COMMITTEE PUTTING FINISHING TOUCH ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE RULES
House Rules Committee as of late Wed. hadn’t completed hearing on development of ground rules for today’s (July 12) floor debate on campaign finance reform legislation. Committee must set ground rules for length of debate and will decide which of nearly 150 amendments to competing reform bills will be considered, staffer said. Supporters of bill (HR-2356) by Reps. Shays (R- Conn.) and Meehan (D-Mass.) and rival (HR-2360) by House Administration Committee Chmn. Ney (R-O.) hailed benefits of their bills to reporters in separate news conferences. Each camp accused other of falsely claiming its bill effectively would restrict soft money donations and ban use of those unregulated funds for broadcast “attack” ads.
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.
House Democratic Leader Gephardt (Mo.) said majority of amendments submitted to committee were “poison pills” designed to “tank” Shays-Meehan. Gephardt, appearing with Shays and Meehan at Capitol to support bill, said he was working furiously to win additional sponsors before moving to floor. Shays acknowledged that alliance of supporters didn’t yet have majority of House members, but expected more to come on board. He said bill, contrasted to Ney measure, was true reform measure: “We call the sham issue ads what they are, campaign ads.”
Ney blasted Shays and Meehan for making last-min. changes in bill in desperate effort for support. He said that as result of uncertainty on which version of Shays-Meehan ultimately would reach floor, increasing number of members of both parties had pledged support for his measure, co-sponsored by Rep. Wynn (D- Md.). Neither he nor Wynn would provide names or numbers.
Day before House floor debate, 14 members of Congress sent letter to Shays and Meehan urging them to drop amendment that would require TV and radio stations to provide candidates nonpreemptible time at lowest unit rate billed to all other advertisers (CD July 5 p1). Opponents of amendment said it wouldn’t reduce cost of campaigns or “increase public discourse,” as claimed by proponents.
Instead, bipartisan 14 said it would increase length of campaigns and their costs, result in more “attack” ads and reduce ability of candidates for state and local office to buy broadcast ads because of increased “pressure” for time by federal candidates. “However well intentioned, this amendment will not achieve the goals envisioned by its proponents and raises serious constitutional concerns,” they said.
Meanwhile, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released estimates of financial impact Ney bill would have on private and public sectors. CBO said private sector cost of compliance with mandatory disclosure provisions of bill would be minimal. HR-2360 would require disclosure of individuals and organizations who paid for “certain broadcast communications that mention a clearly identified candidate” and “communications made through any form of mass media and targeted to voters in excess of $50,000 per year,” CBO said. Although such entities would have to report that information to Federal Election Commission (FEC) within 24 hours of disbursement, “CBO estimates that the cost of filing this information would be small.” Disclosure provision would apply to payments made within 120 days of federal election.
Overall cost to FEC to implement bill would be about $2 million annually, CBO estimated. In fiscal year 2002, reconfiguration of FEC information systems could cost agency $1-$2 million. System changes would be necessary because of likely increase in processing campaign contribution filings, writing new regulations, printing and mailing information on new requirements, CBO said: “Beginning in [FY] 2003, CBO estimates that implementing HR-2360 would cost about $2 million a year, mainly for additional enforcement and litigation staff.”