HOUSE COMMITTEE COULD MOVE CAMPAIGN FINANCE BILL BY NEXT WEEK
Sponsors of various campaign finance reform proposals made their cases Thurs. to House Administration Committee, whose members disagree on best approach to solution but are committed to marking up legislation as early as next week. Committee Chmn. Ney (R-Ohio) said House Speaker Hastert (R-Ill.) had made it clear that he wanted to bring campaign finance debate to House floor within one week after Congress returns from July 4 recess. Two panels, consisting solely of House members, presented solutions to campaign finance situation ranging from limited govt. oversight of broadcast ads to full public financing of federal campaigns.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Ranking Democrat Hoyer (Md.) said one of biggest decisions faced by committee was whether to “limit or eliminate” largely unregulated soft money contributions. He agreed with panelists who advocated disclosure of sponsors of campaign ads, but questioned validity of proposals to single out interest groups, such as nonprofits, that supported issue ads. Ney reiterated his concern that provisions of bill (S-27) by Sens. McCain (R-Ariz.) and Feingold (D-Wis.) might not withstand constitutionality test.
Rep. Hutchison (R-Ark.) said he had “serious concerns” with amendment to McCain-Feingold by Sen. Torricelli (D-N.J.) that would restrict issue ads in months before primaries and general elections. He also criticized bill for trying to regulate state political parties “despite a long history in this country of protecting state election decisions from federal intrusion.” He instead urged committee to consider his reform bill (HR-1150), which would ban soft money at federal level without imposing those obligations on states. He said HR-1150 would protect rights of individuals to participate in campaigns by tripling hard money limits on individuals. He said his bill didn’t go as far as legislation by Reps. Shays (R-Ct.) and Meehan (D-Mass.) since it wouldn’t regulate third party groups. It would require such groups to identify sources of funding without regulating their sources.
Committee member Linder (R-Ga.), who also was panelist at hearing, warned of “media elite” pushing for current campaign finance bills, who would benefit from such legislation. “By reducing the number of opportunities for voters to hear about candidates through paid television and radio ads, McCain-Feingold would significantly increase the influence of news organizations,” Linder said. “The news networks and media editorial boards -- themselves subject to the pressures of larger corporate parents who own them -- would then be free to communicate their biases to the Americans public. Candidates would have little opportunity to respond to criticisms levied against them by media elites.”
Linder grilled Rep. Mink (D-Hawaii), advocate of total ban on soft money, asking whether there was direct evidence of connection between soft money and corruption: “I don’t know if we should say other people’s erroneous perceptions [of corruption] should be constituted as corruption.” Mink denied making that assertion, emphasizing need for, and U.S. Supreme Court approval of, congressional action to address perception of corruption: “As the money continues to roll in, continued controversy lingers which undermines the entire electoral process. Soft money not only invites corruption, but mutes the voice of ordinary Americans.”
Provision in S-27 that attempts to restrict broadcast of “sham issue ads” wouldn’t impede ability of special interest groups to skirt election laws, but rather would drive those groups to rely on e-mail and other electronic media to disseminate political messages, Rep. Wynn (D-Md.) said. He said that if bill were signed into law, and issue ad prohibition was upheld by courts, voters ultimately would be deprived of information at critical phase of electoral process.
Rep. Terry (R-N.D.) said that in opinion of Supreme Court, “issue ads are a form of political expression that must be left untouched by Congress.” Terry also urged committee to consider moving bill (HR-1039) he introduced earlier this year that would require Federal Election Commission to publish campaign finance disclosure reports on Internet. “Putting FEC reports online makes available to the public crucial information about the groups and individuals backing, and perhaps even influencing, the candidate,” he said.