Home > Text > House Passes Shays-Meehan Bill 240-189; Nearly All Opposition Amendments Defeated
CAMPAIGN FINANCE
House Passes Shays-Meehan Bill 240-189; Nearly All Opposition Amendments Defeated
After a marathon debate that ended at 2:30 a.m. on Feb. 14, the House approved by a 240-189 vote a campaign finance bill (H.R. 2356) to restrict currently unlimited contributions of "soft money" and curb electioneeering "issue ads."
The bill now moves to the Senate, where a similar-though not identical-measure (S. 27) was adopted last year. Campaign finance reform supporters have said they hope to avoid a House-Senate conference committee and have the bill cleared quickly for President Bush, who has indicated he may be willing to sign a campaign finance bill.
Although House Republican leaders opposed the campaign reform measure and most GOP lawmakers argued against it, 41 House Republicans voted with 198 of 210 Democrats to approve the measure, sponsored by Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Martin Meehan (D-Mass.) Several Republicans and a number of Democrats suggested that both parties have suffered in recent years-even as they raised more and more money-from a dependence on funds raised in large amounts from relatively few big corporate and union contributors.
While it bans soft money contributed to the national parties from companies, unions, and wealthy individuals, the Shays-Meehan bill and a Senate-passed companion bill would increase current limits on regulated "hard money," which must come from individual donors and regulated political committees.
Shays and Meehan and their supporters succeeded in fending off rival reform proposals and defeated nine of 10 amendments offered by their opponents and labeled "poison pills" by supporters of campaign finance reform.
Building Fund Amendment Passes.
The one amendment on which Shays-Meehan opponents prevailed dealt with continued use of soft money for a fund to construct a party headquarters building. It was portrayed as a partisan provision intended to help the Democratic National Committee, which has been raising money for a new facility. The amendment to limit building-fund money, offered by amendment offered by Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) was adopted on a 232-196 largely party-line vote.
Shays and Meehan also agreed in a procedural motion to adjust a provision dealing with continued use of soft money to repay loans after this November's elections. The provision caused a stir during the floor debate, when Republicans charged it was a back door attempt to circumvent current law and allow Democrats wider latitude to use of soft money this year.
The House approved by a tight 218-211 vote amendment by Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) to double the current $1,000 per-election limit on individual hard money contributions to House candidates. The amendment mirrors a provision adopted by the Senate. It was supported by most House Republican and opposed by nearly all Democrats.
Self-Financing Amendment Approved.
Earlier, the House approved an amendment-also adopted in the Senate-to further increase contribution limits for candidates facing wealthy, self-financed opponents. The measure could triple the hard money limits for such candidate if an opponent spent $350,000 or more of his or her own money on a campaign.
One amendment approved to last year by the Senate was stripped out of the House bill. The provision-known as the Toricelli amendment for its sponsor Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.)-would lock in low-cost broadcast advertising rates for candidates and prohibit candidate ads from being pre-empted by broadcasters if a commercial advertiser offered to pay more.
The Torricelli amendment had been strongly opposed by broadcasters. National Association of Broadcasters President Edward Fritts issued statement saying the NAB was "deeply appreciate" of the 327-101 House vote to strip the provision.
Other Amendments Defeated.
Other amendments turned back by the House sought to put even stricter limits on soft money or implement restrictions sooner than called for under the Shays-Meehan measure. Amendments also were offered to carve out exceptions to the bill's restrictions on issue ads that mention a candidate in a pre-election period. The bill prohibits corporations and unions from paying for such ads, except through a regulated political action committee, says individuals and associations must disclose spending for such ads.
Supporters of the Shays-Meehan bill said all these amendments were designed to derail the bill by upsetting carefully crafted compromises on a range of issues worked out by bill supporters.
One amendment defeated by a 268-160 vote sought to prohibit legal residents who are not U.S. citizens from contributing to a federal campaign. In an emotional debate, several lawmakers with Hispanic or Asian heritage suggested the amendment pandered to prejudice and argued that legal aliens, who pay taxes and serve in the military, should continue to be allowed to participate in politics by making contributions.
Among the other amendments defeated were proposals to:
- make the bill's soft money ban effective immediately on Feb. 14;
- ban soft money use by state parties for generic voter registration activities;
- exempt from the bill any communication or advertisement with information about a candidate on any matter pertaining to workers, farmers or families; and
- exempt such communications pertaining to veterans, military personnel or senior citizens or families of any of those groups.
By Kenneth P. Doyle
For the first part of the House debate see the Congressesional Record at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r107:8:./temp/~r107BLPMCq::tC
More details about the Shays-Meehan bill as adopted and amendments are available online from the nonprofit Campaign Finance Institute at http://www.cfinst.org/eguide.
Contact the Webmaster at webmaster@bna.com
1801 S. Bell Street, Arlington, VA 22202 - Phone: 1-800-372-1033Copyright © The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.