contributions they have received from pro-Israel political action committees from 1978 through 1989. DEMOCRATS—Amount Accepted Max Baucus (MT) $89,250 Jeff Bingaman (NM) $188,675 David Boren (OK) none Bill Bradley (NJ) $74,700 John Breaux (LA) $59,142 Richard Bryan (NV) $92,850 Tom Daschle (SD) $287,130 Wendell Ford (KY) $17,000 Wyche Fowler (GA) $121,350 Howell Heflin (AL) $134,350 Ernest Hollings (SC) $17,250 Daniel Inouye (HI) $57,325 Frank Lautenberg (NJ) $284,750 Carl Levin (MI) $295,038 Joseph Leiberman (CT) $28,800 Spark Matsunaga (HI) $19,000 Barbara Mikulski (MD) $35,440 Daniel Moynihan (NY) $53,000 David Pryor (AR) $50,100 Harry Reid (NV) $208,540 Charles Robb (VA) $36,000 Jay Rockefeller (WV) $77,500 Jim Sasser (TN) $145,250 REPUBLICANS—Amount Accepted Rudy Boschwitz (MN) $207,755 Thad Cochran (MS) $15,500 Alfonse D'Amato (NY) $26,705 John Danforth (MO) $60,786 Robert Dole (KS) $21,000 Pete Domenici (NM) $40,350 Jake Garn (UT) none Phil Gramm (TX) $11,500 John Heinz (PA) $45,000 Jesse Helms (NC) $1,500 Gordon Humphrey (NH) $5,000 Nancy Kassebaum (KS) $4,000 Connie Mack (FL) $39,422 John McCain (AZ) $54,000 Frank Murkowski (AK) $24,000 Don Nickles (OK) none Larry Pressler (SD) $53,300 William Roth (DE) $25,000 Warren Rudman (NH) none Alan Simpson (WY) $12,500 Ted Stevens (AK) $30,500 Strom Thurmond (SC) none John Warner (VA) $6,500 Pete Wilson (CA) $88,550 |