Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
134758014
label
CFR [Campaign Finance Reform] [binder]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
134758014
contentType
document
title
CFR [Campaign Finance Reform] [binder]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of Speechwriting (Clinton Administration)
Joshua Gottheimer's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
134758014
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7431940-20160201S-005-001-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
bd4dbc7b17b3fc1e
ocrText
CFR
CFR
Binder
Binder
Expanded
Side-by-Side
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
Side by Side
Divider Title:
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
Spending Limits
Divider Title:
5
1 TITLE I-CONTROL OF CONGRES-
2
SIONAL CAMPAIGN SPENDING
3
Subtitle A-[Reserved]
4 Subtitle B-Expenditure Limita-
5
tions, Contribution Limitations,
6
and Voter Communication
7
Vouchers for Eligible House of
8
Representatives Candidates
9 SEC. 121. PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO ELIGIBLE HOUSE OF
10
REPRESENTATIVES CANDIDATES.
11
(a) IN GENERAL.-The Federal Election Campaign
12 Act of 1971 is amended by adding at the end the following
13 new title:
14 "TITLE VI-EXPENDITURE LIMI-
15
TATIONS,
CONTRIBUTION
16
LIMITATIONS, AND VOTER
17
COMMUNICATION VOUCHERS
18
FOR ELIGIBLE HOUSE OF
19
REPRESENTATIVES
CAN-
20
DIDATES
21 "SEC. 601. EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS.
22
"(a) IN GENERAL.-An eligible House of Representa-
23 tives candidate may not, in an election cycle, make expendi-
24 tures aggregating more than $600,000.
HR 3 RH
6
1
"(b) RUNOFF ELECTION AND SPECIAL ELECTION
2 AMOUNTS.-
3
"(1) RUNOFF ELECTION AMOUNT.-If an eligible
4
House of Representatives candidate is a candidate in
5
a runoff election, the candidate may make additional
6
expenditures aggregating not more than $200,000 in
7
the election cycle.
8
"(2) SPECIAL ELECTION AMOUNT.-An eligible
9
House of Representatives candidate who is a can-
10
didate in a special election may make expenditures
11
aggregating not more than $600,000 with respect to
12
the special election.
13
"(c) CLOSELY CONTESTED PRIMARY.-If, as deter-
14 mined by the Commission, an eligible House of Representa-
15 tives candidate in a contested primary election wins that
16 primary election by a margin of 20 percentage points or
17 less, the candidate may make additional expenditures ag-
18 gregating not more than $200,000 in the election cycle.
19
"(d) NONPARTICIPATING OPPONENT PROVISIONS.-
20
"(1) LIMITATION EXCEPTION.-The limitations
21
imposed by subsections (a) and (b) do not apply in
22
the case of an eligible House of Representatives can-
23
didate if any other general election candidate seeking
24
nomination or election to that office-
7
1
"(A) is not an eligible House of Representa-
2
tives candidate; and
3
"(B) receives contributions or makes ex-
4
penditures in excess of 25 percent of the limita-
5
tion under subsection (a).
6
"(2) CONTINUED ELIGIBILITY AND ADDITIONAL
7
MATCHING FUNDS.-An eligible House of Kepresenta-
8
tives candidate referred to in paragraph (1)—
9
"(A) shall continue to be eligible for all ben-
10
efits under this title; and
11
"(B) shall receive voter communication
12
vouchers under section 604.
13
"(3) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.-A candidate
14
for the office of Representative in, or Delegate or Resi-
15
dent Commissioner to, the Congress-
16
"(A) who is not an eligible House of Rep-
17
resentatives candidate; and
18
"(B) who makes contributions in excess of
19
$50,000 of personal funds of the candidate and
20
members of the candidate's immediate family to
21
the authorized committee of the candidate or re-
22
ceives contributions or makes expenditures in ex-
23
cess of 25 percent of the limitation under sub-
24
section (a);
HR 3 RH
8
1
shall report that the threshold has been reached to the
2
Clerk of the House of Representatives not later than
3
48 hours after reaching the threshold. The Clerk shall
4
transmit a report received under this paragraph to
5
the Commission as soon as possible (but no later than
6
4 working hours of the Commission) after such re-
7
ceipt, and the Commission shall transmit a copy to
8
each other candidate for election to the same office
9
within 48 hours of receipt.
10
"(e) EXEMPTION FOR LEGAL COSTS AND TAXES.-Any
11 costs incurred by an eligible House of Representatives can-
12 didate or his or her authorized committee, or a Federal of-
13 ficeholder, for legal services or Federal, State, or local in-
14 come and payroll taxes with respect to a candidate's author-
15 ized committees, or to comply with section 606, shall not
16 be considered in the computation of amounts subject to limi-
17 tation under this section.
18
"(f) EXEMPTION FOR ACCOUNTING OR FUNDRAISING
19 COSTS.-
20
"(1) Any costs incurred by an eligible House of
21
Representatives candidate or his or her authorized
22
committee in connection with the solicitation of con-
23
tributions on behalf of such candidate or for account-
24
ing services to ensure compliance with this Act shall
25
not be considered in the computation of amounts sub-
HR 3 RH
9
1
ject to limitation under subsection (a) to the extent
2
that the aggregate of such costs does not exceed 10
3
percent of the limitation under subsection (a).
4
"(2) An amount equal to 10 percent of salaries
5
and overhead expenditures of an eligible House of
6
Representatives candidate's campaign headquarters
7
and offices shall not be considered in the computation
8
of amounts subject to limitation under this section.
9
Any amount excluded under this paragraph shall be
10
applied against the accounting or fundraising ex-
11
penditure exemption under paragraph (1).
12
"(g) CIVIL PENALTIES.-
13
"(1) Low AMOUNT OF EXCESS EXPENDITURES.-
14
Any eligible House of Representatives candidate who
15
makes expenditures that exceed a limitation under
16
subsection (a) or subsection (b) by 2.5 percent or less
17
shall pay to the Commission an amount equal to the
18
amount of the excess expenditures.
19
"(2) MEDIUM AMOUNT OF EXCESS EXPENDI-
20
TURES.-Any eligible House of Representatives can-
21
didate who makes expenditures that exceed a limita-
22
tion under subsection (a) or subsection (b) by more
23
than 2.5 percent and less than 5 percent shall pay to
24
the Commission an amount equal to three times the
25
amount of the excess expenditures.
HR 3 RH
10
1
"(3) LARGE AMOUNT OF EXCESS EXPENDI-
2
TURES.-Any eligible House of Representatives can-
3
didate who makes expenditures that exceed a limita-
4
tion under subsection (a) or subsection (b) by 5 per-
5
cent or more shall pay to the Commission an amount
6
equal to three times the amount of the excess expendi-
7
tures plus a civil penalty in an amount determined
8
by the Commission.
9
"(h) INDEXING.-The dollar amounts specified in sub-
10 sections (a), (b), and (c) shall be adjusted at the beginning
11 of each calendar year based on the increase in the price
12 index determined under section 315(c), except that, for the
13 purposes of such adjustment, the base period shall be cal-
14 endar year 1992.
15
"(i) The limitations of this section do not apply in
16 the case of any recall action held pursuant to State law.
17 "SEC. 602. CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS.
18
"(a) PERSONAL CONTRIBUTIONS.-An eligible House
19 of Representatives candidate may not, with respect to an
20 election cycle, make contributions or loans to his or her oun
21 campaign totaling more than $50,000 from the personal
22 funds of the candidate. The amount that the candidate may
23 accept from persons referred to in section 315(i)(2) shall
24 be reduced by the amount of contributions made under the
HR 3 RH
15
1 tives candidate in a contested primary election wins that
2 primary election by a margin of 20 percentage points or
3 less, the candidate shall be eligible to receive matching
4 vouchers totaling not more than $66,600, in addition to any
5 other amount received under this section. The amount
6 available under the preceding sentence is subject to the
7 matching requirements of this section.
8
"(f) INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE PROVISION.-If,
9 with respect to a general election involving an eligible
10 House of Representatives candidate, independent expendi-
11 tures totaling $10,000 are made against the eligible House
12 of Representatives candidate or in favor of another can-
13 didate, the eligible House of Representatives candidate shall
14 be entitled, in addition to any amount received under sub-
15 section (a), to voter communication vouchers equal to the
16 amount of such independent expenditures, and expenditures
17 may be made from such vouchers without regard to the limi-
18 tations in section 601.
19
"(g) PROHIBITION OF CONVERSION TO PERSONAL
20 USE.-An eligible candidate who receives voter communica-
21 tion vouchers under this section may not convert any
22 amount to personal use or make any payments, directly or
23 indirectly, to such candidate or to any members of the im-
24 mediate family of the candidate.
HR 3 RH
16
1
"(h) INDEXING.-The dollar amount specified in sub-
2 sections (a) and (e) (other than the amount taken into ac-
3 count per individual) shall be adjusted at the beginning of
4 the calendar year based on the increase in the price index
5 determined under section 315(c), except that, for the pur-
6 poses of such adjustment, the base period shall be calendar
7 year 1992.
8
"(i) USE OF VOTER COMMUNICATION VOUCHERS.-
9 Voter communication vouchers shall be used by an eligible
10 House of Representatives candidate-
11
"(1) to purchase broadcast time during the gen-
12
eral election period in the same manner as other
13
broadcast time may be purchased by the candidate;
14
"(2) to purchase print advertisements during the
15
general election period;
16
"(3) to purchase voter contact campaign mate-
17
rials (brochures, bumper stickers, handbills, pins,
18
posters, and yard signs) used during the general elec-
19
tion period; or
20
"(4) to pay for postage expenses incurred during
21
the general election period.
22
"(j) UNEXPENDED VOUCHERS.-Any amount of voter
23 communication vouchers received by an eligible House can-
24 didate under this title and not expended on or before the
25 date of the general election shall be repaid within 60 days
12
1 of subsection (d)(1) and section 502(b)(3), the base period
2 shall be calendar year 1996.
3 "SEC. 502. LIMITATIONS ON EXPENDITURES.
4
"(a) LIMITATION ON USE OF PERSONAL FUNDS.-
5 (1) The aggregate amount of expenditures which may be
6 made during an election cycle by an eligible Senate can-
7 didate or such candidate's authorized committees from the
8 sources described in paragraph (2) shall not exceed
9
$25,000.
10
"(2) A source is described in this paragraph if it is-
11
"(A) personal funds of the candidate and mem-
12
bers of the candidate's immediate family; or
13
"(B) personal debt incurred by the candidate
14
and members of the candidate's immediate family.
15
%(b) GENERAL ELECTION EXPENDITURE LIMIT.-
16 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this title, the aggre-
17 gate amount of expenditures for a general election by an
18 eligible Senate candidate and the candidate's authorized
19 committees shall not exceed the lesser of-
20
"(A) $5,500,000; or
21
"(B) the greater of-
22
"(i) $1,200,000; or
23
"(ii) $400,000; plus
+ .S 3 PP1S
13
1
"(I) 30 cents multiplied by the voting
2
age population not in excess of 4,000,000;
3
and
4
"(II) 25 cents multiplied by the voting
5
age population in excess of 4,000,000.
6
"(2) In the case of an eligible Senate candidate in
7 a State which has no more than 1 transmitter for a com-
8 mercial Very High Frequency (VHF) television station li-
9 censed to operate in that State, paragraph (1)(B)(ii) shall
10 be applied by substituting-
11
"(A) '80 cents' for '30 cents' in subclause (I);
12
and
13
"(B) '70 cents' for '25 cents' in subclause (II).
14
"(3) The amount otherwise determined under para-
15 graph (1) for any calendar year shall be increased by the
16 same percentage as the percentage increase for such cal-
17 endar year under section 501(f) (relating to indexing).
18
"(c) LEGAL AND ACCOUNTING COMPLIANCE
19 FUND.-(1) The limitation under subsection (b) shall not
20 apply to qualified legal and accounting expenditures made
21 by a candidate or the candidate's authorized committees
22 or a Federal officeholder from a legal and accounting com-
23 pliance fund meeting the requirements of paragraph (2).
24
"(2) A legal and accounting compliance fund meets
25 the requirements of this paragraph if-
t .S 3 PPIS
8
1
"(vi) will cooperate in the case of any audit
2
and examination by the Commission under sec-
3
tion 505 and will pay any amounts required to
4
be paid under that section; and
5
"(vii) will meet the closed captioning re-
6
quirements of section 509; and
7
"(E) the candidate intends to make use of the
8
benefits provided under section 503.
9
"(2) The certification under paragraph (1) shall be
10 filed not later than 7 days after the earlier of—
11
"(A) the date the candidate qualifies for the
12
general election ballot under State law; or
13
"(B) if, under State law, a primary or runoff
14
election to qualify for the general election ballot oc-
15
curs after September 1, the date the candidate wins
16
the primary or runoff election.
17
"(d) PRIMARY AND RUNOFF EXPENDITURE LIM-
18 ITS.-(1) The requirements of this subsection are met if:
19
"(A) The candidate or the candidate's author-
20
ized committees did not make expenditures for the
21
primary election in excess of the lesser of-
22
"(i) 67 percent of the general election ex-
23
penditure limit under section 502(b); or
24
"(ii) $2,750,000.
t .S 3 PP18
9
1
"(B) The candidate and the candidate's author-
2
ized committees did not make expenditures for any
3
runoff election in excess of 20 percent of the general
4
election expenditure limit under section 502(b).
5
"(2) The limitations under subparagraphs (A) and
6 (B) of paragraph (1) with respect to any candidate shall
7 be increased by the aggregate amount of independent ex-
8 penditures in opposition to, or on behalf of any opponent
9 of, such candidate during the primary or runoff election
10 period, whichever is applicable, which are required to be
11 reported to the Secretary of the Senate or to the Commis-
12 sion with respect to such period under section 304.
13
"(3)(A) If the contributions received by the candidate
14 or the candidate's authorized committees for the primary
15 election or runoff election exceed the expenditures for ei-
16 ther such election, such excess contributions shall be treat-
17 ed as contributions for the general election and expendi-
18 tures for the general election may be made from such ex-
19 cess contributions.
20
"(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the extent
21 that such treatment of excess contributions—
22
"(i) would result in the violation of any limita-
23
tion under section 315; or
.S 3 PP1S
10
1
"(ii) would cause the aggregate contributions
2
received for the general election to exceed the limits
3
under subsection (c)(1)(D)(iii).
4
"(e) THRESHOLD CONTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS.-
5 (1) The requirements of this subsection are met if the can-
6 didate and the candidate's authorized committees have re-
7 ceived allowable contributions during the applicable period
8 in an amount at least equal to 5 percent of the general
9 election expenditure limit under section 502(b).
10
"(2) For purposes of this section and subsections (b)
11 and (c) of section 503-
12
"(A) The term 'allowable contributions' means
13
contributions which are made as gifts of money by
14
an individual pursuant to a written instrument iden-
15
tifying such individual as the contributor.
16
"(B) The term 'allowable contributions' shall
17
not include-
18
"(i) contributions made directly or indi-
19
rectly through an intermediary or conduit which
20
are treated as made by such intermediary or
21
conduit under section 315(a)(8)(B);
22
"(ii) contributions from any individual dur-
23
ing the applicable period to the extent such con-
24
tributions exceed $250; or
t .8 3 PP1S
11
1
"(iii) contributions from individuals resid-
2
ing outside the candidate's State.
3
Clauses (ii) and (iii) shall not apply for purposes of
4
section 503(b).
5
"(3) For purposes of this subsection and subsections
6 (b) and (c) of section 503, the term 'applicable period'
7 means—
8
"(A) the period beginning on January 1 of the
9
calendar year preceding the calendar year of the
10
general election involved and ending on-
11
"(i) the date on which the certification
12
under subsection (c) is filed by the candidate;
13
or
14
"(ii) for purposes of subsections (b) and
15
(c) of section 503, the date of such general elec-
16
tion; or
17
"(B) in the case of a special election for the of-
18
fice of United States Senator, the period beginning
19
on the date the vacancy in such office occurs and
20
ending on the date of the general election involved.
21
"(f) INDEXING.-The $2,750,000 amount under sub-
22 section (d)(1) shall be increased as of the beginning of
23 each calendar year based on the increase in the price index
24 determined under section 315(c), except that, for purposes
+ .S 3 PP1S
19
1
riod in excess of the threshold contribution re-
2
quirement under section 501(e).
3
"(ii) 50 percent of the general election ex-
4
penditure limit applicable to the eligible Senate
5
candidate under section 502(b).
6
"(iii) The excess described in paragraph
7
(1).
8
"(c) INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE AMOUNT.-For
9 purposes of subsection (a)(3)(B), the amount determined
10 under this subsection is the total amount of independent
11 expenditures made, or obligated to be made, during the
12 general election period by 1 or more persons in opposition
13 to, or on behalf of an opponent of, an eligible Senate can-
14 didate which are required to be reported by such persons
15 under section 304(c) with respect to the general election
16 period and are certified by the Commission under section
17 304(c).
18
"(d) WAIVER OF EXPENDITURE AND CONTRIBUTION
19 LIMITS.-(1)(A) An eligible Senate candidate who receives
20 payments under subsection (a)(3) may make expenditures
21 from such payments to defray expenditures for the general
22 election without regard to the general election expenditure
23 limit under section 502(b).
24
"(B) In the case of an eligible Senate candidate who
25 is not a major party candidate, the general election ex-
t .S 3 PPIS
20
1 penditure limit under section 502(b) with respect to such
2 candidate shall be increased by the amount (if any) by
3 which the excess described in subsection (b)(1) exceeds the
4 amount determined under subsection (b)(2)(B) with re-
5 speet to such candidate.
6
"(2)(A) An eligible Senate candidate who receives
7 benefits under this section may make expenditures for the
8 general election without regard to clause (i) of section
9 501(c)(1)(D) or subsection (a) or (b) of section 502 if any
10 one of the eligible Senate candidate's opponents who is
11 not an eligible Senate candidate either raises aggregate
12 contributions, or makes or becomes obligated to make ag-
13 gregate expenditures, for the general election that exceed
14 200 percent of the general election expenditure limit appli-
15 cable to the eligible Senate candidate under section
16 502(b).
17
"(B) The amount of the expenditures which may be
18 made by reason of subparagraph (A) shall not exceed 100
19 percent of the general election expenditure limit under sec-
20 tion 502(b).
21
"(3)(A) A candidate who receives benefits under this
22 section may receive contributions for the general election
23 without regard to clause (iii) of section 501(c)(1)(D) if-
24
"(i) a major party candidate in the same gen-
25
eral election is not an eligible Senate candidate; or
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
Carryover
Divider Title:
30
1
"(2) used for costs incurred under section 601(e)
2
and (f) shall not be considered in the computation of
3
amounts subject to limitation.
4
"(m) INDEXING.-The dollar amounts specified in sec-
5 tion 315(i) shall be adjusted at the beginning of the cal-
6 endar year based on the increase in the price index deter-
7 mined under section 315(c), except that, for the purposes
8 of such adjustment, the base period shall be calendar year
9 1992.
10
"(n) TRANSFER PROVISION.-The limitations imposed
11 by section 315(i) apply without regard to amounts trans-
12 ferred from previous election cycles or other authorized com-
13 mittees of the same candidate. Candidates shall not be re-
14 quired to seek the redesignation of contributions in order
15 to transfer such contributions to a later election cycle.".
16
TITLE III-INDEPENDENT
17
EXPENDITURES
18 SEC. 301. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITIONS RELATING TO
19
INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES.
20
(a) INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE DEFINITION AMEND-
21 MENT.-Section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act
22 of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431) is amended by striking paragraphs
23 (17) and (18) and inserting the following:
HR 3 RH
47
1 public inspection and copying in the same manner as the
2 Commission under section 311(a)(4), and shall preserve
3 such reports and filings in the same manner as the Com-
4 mission under section 311(a)(5).
5
"(g) DEFINITIONS.-For purposes of this section.
6 any term used in this section which is used in title V shall
7 have the same meaning as when used in title V.".
8 SEC. 104. DISCLOSURE BY NONELIGIBLE CANDIDATES.
9
Section 318 of FECA (2 U.S.C. 441d), as amended
10 by section 134, is amended by adding at the end thereof
11 the following:
12
"(f) If a broadcast, cablecast, or other communication
13 is paid for or authorized by a candidate in the general
14 election for the office of United States Senator who is not
15 an eligible Senate candidate, or the authorized committee
16 of such candidate, such communication shall contain the
17 following sentence: "This candidate has not agreed to vol-
18 untary campaign spending limits.'.'
19 SEC. 105. EXCESS CAMPAIGN FUNDS OF SENATE CAN-
20
DIDATES.
21
Section 313 of FECA (2 U.S.C. 439a) is amended-
22
(1) by inserting "(a) IN GENERAL.-" before
23
"Amounts"; and
24
(2) by adding at the end the following new sub-
25
section:
+ S 3 PP1S
48
1
"(b) RETURN OF EXCESS CAMPAIGN FUNDS.-(1)
2 Except as provided in paragraph (2), and notwithstanding
3 subsection (a), if a candidate for the Senate has amounts
4 in excess of amounts necessary to defray campaign ex-
5 penditures for any election cycle, including any fines or
6 penalties relating thereto, such candidate shall. not later
7 than 1 year after the date of the general election for such
8 cycle. expend such excess in the manner described in sub-
9 section (a) or transfer it to the Senate Election Campaign
10 Fund established under section 510.
11
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any amounts-
12
"(A) transferred to a legal and accounting com-
13
pliance fund established under section 502(c); or
14
"(B) transferred for use in the next election
15
cycle to the extent such amounts do not exceed 20
16
percent of the sum of the primary election expendi-
17
ture limit under section 501(d)(1)(A) and the gen-
18
eral election expenditure limit under section 502(b)
19
for the election cycle from which the amounts are
20
being transferred."
21 SEC. 106. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS.
22
(a) RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS.-
23 Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
24 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
25 the following new section:
t .8 3 PP1S
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
Inflation
Divider Title:
10
1
"(3) LARGE AMOUNT OF EXCESS EXPENDI-
2
TURES.-Any eligible House of Representatives can-
3
didate who makes expenditures that exceed a limita-
4
tion under subsection (a) or subsection (b) by 5 per-
5
cent or more shall pay to the Commission an amount
6
equal to three times the amount of the excess expendi-
7
tures plus a civil penalty in an amount determined
8
by the Commission.
9
"(h) INDEXING.-The dollar amounts specified in sub-
10 sections (a), (b), and (c) shall be adjusted at the beginning
11 of each calendar year based on the increase in the price
12 index determined under section 315(c), except that, for the
13 purposes of such adjustment, the base period shall be cal-
14 endar year 1992.
15
"(i) The limitations of this section do not apply in
16 the case of any recall action held pursuant to State law.
17 "SEC. 602. CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS.
18
"(a) PERSONAL CONTRIBUTIONS.-Au eligible House
19 of Representatives candidate may not, with respect to an
20 election cycle, make contributions or loans to his or her own
21 campaign totaling more than $50,000 from the personal
22 funds of the candidate. The amount that the candidate may
23 accept from persons referred to in section 315(i)(2) shall
24 be reduced by the amount of contributions made under the
HR 3 RH
11
1
"(iii) contributions from individuals resid-
2
ing outside the candidate's State.
3
Clauses (ii) and (iii) shall not apply for purposes of
4
section 503(b).
5
"(3) For purposes of this subsection and subsections
6 (b) and (c) of section 503, the term 'applicable period'
7 means—
8
"(A) the period beginning on January 1 of the
9
calendar year preceding the calendar year of the
10
general election involved and ending on-
11
"(i) the date on which the certification
12
under subsection (c) is filed by the candidate;
13
or
14
"(ii) for purposes of subsections (b) and
15
(c) of section 503, the date of such general elec-
16
tion; or
17
"(B) in the case of a special election for the of-
18
fice of United States Senator, the period beginning
19
on the date the vacancy in such office occurs and
20
ending on the date of the general election involved.
21
"(f) INDEXING.-The $2,750,000 amount under sub-
22 section (d)(1) shall be increased as of the beginning of
23 each calendar year based on the increase in the price index
24 determined under section 315(c), except that, for purposes
Copy P.12
+ .S 3 PP1S
12
1 of subsection (d)(1) and section 502(b)(3). the base period
2 shall be calendar year 1996.
3 "SEC. 502. LIMITATIONS ON EXPENDITURES.
4
"(a) LIMITATION ON USE OF PERSONAL FUNDS.-
5 (1) The aggregate amount of expenditures which may be
6 made during an election cycle by an eligible Senate can-
7 didate or such candidate's authorized committees from the
8 sources described in paragraph (2) shall not exceed
9
$25,000.
10
"(2) A source is described in this paragraph if it is-
11
"(A) personal funds of the candidate and mem-
12
hers of the candidate's immediate family; or
13
"(B) personal debt incurred by the candidate
14
and members of the candidate's immediate family.
15
"(b) GENERAL ELECTION EXPENDITURE LIMIT.-
16 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this title, the aggre-
17 gate amount of expenditures for a general election by an
18 eligible Senate candidate and the candidate's authorized
19 committees shall not exceed the lesser of-
20
"(A) $5,500,000; or
21
"(B) the greater of-
22
"(i) $1,200,000; or
23
"(ii) $400,000; plus
÷ S 3 PP1S
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
Audit Costs
Divider Title:
17
1 of the election, except that a reasonable amount may be re-
2 tained for a period not exceeding 120 days after the date
3 of the general election for the liquidation of obligations to
4 pay expenditures for the general election incurred during
5 the general election period. At the end of the 120-day period,
6 any unexpended vouchers received under this title shall be
7 promptly repaid.
8 "SEC. 605. CLOSED CAPTIONING REQUIREMENT FOR TELE-
9
VISION COMMERCIALS OF ELIGIBLE HOUSE
10
OF REPRESENTATIVES CANDIDATES.
11
"No eligible House of Representatives candidate may
12 receive amounts under section 604 unless such candidate
13 has certified to the Federal Election Commission that any
14 television commercial prepared or distributed by the can-
15 didate will be prepared in a manner that contains, is ac-
16 companied by, or otherwise readily permits closed caption-
17 ing of the oral content of the commercial to be broadcast
18 by way of line 21 of the vertical blanking interval, or by
19 way of comparable successor technologies.
20 "SEC. 606. EXAMINATION AND AUDITS; REPAYMENTS.
21
"(a) GENERAL ELECTION.-After each general elec-
22 tion, the Commission shall conduct an examination and
23 audit of the campaign accounts of 5 percent of the eligible
24 House of Representatives candidates, as designated by the
25 Commission through the use of an appropriate statistical
HR 3 RH
18
1 method of random selection, to determine whether such can-
2 didates have complied with the conditions of eligibility and
3 other requirements of this title. No other factors shall be
4 considered in carrying out such an examination and audit.
5 The Commission shall conduct an examination and audit
6 of the accounts of all candidates from a congressional dis-
7 trict where any eligible candidate is selected for examina-
8 tion and audit.
9
"(b) SPECIAL ELECTION.-After each special election,
10 the Commission shall conduct an examination and audit
11 of the campaign accounts of all eligible candidates in the
12 election to determine whether the candidates have complied
13 with the conditions of eligibility and other requirements of
14 this title.
15
"(c) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE.-The Commission may con-
16 duct an examination and audit of the campaign accounts
17 of any eligible House of Representatives candidate in a gen-
18 eral election if the Commission, by an affirmative vote of
19 4 members, determines that there exists reason to believe
20 whether such candidate may have violated any provision
21 of this title.
22
"(d) PAYMENTS.-If the Commission determines that
23 any amount of a payment to a candidate under this title
24 was in excess of the aggregate payments to which such can-
25 didate was entitled, the Commission shall so notify the can-
HR 3 RH
122
1 "other order" and inserting ", including an order for a
2 civil penalty which-
3
"(i) is not less than all contributions and ex-
4
penditures involved in the violation; and
5
"(ii) does not exceed the greater of $10,000 or
6
200 percent of all contributions and expenditures in-
7
volved in the violation,
8 upon a proper showing that the person involved has com-
9 mitted, or is about to commit (if the relief sought is a
10 permanent or temporary injunction or a restraining
11 order), a violation of this Act or of chapter 95 or chapter
12 96 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.".
13
(3), Section 309(a)(6)(C) of FECA (29 U.S.C.
14 437g(6)(C)) is amended by striking "a civil penalty" and
15 all that follows and inserting "a civil penalty which—
16
"(i) is not less than 200 percent of all contribu-
17
tions and expenditures involved in the violation; and
18
"(ii) does not exceed the greater of $20,000 or
19
250 percent of all contributions and expenditures in-
20
volved in the violation.".
21 SEC. 605. AUDITS.
22
(a) RANDOM AUDITS.-Section 311(b) of FECA (2
23 U.S.C. 438(b)) is amended—
24
(1) by inserting "(1)" before "The Commis-
25
sion"; and
+.S 3 PP1S
123
1
(2) by adding at the end the following new
2
paragraph:
3
"(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Commission
4 may from time to time conduct random audits and inves-
5 tigations to ensure voluntary compliance with this Act.
6 The subjects of such audits and investigations shall be se-
7 lected on the basis of criteria established by vote of at
8 least 4 members of the Commission to ensure impartiality
9 in the selection process. This paragraph does not apply
10 to an authorized committee of a candidate for President
11 or Vice President subject to audit under section 9007 or
12 9038 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or to an au-
13 thorized committee of an eligible Senate candidate subject
14 to audit under section 505(a).".
15
(b) EXTENSION OF PERIOD DURING WHICH CAM-
16 PAIGN AUDITS MAY BE BEGUN.-Section 311(b) of
17 FECA (2 U.S.C. 438(b)) is amended by striking "6
18 months" and inserting "12 months".
19 SEC. 606. PROHIBITION OF FALSE REPRESENTATION TO
20
SOLICIT CONTRIBUTIONS.
21
Section 322 of FECA (2 U.S.C. 441h) is amended-
22
(1) by inserting after "SEC. 322." the follow-
23
ing: "(a)"; and
24
(2) by adding at the end the following:
+ .S 3 PP1S
2 § 437h
ThE CONGRESS Ch. 14
Ch. 14 FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
Note 16
§ 438
impede his ability to protect that interest,"
V. Federal Election Commission, D.C.D.C.
movants' interest was being adequately pro-
1979, 468 F.Supp. 1235.
(4) within 48 hours after the time of the receipt by the Commission
tected and intervention thus would be disal-
19. Declaratory judgment
of reports and statements filed with it, make them available for public
lowed. Republican Nat. Committee V. Fed-
eral Election Commission, D.C.N.Y.1978,
Although judicial review provisions of this
inspection, and copying, at the expense of the person requesting such
461 F.Supp. 570, certiorari question answered
section governing declaratory judgment ac-
copying, except that any information copied from such reports or
616 F.2d 1, affirmed 100 S.Ct. 1639, 445 U.S.
tions and enforcement proceedings are not
statements may not be sold or used by any person for the purpose of
955, 64 L.Ed.2d 231.
blueprints for efficient litigation, those provi-
soliciting contributions or for commercial purposes, other than using
sions do not preclude use of declaratory judg-
ment actions to litigate constitutional chal-
the name and address of any political committee to solicit contributions
17. Motion to dismiss
Given the importance of the issues raised in
lenges to this chapter that have been or might
from such committee. A political committee may submit 10 pseudo-
the present case, a suit by the Republican
have been raised as defenses to ongoing or
nyms on each report filed in order to protect against the illegal use of
National Committee, and others, challenging
contemplated Commission enforcement pro-
names and addresses of contributors, provided such committee attaches
those portions of federal law which condition
ceedings. California Medical Ass'n V. Feder-
the receipt of federal campaign funds by pres-
al Election Commission, Cal.1981, 101 S.Ct.
a list of such pseudonyms to the appropriate report. The Clerk,
idential candidates upon compliance with
2712, 453 U.S. 182, 69 L.Ed.2d 567.
Secretary, or the Commission shall exclude these lists from the public
record;
campaign expenditure limits and forbearance
20. Remand
from raising contributions to defray campaign
Under this section setting forth special pro-
(5) keep such designations, reports, and statements for a period of 10
expenses, and given the clear congressional
cedure for review of constitutional questions
years from the date of receipt, except that designations, reports, and
commitment to expedited review, it would
by certification to court of appeals, court of
make much more sense to allow the court of
statements that relate solely to candidates for the House of Representa-
appeals, even assuming it could properly ap-
appeals to consider all questions at once;
tives shall be kept for 5 years from the date of their receipt;
point its own master to make report of pro-
accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss,
posed findings, remanded record to district
(6) (A) compile and maintain a cumulative index of designations,
arguing that plaintiffs' various constitutional
court to identify constitutional issues in com-
reports, and statements filed under this Act, which index shall be
objections were rejected by the Supreme
plaint, take necessary evidence, make factual
Court in Buckley and that no proper "case or
published at regular intervals and made available for purchase directly
findings and certify constitutional questions
controversy" was presented, would be denied
or by mail;
arising. Buckley V. Valeo, 1975, 519 F.2d
without prejudice. Republican Nat. Commit-
817, 171 U.S.App.D.C. 168, on remand 401
(B) compile, maintain, and revise a separate cumulative index of
tee V. Federal Election Commission, D.C.N.
F.Supp. 1235.
Y.1978, 461 F.Supp. 570, certiorari question
reports and statements filed by multi-candidate committees, including
answered 616 F.2d 1, affirmed 100 S.Ct.
21. Supreme Court review
in such index a list of multi-candidate committees; and
1639, 445 U.S. 955, 64 L.Ed.2d 231.
Actions brought under provisions of this
(C) compile and maintain a list of multi-candidate committees,
section governing declaratory judgment ac.
18. Findings
which shall be revised and made available monthly;
tions and enforcement proceedings by Com-
Fact that Commission had interpreted this
mission may proceed in district court at same
(7) prepare and publish periodically lists of authorized committees
chapter in such a manner that the political
time, and, therefore, after district court certi-
which fail to file reports as required by this Act;
arm of the AFL-CIO and individual union
fied questions to court of appeals regarding
political action committees would be treated
constitutionality of section 441a of this title
(8) prescribe rules, regulations, and forms to carry out the provisions
as separate entities for purposes of limits on
prohibiting individuals of unincorporated as-
of this Act, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (d) of this
campaign contributions would not preclude a
sociations from contributing more than
section;
finding that some candidate who received
$5,000 per calendar year to any multicandi-
contributions from both organizations which
date political committee, Supreme Court had
(9) transmit to the President and to each House of the Congress no
exceeded a total of $5,000 knowingly accept-
jurisdiction over appeal from court of appeals,
later than June I of each year, a report which states in detail the
ed excessive contributions because the two
even though enforcement proceeding was
activities of the Commission in carrying out its duties under this Act,
organizations were, in fact, controlled or
pending in district court. California Medical
and any recommendations for any legislative or other action the
maintained by the same group of persons,
Ass'n V. Federal Election Commission. Cal.
Commission considers appropriate; and
thus making them one political action com-
1981, 101 S.Ct. 2712, 453 U.S. 182. 69
mittee for purposes of this chapter. Walther
L.Ed.2d 567.
(10) serve as a national clearinghouse for the compilation of informa-
tion and review of procedures with respect to the administration of
Federal elections. The Commission may enter into contracts for the
§
438.
Administrative provisions
purpose of conducting studies under this paragraph. Reports or
(a) Duties of Commission
studies made under this paragraph shall be available to the public upon
The Commission shall-
the payment of the cost thereof, except that copies shall be made
available without cost, upon request, to agencies and branches of the
(1) prescribe forms necessary to implement this Act;
Federal Government.
(2) prepare, publish, and furnish to all persons required to file
reports and statements under this Act a manual recommending uniform
(b) Audits and field Investigations
methods of bookkeeping and reporting;
The Commission may conduct audits and field investigations of any
(3) develop a filing, coding, and cross-inc'exing system consistent
political committee required to file a report under section 434 of this title.
with the nurposes of this Act.
All audits and field investigations concerning the verification for, and
2 § 438
THE CONGRESS Ch. 14
Ch. 14 FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
2 § 438
under chapter 95 or chapter 96 of Title 26 shall be given priority. Prior to
(e) Scope of protection for good faith reliance upon rules or regulations
conducting any audit under this subsection, the Commission shall perform
an internal review of reports filed by selected committees to determine if the
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who relies upon
reports filed by a particular committee meet the threshold requirements for
any rule or regulation prescribed by the Commission in accordance with the
provisions of this section and who acts in good faith in accordance with
substantial compliance with the Act. Such thresholds for compliance shall
be established by the Commission. The Commission may, upon an affirma-
such rule or regulation shall not, as a result of such act, be subject to any
tive vote of 4 of its members, conduct an audit and field investigation of any
sanction provided by this Act or by chapter 95 or chapter 96 of Title 26.
committee which does meet the threshold requirements established by the
(f) Promulgation of rules, regulations, and forms by Commission and Internal
Commission. Such audit shall be commenced within 30 days of such vote,
Revenue Service; report to Congress on cooperative efforts
except that any audit of an authorized committee of a candidate, under the
In prescribing such rules, regulations, and forms under this section, the
provisions of this subsection, shall be commenced within 6 months of the
Commission and the Internal Revenue Service shall consult and work
election for which such committee is authorized.
together to promulgate rules, regulations, and forms which are mutually
(c) Statutory provisions applicable to forms and Information-gathering activities
consistent. The Commission shall report to the Congress annually on the
steps it has taken to comply with this subsection.
Any forms prescribed by the Commission under subsection (a) (1) of this
section, and any information-gathering activities of the Commission under
(Pub.L. 92-225, Title III, § 311, formerly § 308, Feb. 7, 1972, 86 Stat. 16,
this Act, shall not be subject to the provisions of section 3512 of Title 44.
renumbered § 316 and amended Pub.L. 93-443, Title II, §§ 208(a), (c) (8)-(10),
209(a) (1), (b), Oct. 15, 1974, 88 Stat. 1279, 1286, 1287, renumbered § 315 and
(d) Rules, regulations, or forms; issuance, procedures applicable, etc.
amended Pub.L. 94-283, Title I, §§ 105, 110, May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 481, 486,
(1) Before prescribing any rule, regulation, or form under this section or
renumbered § 311 and amended Pub.L. 96-187, Title I, §§ 105(4), 109, Jan. 8,
any other provision of this Act, the Commission shall transmit a statement
1980, 93 Stat. 1354, 1362.)
with respect to such rule, regulation, or form to the Senate and the House of
Unconstitutionality of Legislative Veto Provisions
Representatives, in accordance with this subsection. Such statement shall
set forth the proposed rule, regulation, or form, and shall contain a detailed
The provisions of section 1254(c)(2) of Title 8, Aliens and Nation-
explanation and justification of it.
ality. which authorize a House of Congress, by resolution, to invali-
(2) If either House of the Congress does not disapprove by resolution any
date an action of the Executive Branch, were declared unconstitu-
proposed rule or regulation submitted by the Commission under this section
tional in Immigration and Naturalization Service V. Chadha, 1983.
within 30 legislative days after the date of the receipt of such proposed rule
103 S.Ct. 2764. 462 U.S. 919, 77 L.Ed.2d 317. See similar
or regulation or within 10 legislative days after the date of receipt of such
provisions in subsec. (d)(2) of this section.
proposed form, the Commission may prescribe such rule, regulation, or
Historical Note
form.
References in Text. This Act, referred to
(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term "legislative day" means,
in text. is the Federal Election Campaign Act
Subsec. (a) (2). Pub.L. 96-187, § 109,
substituted "prepare. publish. and furnish to
with respect to statements transmitted to the Senate, any calendar day on
of 1971. as amended, as defined by section
431 of this title.
all persons required to file reports and state-
which the Senate is in session, and with respect to statements transmitted to
ments under this Act" for "to prepare, pub-
the House of Representatives, any calendar day on which the House of
Section 3512 of Title 44, referred to in
lish, and furnish to the person required to file
subsec. (c). which related to requirements for
Representatives is in session.
such reports and statements".
the collection of information by independent
(4) For purposes of this subsection, the terms "rule" and "regulation"
Federal regulatory agencies. was a part of
Subsec. (a) (3). Pub.L. 96-187, § 109,
chapter 35 of Title 44. Public Printing and
struck out "to" preceding "develop" and sub-
mean a provision or series of interrelated provisions stating a single,
Documents. Chapter 35 was amended gener-
stituted "consistent with the purposes of this
separable rule of law.
ally by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
Act" for "consonant with the purposes of this
subchapter".
(5) (A) A motion to discharge a committee of the Senate from the
(Pub.L. 96-511). See sections 3506 and 3513
of Title 44 for provisions similar to those
Subsec. (a) (4). Pub.L. 96-187, § 109,
consideration of a resolution relating to any such rule, regulation, or form
appearing in former section 3512.
substituted provisions making available for
or a motion to proceed to the consideration of such a resolution, is highly
1980 Amendment. Subsec. (a). Pub.L.
inspection and copying reports and state-
privileged and shall be decided without debate.
96-187, § 109, substituted in introductory
ments within 48 hours after receipt and pro-
clause "The Commission shall" for "It shall
hibiting the sale or use of any information for
(B) Whenever a committee of the House of Representatives reports any
be the duty of the Commission".
soliciting contributions or for commercial
resolution relating to any such form, rule or regulation, it is at any time
purposes other than using names and address-
Subsec. (a) (1). Pub.L. 96-187, § 109,
thereafter in order (even though a previous motion to the same effect has
es of any political committee and allowing a
substituted "prescribe forms necessary to im-
plement this Act" for "to develop and furnish
political committee to submit 10 pseudonyms
been disagreed to) to move to proceed to the consideration of the resolution.
on each report to protect against illegal use of
The motion is highly privileged and is not debatable. An amendment to the
to the person required by the provisions of
names and addresses of contributors, such
motion is not in order, and is not in order to move to reconsider the vote by
this Act prescribed forms for the making of
the reports and statements required to be filed
lists to be excluded from the public record,
which the motion is agreed to or disagreed with
for provisions making available for public
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
Fundraising / Acc'ting
Divider Title:
8
1
shall report that the threshold has been reached to the
2
Clerk of the House of Representatives not later than
3
48 hours after reaching the threshold. The Clerk shall
4
transmit a report received under this paragraph to
5
the Commission as soon as possible (but no later than
6
4 working hours of the Commission) after such re-
7
ceipt, and the Commission shall transmit a copy to
8
each other candidate for election to the same office
9
within 48 hours of receipt.
10
"(e) EXEMPTION FOR LEGAL COSTS AND TAXES.-Any
11 costs incurred by an eligible House of Representatives can-
12 didate or his or her authorized committee, or a Federal of-
13 ficeholder, for legal services or Federal, State, or local in-
14 come and payroll taxes with respect to a candidate's author-
15 ized committees, or to comply with section 606, shall not
16 be considered in the computation of amounts subject to limi-
17 tation under this section.
18
"(f) EXEMPTION FOR ACCOUNTING OR FUNDRAISING
19 COSTS.-
20
"(1) Any costs incurred by an eligible House of
21
Representatives candidate or his or her authorized
22
committee in connection with the solicitation of con-
23
tributions on behalf of such candidate or for account-
24
ing services to ensure compliance with this Act shall
25
not be considered in the computation of amounts sub-
HR 3 RH
9
1
ject to limitation under subsection (a) to the extent
2
that the aggregate of such costs does not exceed 10
3
percent of the limitation under subsection (a).
4
"(2) An amount equal to 10 percent of salaries
5
and overhead expenditures of an eligible House of
6
Representatives candidate's campaign headquarters
7
and offices shall not be considered in the computation
8
of amounts subject to limitation under this section.
9
Any amount excluded under this paragraph shall be
10
applied against the accounting or fundraising ex-
11
penditure exemption under paragraph (1).
12
"(g) CIVIL PENALTIES.-
13
"(1) Low AMOUNT OF EXCESS EXPENDITURES.-
14
Any eligible House of Representatives candidate who
15
makes expenditures that exceed a limitation under
16
subsection (a) or subsection (b) by 2.5 percent or less
17
shall pay to the Commission an amount equal to the
18
amount of the excess expenditures.
19
"(2) MEDIUM AMOUNT OF EXCESS EXPENDI-
20
TURES.-Any eligible House of Representatives can-
21
didate who makes expenditures that exceed a limita-
22
tion under subsection (a) or subsection (b) by more
23
than 2.5 percent and less than 5 percent shall pay to
24
the Commission an amount equal to three times the
25
amount of the excess expenditures.
HR 3 RH
13
1
"(I) 30 cents multiplied by the voting
2
age population not in excess of 4,000,000;
3
and
4
"(II) 25 cents multiplied by the voting
5
age population in excess of 4,000,000.
6
"(2) In the case of an eligible Senate candidate in
7 a State which has no more than 1 transmitter for a com-
8 mercial Very High Frequency (VHF) television station li-
9 censed to operate in that State. paragraph (1)(B)(ii) shall
10 be applied by substituting-
11
"(A) '80 cents' for '30 cents' in subclause (I);
12
and
13
"(B) '70 cents' for '25 cents' in subclause (II).
14
"(3) The amount otherwise determined under para-
15 graph (1) for any calendar year shall be increased by the
16 same percentage as the percentage increase for such cal-
17 endar year under section 501 (f) (relating to indexing).
18
"(c) LEGAL AND ACCOUNTING COMPLIANCE
19 FUND.-(1) The limitation under subsection (b) shall not
20 apply to qualified legal and accounting expenditures made
21 by a candidate or the candidate's authorized committees
22 or a Federal officeholder from a legal and accounting com-
23 pliance fund meeting the requirements of paragraph (2).
24
"(2) A legal and accounting compliance fund meets
25 the requirements of this paragraph if-
.S 3 PPIS
14
1
"(A) the fund is established with respect to
2
qualified legal and accounting expenditures incurred
3
with respect to a particular general election;
4
"(B) the only amounts transferred to the fund
5
are amounts received in accordance with the limita-
6
tions, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of
7
this Act;
8
"(C) the aggregate amounts transferred to, and
9
expenditures made from, the fund with respect to
10
the election cycle do not exceed the sum of-
11
"(i) the lesser of-
12
"(I) 15 percent of the general election
13
expenditure limit under subsection (b) for
14
the general election for which the fund was
15
established; or
16
"(II) $300,000; plus
17
"(ii) the amount determined under para-
18
graph (4); and
19
"(D) no funds received by the candidate pursu-
20
ant to section 503(a)(3) may be transferred to the
21
fund.
22
"(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term 'quali-
23 fied legal and accounting expenditures' means the follow-
24 ing:
cary 13
+ .S 3 PP18
15
1
"(A) Any expenditures for costs of legal and ac-
2
counting services provided in connection with-
3
"(i) any administrative or court proceeding
4
initiated pursuant to this Act for the general
5
election for which the legal and accounting fund
6
was established; or
7
"(ii) the preparation of any documents or
8
reports required by this Act or the Commission.
9
"(B) Any expenditures for legal and accounting
10
services provided in connection with the general elec-
11
tion for which the legal and accounting compliance
12
fund was established to ensure compliance with this
13
Act with respect to the election cycle for such gen-
14
eral election.
15
"(4)(A) If, after a general election. a candidate deter-
16 mines that the qualified legal and accounting expenditures
17 will exceed the limitation under paragraph (2)(C)(i), the
18 candidate may petition the Commission by filing with the
19 Secretary of the Senate a request for an increase in such
20 limitation. The Commission shall authorize an increase in
21 such limitation in the amount (if any) by which the Com-
22 mission determines the qualified legal and accounting ex-
23 penditures exceed such limitation. Such determination
24 shall be subject to judicial review under section 506.
÷ .S 3 PPIS
16
1
"(B) Except as provided in section 315, any contribu-
2 tion received or expenditure made pursuant to this para-
3 graph shall not be taken into account for any contribution
4 or expenditure limit applicable to the candidate under this
5 title.
6
(5) Any funds in a legal and accounting compliance
7 fund shall be treated for purposes of this Act as a separate
8 segregated fund, except that any portion of the fund not
9 used to pay qualified legal and accounting expenditures.
10 and not transferred to a legal and accounting compliance
11 fund for the election cycle for the next general election.
12 shall be treated in the same manner as other campaign
13 funds for purposes of section 313(b).
14
"(d) PAYMENT OF TAXES ON EARNINGS.-The limi-
15 tation under subsection (b) shall not apply to any expendi-
16 ture for Federal, State, or local income taxes on the earn-
17 ings of a candidate's authorized committees.
18
"(e) CERTAIN EXPENSES.-In the case of an eligible
19 Senate candidate who holds a Federal office, the limitation
20 under subsection (b) shall not apply to ordinary and nec-
21 essary expenses of travel of such individual and the indi-
22 vidual's spouse and children between Washington, D.C.
23 and the individual's State in connection with the individ-
24 ual's activities as a holder of Federal office.
+ .S 3 PP1S
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
Disincentives
Divider Title:
30
1 ing a detailed explanation and justification of such rule
2 or regulation.
3 "SEC. 509. CLOSED CAPTIONING REQUIREMENT FOR TELE-
4
VISION COMMERCIALS OF ELIGIBLE SENATE
5
CANDIDATES.
6
"No eligible Senate candidate may receive amounts
7 under section 503(a)(3) under section 503(a)(4) unless
8 such candidate has certified that any television commercial
9 prepared or distributed by the candidate will be prepared
10 in a manner that contains, is accompanied by, or otherwise
11 readily permits closed captioning of the oral content of the
12 commercial to be broadcast by way of line 21 of the verti-
13 cal blanking interval, or by way of comparable successor
14 technologies.
15 "SEC. 510. SENATE ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND.
16
"(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF CAMPAIGN FUND.-(1)
17 There is hereby established on the books of the Treasury
18 of the United States a special fund to be known as the
19 Senate Election Campaign Fund (hereafter in this section
20 referred to as 'the Fund').
21
"(2) There are hereby appropriated to the Fund the
22 following amounts:
23
"(A) Amounts received in the Treasury
24
which are equivalent to the increase in Federal
25
revenues by reason of the repeal of the exempt
5.3
31
1
function income exclusion under section 527 of
2
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for author-
3
ized committees, and the graduated rates under
4
such section for the principal campaign commit-
5
tee, of any candidate who does not abide by the
6
campaign expenditure limits under this title,
7
but only to the extent such amounts do not ex-
8
ceed the amount certified by the Commission as
9
necessary to carry out the purposes of this title.
10
"(B) Amounts received in the Treasury
11
which are equivalent to the increase in Federal
12
revenues by reason of the disallowance of de-
13
ductions for lobbying expenditures, but only to
14
the extent such amounts do not exceed the
15
amount certified by the Commission under sub-
16
paragraph (A) reduced by amounts appro-
17
priated to the Fund under subparagraph (A).
18
"(C) Amounts transferred to the Fund
19
under any provision of this Act.
20
"(D) Amounts credited to the Fund under
21
paragraph (3).
22
"(3) The Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer
23 amounts to, and manage, the Fund in the manner pro-
24 vided under subchapter B of chapter 98 of the Internal
25 Revenue Code of 1986.
+ .S 3 PP1S
32
1
"(4) Amounts in the Fund shall, subject to the avail-
2 ability of appropriations, be available only for the purposes
3 of-
4
"(A) providing benefits under this title; and
5
"(B) making expenditures in connection with
6
the administration of the Fund.
7
"(5) The Secretary shall maintain such accounts in
8 the Fund as may be required by this title or which the
9 Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the pro-
10 visions of this title.
11
"(b) PAYMENTS UPON CERTIFICATION.-Upon re-
12 ceipt of a certification from the Commission under section
13 504, except as provided in subsection (c), the Secretary
14 shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, prompt-
15 ly pay the amount certified by the Commission to the can-
16 didate out of the Fund.
17
"(c) REDUCTIONS IN PAYMENTS IF FUNDS INSUFFI-
18 CIENT.-(1) If, at the time of a certification by the Com-
19 mission under section 504 for payment to an eligible can-
20 didate, the Secretary determines that the monies in the
21 Fund are not, or may not be, sufficient to satisfy the full
22 entitlement of all eligible candidates, the Secretary shall
23 withhold from the amount of such payment or voucher
24 such amount as the Secretary determines to be necessary
33
1 to assure that each eligible candidate will receive the same
2 pro rata share of such candidate's full entitlement.
3
"(2) Amounts withheld under paragraph (1) shall be
4 paid when the Secretary determines that there are suffi-
5 cient monies in the Fund to pay all. or a portion thereof.
6 to all eligible candidates from whom amounts have been
7 withheld. except that if only a portion is to be paid, it
8 shall be paid in such manner that each eligible candidate
9 receives an equal pro rata share of such portion.
10
"(3)(A) Not later than December 31 of any calendar
11 year preceding a calendar year in which there is a regu-
12 larly scheduled general election. the Secretary. after con-
13 sultation with the Commission, shall make an estimate
14 of-
15
"(i) the amount of monies in the Fund which
16
will be available to make payments required by this
17
title in the succeeding calendar year: and
18
"(ii) the amount of expenditures which will be
19
required under this title in such calendar year.
20
"(B) If the Secretary determines that there will be
21 insufficient monies in the Fund to make the expenditures
22 required by this title for any calendar year. the Secretary
23 shall notify each candidate on January 1 of such calendar
24 year (or. if later. the date on which an individual becomes
25 a candidate) of the amount which the Secretary estimates
S. 3 PP1S 3
34
1 will be the pro rata reduction in each eligible candidate's
2 payments under this subsection. Such notice shall be by
3 registered mail.
4
"(C) The amount of the eligible candidate's contribu-
5 tion limit under section 501(c)(1)(D)(iii) shall be in-
6 creased by the amount of the estimated pro rata reduction.
7
"(+) The Secretary shall notify the Commission and
8 each eligible candidate by registered mail of any actual
9 reduction in the amount of any payment by reason of this
10 subsection. If the amount of the reduction exceeds the
11 amount estimated under paragraph (3), the candidate's
12 contribution limit under section 501(c)(1)(D)(iii) shall be
13 increased by the amount of such excess.".
14
(b) EFFECTIVE DATES.-(1) Except as provided in
15 this subsection, the amendment made by subsection (a)
16 shall apply to elections occurring after December 31,
17 1994.
18
(2) For purposes of any expenditure or contribution
19 limit imposed by the amendment made by subsection (a)—
20
(A) no expenditure made before January 1,
21
1994, shall be taken into account, except that there
22
shall be taken into account any such expenditure for
23
goods or services to be provided after such date; and
24
(B) all cash, cash items, and Government secu-
25
rities on hand as of January 1, 1994, shall be taken
.8 3 PP18
35
1
into account in determining whether the contribution
2
limit is met, except that there shall not be taken into
3
account amounts used during the 60-day period be-
4
ginning on January 1, 1994, to pay for expenditures
5
which were incurred (but unpaid) before such date.
6
(c) EFFECT OF INVALIDITY ON OTHER PROVISIONS
7 OF ACT.-If section 501, 502, or 503 of title V of FECA
8 (as added by this section), or any part thereof, is held
9 to be invalid, all provisions of, and amendments made by,
10 this Act shall be treated as invalid.
11 SEC. 102. BAN ON ACTIVITIES OF POLITICAL ACTION COM-
12
MITTEES IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS.
13
(a) IN GENERAL.-Title III of FECA (2 U.S.C. 431
14 et seq.), as amended by section 404, is amended by adding
15 at the end thereof the following new section:
16
"BAN ON FEDERAL ELECTION ACTIVITIES BY POLITICAL
17
ACTION COMMITTEES
18
"SEC. 327. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision
19 of this Act, no person other than an individual or a politi-
20 cal committee may make contributions, solicit or receive
21 contributions, or make expenditures for the purpose of in-
22 fluencing an election for Federal office.
23
"(b) In the case of individuals who are executive or
24 administrative personnel of an employer-
25
"(1) no contributions may be made by such
26
individuals—
+ .S 3 PP18
47
1 public inspection and copying in the same manner as the
2 Commission under section 311(a)(4), and shall preserve
3 such reports and filings in the same manner as the Com-
4 mission under section 311(a)(5).
5
"(g) DEFINITIONS.-For purposes of this section,
6 any term used in this section which is used in title V shall
7 have the same meaning as when used in title V.".
8 SEC. 104. DISCLOSURE BY NONELIGIBLE CANDIDATES.
9
Section 318 of FECA (2 U.S.C. 441d), as amended
10 by section 134, is amended by adding at the end thereof
11 the following:
12
"(f) If a broadcast, cablecast, or other communication
13 is paid for or authorized by a candidate in the general
14 election for the office of United States Senator who is not
15 an eligible Senate candidate, or the authorized committee
16 of such candidate, such communication shall contain the
17 following sentence: "This candidate has not agreed to vol-
18 untary campaign spending limits.'."
19 SEC. 105. EXCESS CAMPAIGN FUNDS OF SENATE CAN-
20
DIDATES.
21
Section 313 of FECA (2 U.S.C. 439a) is amended-
22
(1) by inserting "(a) IN GENERAL.-" before
23
"Amounts"; and
24
(2) by adding at the end the following new sub-
25
section:
+ .S 3 PP1S
2 § 441c
THE CONGRESS Ch. 14
4 FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
2 § 441
Note 3
zation, cooperative, or corporation without capital stock for the purpose of
campaign, may charge any amount for such space which exceeds the
influencing the nomination for election, or election, of any person to Federal
office, unless the provisions of section 441b of this title prohibit or make
amount charged for comparable use of such space for other purposes.
unlawful the establishment or administration of, or the solicitation of
(Pub.L. 92-225, Title III, § 318, formerly § 323, as added Pub.L. 94-283, Title I,
contributions to, such fund. Each specific prohibition, allowance, and duty
§ 112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493, renumbered and amended Pub.L. 96-187,
Title I, §§ 105(5), 111, Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354, 1365.)
applicable to a corporation, labor organization, or separate segregated fund
under section 441b of this title applies to a corporation labor organization,
I So in original. The word "or" probably should appear at the end of par. (2).
or separate segregated fund to which this subsection applies.
Historical Note
(c) "Labor organization" defined
1980 Amendment. Subsec. (a). Pub.L.
ganization required to be disclosed under sec-
For purposes of this section, the term "labor organization" has the
96-187, § 111, designated existing provisions
tion 433(b)(2) of this title.
as subsec. (a), and in revising the text, provid-
meaning given it by section 441b(b)(1) of this title.
ed for solicitation of contributions, prescribed
Subsec. (b). Pub.L. 96-187, § 111, added
(Pub.L. 92-225, Title III, § 317, formerly § 322, as added Pub.L. 94-283, Title I,
three categories of communications: (1) paid
subsec. (b).
§ 112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 492, renumbered Pub.L. 96-187, Title I, § 105(5),
for and authorized by the candidate, (2) paid
Effective Date of 1980 Amendment.
for by others but authorized by the candidate,
Amendment by Pub.L. 96-187 effective Jan.
Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354.)
and (3) not authorized by the candidate for
8. 1980, see section 301(a) of Pub.L. 96-187,
prior two categories where (1) authorized and
set out as an Effective Date of 1980 Amend-
Historical Note
(2) not authorized by the candidate; deleted
ment note under section 431 of this title.
References in Text. Section 441b of this
requirement for statement in accordance with
section 105(5) of Pub.L. 96-187, the reference
Legislative History. For legislative history
title, referred to in subsecs. (b) and (c), read
has been translated as reading "section 316"
regulations of Commission and in a conspicu-
and purpose of Pub.L. 94-283, see 1976 U.S.
ous manner; and deleted from the communi-
in the original "section 321" meaning section
to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
Code Cong. and Adm.News, p. 929. See,
cation not authorized by the candidate state-
321 of Pub.L. 92-225 which is classified to
Legislative History. For legislative history
also, Pub.L. 96-187, 1979 U.S.Code Cong.
ment of name of affiliated or connected or-
section 441g of this title. In view of the
and purpose of Pub.L. 94-283, see 1976 U.S.
and Adm.News. P. 2860.
renumbering of section 321 as section 316 by
Code Cong. and Adm.News, p. 929.
Code of Federal Regulations
Cross References
Contributions and expenditures. limitations and prohibitions upon. see 11 CFR 110.1 et seq.
Independent expenditures, see 11 CFR 109.1 et seq.
Penalties for violation of this section, see section 437g of this title.
Notes of Decisions
§
441d.
Publication and distribution of statements and solicita-
Constitutionality I
2. Fraud or misrepresentation
Defenses $
tions; charge for newspaper or magazine space
Fraud or misrepresentation 2
Though fraud or misrepresentation was not
Questions for jury 5
an element of the offense of distributing with-
(a) Whenever any person makes an expenditure for the purpose of
Writings ithin section 3
out an attribution clause a statement concern-
financing communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of a
ing a candidate for Congress. and though the
Department of Justice had never prosecuted
clearly identified candidate, or solicits any contribution through any broad-
1. Constitutionality
for failure to include such a clause on a
casting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, direct
Former section 612 of Litle 18 which re-
bumper sticker, the Department could have
mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising, such
quired writings or other statements to contain
used former section 612 of Title 18 as a
communication-
the names of the persons responsible for the
vehicle for prosecution because of the element
publication or distribution thereof did not
of alleged misrepresentation in that the bump-
(1) if paid for and authorized by a candidate, an authorized political
violate U.S.C.A Const Amend. I guarantees
er stickers were allegedly distributed by the
committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the
of free speech and press where said section
opponent of the candidate whose name ap-
communication has been paid for by such authorized political commit-
was limited in its application to statements
peared thereon, and prosecution under such
tee, or I
relating to or concerning a candidate for fed.
circumstances did not render the application
eral elective office. U.S V. Insco. D.C.Fla.
of former section 612 of Title 18 in the
(2) if paid for by other persons but authorized by a candidate, an
1973. 365 E.Supp. 1308.
instant case void for vagueness on basis of
authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly
Former section 612 of Title 18, which pro-
prior custom and usage. U.S. V, Insco. D.C.
state that the communication is paid for by such other persons and
hibited willful publication and distribution of
Fla. 1973. 365 F.Supp 1308.
pamphlets concerning candidate for Senate
3. Writings within section
authorized by such authorized political committee; I
without disclosing name of persons respon-
Although bulletin prepared by organization
(3) if not authorized by a candidate, an authorized political commit-
sible for publication and distribution did not
calling for limit on government spending re-
tee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state the name of the
violate U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. I. and such
ported voting record of Congressman as well
section was not unconstitutional as to former.
person who paid for the communication and state that the communica-
as his photograph and chart of his votes
whose operations were subject to government
tion is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
characterized as "for" and "against" govern-
regulation and who published pamphlet about
ment spending such did not fall within re-
(b) No person who sells space in a newspaper or magazine to a candidate
senatorial candidate. because of mere possibil-
porting. disclosure and identification require-
ity of reprisal. U.S Scott. C.N D.1961.
or to the agent of a candidate, for use in connection with such candidate's
ment of this section and section 434 of this
195 F.Supp. 440
title where it did not refer to any election, to
732
733
11
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
Benefits
Divider Title:
12
1 "SEC. 604. VOTER COMMUNICATION VOUCHERS.
2
"(a) IN GENERAL.-An eligible House of Representa-
3 tives candidate shall be entitled to receive, with respect to
4 the general election, an amount of voter communication
5 vouchers equal to the amount of contributions from individ-
6 uals received by the candidate, but not more than $200,000,
7 with not more than $200 to be taken into account per indi-
8 vidual.
9
"(b) SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.-A candidate for the
10 office of Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commis-
11 sioner to, the Congress may receive voter communication
12 vouchers under subsection (a) only if the candidate-
13
"(1) in an election cycle, has received 10 percent
14
of the limit specified in section 601(a) in contribu-
15
tions from individuals, with not more than $200 to
16
be taken into account per individual;
17
"(2) qualifies for the general election ballot;
18
"(3) has an opponent on the general election bal-
19
lot; and
20
"(4) files a declaration of participation in which
21
the candidate agrees to-
22
"(A) comply with the limitations under sec-
23
tions 601 and 315(i);
24
"(B) cooperate in the case of any audit by
25
the Commission by furnishing such campaign
HR 3 RH
13
1
records and other information as the Commis-
2
sion may require; and
3
"(C) comply with any repayment require-
4
ment under section 606.
5
"(c) WRITTEN INSTRUMENT REQUIREMENT.-No con-
6 tribution in any form other than a gift of money made by
7 a written instrument or a certification by the committee
8 making the request that identifies the individual making
9 the contribution by full name and address may be used as
10 a basis for any matching payment under this section.
11
"(d) CERTIFICATION AND PAYMENT.-
12
"(1) CERTIFICATION.-Excep as provided in
13
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) not later than 5 days
14
after receiving a request for payment, the Commission
15
shall certify for payment the amount requested under
16
this section. The request by an eligible candidate to
17
receive voter communications vouchers under this sec-
18
tion shall contain-
19
"(A) such information and be made in ac-
20
cordance with such procedures as the Commis-
21
sion may provide by regulation; and
22
"(B) a verification signed by the candidate
23
and the treasurer of the principal campaign
24
committee of such candidate stating that the in-
25
formation furnished in support of the request, to
HR 3 RH
14
the best of their knowledge. is correct and fully
1
10
satisfies the requirements of this title.
721 PAYMENTS.-The initial payment of voter
3
4
communication vouchers under subsection (a) to an
5
eligible candidate shall be an amount equal to at least
6
10 percent of the limit specified in section 601(a). A//
7
payments shall be-
8
"(A) made not later than 48 hours after cer-
9
tification under paragraph (1); and
10
"(B) subject to proportional reduction 111
11
the case of insufficient funds.
12
73) PARTIAL CERTIFICATION.-If the Commis-
13
sion determines that any portion of a request does not
14
meet the requirements for certification, the Commis-
15
sion shall withhold the certification for that portion
16
only and inform the candidate as to how the can-
17
didate may correct the request.
18
"(1) CERTIFICATION WITHHELD.-The Commis-
19
sion may withhold certification if it determines that
20
" candidate who is otherwise eligible has engaged in
21
" pattern of activity indicating that the promises in
22
the candidate's statement of participation cannot be
23
relied upon.
24
"(e) CLOSELY CONTESTED PRIMARV -If, as deter-
25 mined by the Commission, an eligible House of Representa-
.HR 3 RH
15
1 tives candidate in a contested primary election wins that
2 primary election by a margin of 20 percentage points or
3 less, the candidate shall be eligible to receive matching
4 vouchers totaling not more than $66,600, in addition to any
5 other amount received under this section. The amount
6 available under the preceding sentence is subject to the
7 matching requirements of this section.
8
"(f) INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE PROVISION.-If,
9 with respect to a general election involving an eligible
10 House of Representatives candidate, independent expendi-
11 tures totaling $10,000 are made against the eligible House
12 of Representatives candidate or in favor of another can-
13 didate, the eligible House of Representatives candidate shall
14 be entitled, in addition to any amount received under sub-
15 section (a), to voter communication vouchers equal to the
16 amount of such independent expenditures, and expenditures
17 may be made from such vouchers without regard to the limi-
18 tations in section 601.
19
"(g) PROHIBITION OF CONVERSION TO PERSONAL
20 USE.-An eligible candidate who receives voter communica-
21 tion vouchers under this section may not convert any
22 amount to personal use or make any payments, directly or
23 indirectly, to such candidate or to any members of the im-
24 mediate family of the candidate.
.HR 3 RH
16
"(h) INDEXING.-The dollar amount specified in sub-
I
2 sections (a) and (e) (other than the amount taken into ac-
3 count per individual) shall be adjusted at the beginning of
4 the calendar year based on the increase in the price index
5 determined under section 315(c), except that, for the pur-
6 poses of such adjustment, the base period shall be calendar
7 year 1992.
8
"(i) USE OF VOTER COMMUNICATION VOUCHERS.-
9 Voter communication vouchers shall be used by an eligible
10 House of Representatives candidate-
11
"(1) to purchase broadcast time during the gen-
12
eral election period in the same manner as other
13
broadcast time may be purchased by the candidate;
14
"(2) to purchase print advertisements during the
15
general election period;
16
"(3) to purchase voter contact campaign mate-
17
rials (brochures, bumper stickers, handbills, pins,
18
posters, and yard signs) used during the general elec-
19
tion period; or
20
"(4) to pay for postage expenses incurred during
21
the general election period.
22
"(j) UNEXPENDED VOUCHERS.-Any amount of voter
23 communication vouchers received by an eligible House can-
24 didate under this title and not expended on or before the
25 date of the general election shall be repaid within 60 days
HR 3 RH
17
1 of the election, except that a reasonable amount may be re-
2 tained for a period not exceeding 120 days after the date
3 of the general election for the liquidation of obligations to
4 pay expenditures for the general election incurred during
5 the general election period. At the end of the 120-day period,
6 any unexpended vouchers received under this title shall be
7 promptly repaid.
8 "SEC. 605. CLOSED CAPTIONING REQUIREMENT FOR TELE-
9
VISION COMMERCIALS OF ELIGIBLE HOUSE
10
OF REPRESENTATIVES CANDIDATES.
11
"No eligible House of Representatives candidate may
12 receive amounts under section 604 unless such candidate
13 has certified to the Federal Election Commission that any
14 television commercial prepared or distributed by the can-
15 didate will be prepared in a manner that contains, is ac-
16 companied by, or otherwise readily permits closed caption-
17 ing of the oral content of the commercial to be broadcast
18 by way of line 21 of the vertical blanking interval, or by
19 way of comparable successor technologies.
20 "SEC. 606. EXAMINATION AND AUDITS; REPAYMENTS.
21
"(a) GENERAL ELECTION.-After each general elec-
22 tion, the Commission shall conduct an examination and
23 audit of the campaign accounts of 5 percent of the eligible
24 House of Representatives candidates, as designated by the
25 Commission through the use of an appropriate statistical
HR 3 RH
6
1
"(b) RUNOFF ELECTION AND SPECIAL ELECTION
2 AMOUNTS.-
3
"(1) RUNOFF ELECTION AMOUNT.-If an eligible
4
House of Representatives candidate is a candidate in
5
a runoff election, the candidate may make additional
6
expenditures aggregating not more than $200,000 in
7
the election cycle.
8
"(2) SPECIAL ELECTION AMOUNT.-An eligible
9
House of Representatives candidate who is a can-
10
didate in a special election may make expenditures
11
aggregating not more than $600,000 with respect to
12
the special election.
13
"(c) CLOSELY CONTESTED PRIMARY.-If, as deter-
14 mined by the Commission, an eligible House of Representa-
15 tives candidate in a contested primary election wins that
16 primary election by a margin of 20 percentage points or
17 less, the candidate may make additional expenditures ag-
18 gregating not more than $200,000 in the election cycle.
19
"(d) NONPARTICIPATING OPPONENT PROVISIONS.-
20
"(1) LIMITATION EXCEPTION.-The limitations
21
imposed by subsections (a) and (b) do not apply in
22
the case of an eligible House of Representatives can-
23
didate if any other general election candidate seeking
24
nomination or election to that office-
7
1
"(A) is not an eligible House of Representa-
2
tives candidate; and
3
"(B) receives contributions or makes ex-
4
penditures in excess of 25 percent of the limita-
5
tion under subsection (a).
6
"(2) CONTINUED ELIGIBILITY AND ADDITIONAL
7
MATCHING FUNDS.-An eligible House of Representa-
8
tives candidate referred to in paragraph (1)-
9
"(A) shall continue to be eligible for all ben-
10
efits under this title; and
11
"(B) shall receive voter communication
12
vouchers under section 604.
13
"(3) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.-A candidate
l-
14
for the office of Representative in, or Delegate or Resi-
15
dent Commissioner to, the Congress-
16
"(A) who is not an eligible House of Rep-
17
resentatives candidate; and
18
"(B) who makes contributions in excess of
19
$50,000 of personal funds of the candidate and
20
members of the candidate's immediate family to
21
the authorized committee of the candidate or re-
22
ceives contributions or makes expenditures in ex-
23
cess of 25 percent of the limitation under sub-
24
section (a);
HR 3 RH
97
1
propriate provision of the Federal Election Campaign
2
Act of 1971.
3 TITLE X-HOUSE OF REP-
4
RESENTATIVES
CAMPAIGN
5
ELECTION FUNDING AND RE-
6
LATED MATTERS
7 SEC. 1001. MAKE DEMOCRACY WORK ELECTION FUND.
8
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.
9 431 et seq.), as amended by section 121, is further amended
10 by adding at the end the following new title:
11
"TITLE VII-MAKE DEMOCRACY
12
WORK ELECTION FUND
13 "SEC. 701. ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF THE FUND.
14
"(a) IN GENERAL.-There is hereby established on the
15 books of the Treasury of the United States a special fund
16 to be known as the Make Democracy Work Election Fund
17 (hereinafter in this title referred to as the 'Fund'). The
18 amounts designated for the Fund shall remain available
19 without fiscal limitation for purposes of providing benefits
20 under title VI and making expenditures for the administra-
21 tion of the Fund. The Secretary shall maintain such ac-
22 counts in the Fund as may be required by this title or which
23 the Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the
24 provisions of this title.
HR 3 RH
79
1
"(B) The authority granted under subparagraph (A)
2 includes the power to appeal from, and petition the Su-
3 preme Court for certiorari to review, judgments or decrees
4 entered with respect to actions in which the Commission
5 appears pursuant to the authority provided in this sec-
6 tion.".
7 SEC. 702. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION PUBLIC SERV-
8
ICE ANNOUNCEMENTS.
9
Title III of Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
10 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by sections 403 and 610,
11 is further amended by inserting after section 324 the follow-
12 ing new section:
13 "SEC. 325. PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS:
14
"(a) IN GENERAL.-Beginning on January 15, and
15 continuing through April 15 of each year, the Federal Elec-
16 tion Commission shall carry out a program, utilizing
17 broadcast announcements and other appropriate means, to
18 inform the public of the existence and purpose of the Make
19 Democracy Work Election Fund and the role that individ-
20 ual citizens can play in the election process by voluntarily
21 contributing to the Fund. The Commission shall seek to
22 broadcast such announcements during prime time viewing
23 hours in 30-second advertising segments equivalent to 200
24 gross rating points per network per week. The Commission
25 shall attempt to ensure that the maximum number of tax-
.HR 3 RH
80
1 payers shall be exposed to these announcements. The Federal
2 Election Commission shall attempt to utilize a variety of
3 communications media, including television, cable, and
4 radio networks, and individual television, cable, and radio
5 stations, to provide similar announcements.
6
"(b) GROSS RATING POINT.-The term 'gross rating
7 point' is a measure of the total gross weight delivered. It
8 is the sum of the ratings for individual programs. Since
9 a household rating period is 1 percent of the coverage base,
10 200 gross rating points means 2 messages a week per aver-
11 age household.".
12 SEC. 703. AUTHORITY TO SEEK INJUNCTION.
13
Section 309(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act
14 of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) is amended-
15
(1) by adding at the end the following new para-
16
graph:
17
"(13)(A) If, at any time in a proceeding described in
18 paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4), the Commission believes
19 that-
20
"(i) there is a substantial likelihood that a viola-
21
tion of this Act or of chapter 95 or chapter 96 of the
22
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is occurring or is
23
about to occur;
HR 9 RH
101
1 addressed in the ruling below, accept jurisdiction over, ad-
2 vance on the docket, and expedite the appeal to the greatest
3 extent possible.
4 SEC. 1104. REGULATIONS.
5
The Federal Election Commission shall prescribe any
6 regulations required to carry out the provisions of this Act
7 within 12 months after the effective date of this Act.
8 SEC. 1105. BUDGET NEUTRALITY.
9
The provisions of this Act (other than this section)
10 shall not be effective and shall not be considered to be an
11 estimate required under the procedures specified in section
12 252(d) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Con-
13 trol Act of 1985 until the enactment of revenue legislation
14 effectuating section 701 of the Federal Election Campaign
15 Act of 1971.
HR 3 RH
50
1 lations shall apply to all contributions possessed by an in-
2 dividual at the time of implementation of this section.
3
Subtitle B-General Provisions
4 SEC. 131. BROADCAST RATES AND PREEMPTION.
5
(a) BROADCAST RATES.-Section 315(b) of the Com-
6 munications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 315(b)) is amended-
7
(1) in paragraph (1)-
8
(A) by striking "forty-five" and inserting
9
"30"; and
10
(B) by striking "lowest unit charge of the
11
station for the same class and amount of time
12
for the same period" and inserting "lowest
13
charge of the station for the same amount of
14
time for the same period on the same date":
15
and
16
(2) by adding at the end the following new sen-
17
tence:
18 "In the case of an eligible Senate candidate (as defined
19 in section 301(19) of the Federal Election Campaign Act
20 of 1971), the charges for the use of a television broadcast-
21 ing station during the 60-day period referred to in para-
22 graph (1) shall not exceed 50 percent of the lowest charge
23 described in paragraph (1), except that this sentence shall
24 not apply to broadcasts which are to be paid by vouchers
CPM
+.S 3 PP1S
51
1 which are received under section 503(c)(4) by reason of
2 the independent expenditure amount."
3
(b) PREEMPTION; ACCESS.-Section 315 of such Act
4 (47 U.S.C. 315) is amended by redesignating subsections
5 (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and (e). respectively, and
6 by inserting immediately after subsection (b) the following
7 new subsection:
8
"(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2). a li-
9 censee shall not preempt the use, during any period speci-
10 fied in subsection (b)(1), of a broadcasting station by a
11 legally qualified candidate for public office who has pur-
12 chased and paid for such use pursuant to the provisions
13 of subsection (b)(1).
14
"(2) If a program to be broadcast by a broadcasting
15 station is preempted because of circumstances beyond the
16 control of the broadcasting station. any candidate adver-
17 tising spot scheduled to be broadcast during that program
18 may also be preempted."
19
(c) REVOCATION OF LICENSE FOR FAILURE To PER-
20 MIT ACCESS.-Section 312(a)(7) of such Act (47 U.S.C.
21 312(a)(7)) is amended-
22
(1) by striking "or repeated";
23
(2) by inserting "or cable system" after "broad-
24
casting station": and
.S 3 PP1S
52
1
(3) by striking "his candidacy" and inserting
2
"his or her candidacy, under the same terms, condi-
3
tions, and business practices as apply to its most fa-
4
vored advertiser".
5 SEC. 132. EXTENSION OF REDUCED THIRD-CLASS MAILING
6
RATES TO ELIGIBLE SENATE CANDIDATES.
7
Section 3626(e) of title 39, United States Code, is
8 amended-
9
(1) in paragraph (2)(A)-
10
(A) by striking "and the National" and in-
11
serting "the National"; and
12
(B) by striking "Committee;" and insert-
13
ing "Committee, and, subject to paragraph (3).
14
the principal campaign committee of an eligible
15
Senate candidate;";
16
(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking "and"
17
after the semicolon;
18
(3) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking the period
19
and inserting "; and";
20
(4) by adding after paragraph (2)(C) the fol-
21
lowing new subparagraph:
22
"(D) the terms 'eligible Senate candidate' and
23
'principal campaign committee' have the meanings
24
given those terms in section 301 of the Federal
25
Election Campaign Act of 1971."; and
+ 3 PP1S
53
1
(5) by adding after paragraph (2) the following
2
new paragraph:
3
"(3) The rate made available under this subsection
4 with respect to an eligible Senate candidate shall apply
5 only to-
6
"(A) the general election period (as defined in
7
section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
8
1971); and
9
"(B) that number of pieces of mail equal to 2
10
times the number of individuals in the voting age
11
population (as certified under section 315(e) of such
12
Act) of the State."
13 SEC. 133. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN INDE-
14
PENDENT EXPENDITURES.
15
(a) IN GENERAL.-Section 304 of FECA (2 U.S.C.
16 434) is amended by adding at the end the following new
17 subsection:
18
"(d) TIME FOR REPORTING CERTAIN EXPENDI-
19 TURES.-(1) Any person making independent expendi-
20 tures aggregating $1,000 or more after the 20th day, but
21 more than 24 hours, before any election shall file a report
22 of such expenditures within 24 hours after such expendi-
23 tures are made.
24
"(2) Any person making independent expenditures
25 aggregating $10,000 or more at any time up to and in-
+ .S 3 PP1S
17
I
"(f) EXPENDITURES.-For purposes of this title, the
2 term 'expenditure' has the meaning given such term by
3 section 301(9), except that in determining any expendi-
4 tures made by, or on behalf of, a candidate or a can-
5 didate's authorized committees. section 301(9)(B) shall be
6 applied without regard to clause (ii) thereof.
7 "SEC. 503. BENEFITS ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE ENTITLED TO
8
RECEIVE.
9
"(a) IN GENERAL.-An eligible Senate candidate
10 shall be entitled to-
11
"(1) the broadcast media rates provided under
12
section 315(b) of the Communications Act of 1934;
13
"(2) the mailing rates provided in section
14
3626(e) of title 39, United States Code: and
15
"(3) payments from the Senate Election Cam-
16
paign fund in an amount equal to-
17
"(A) the excess expenditure amount deter-
18
mined under subsection (b); and
19
"(B) the independent expenditure amount
20
determined under subsection (c).
21
"(b) EXCESS EXPENDITURE AMOUNT.-(1) For pur-
22 poses of subsection (a)(3)(A), except as provided in section
23 510(d), the amount determined under this subsection is,
24 in the case of an eligible Senate candidate who has an
25 opponent in the general election who receives contribu-
S 3 PPIS-2
18
1 tions, or makes (or obligates to make) expenditures, for
2 such election in excess of the general election expenditure
3 limit under section 502(b), the excess expenditure amount.
4
"(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the excess ex-
5 penditure amount is the amount determined as follows:
6
"(A) In the case of a major party candidate, an
7
amount equal to the sum of-
8
"(i) if the excess described in paragraph
9
(1) is less than 133½ percent of the general
10
election expenditure limit under section 502(b),
11
an amount equal to one-third of such limit ap-
12
plicable to the eligible Senate candidate for the
13
election; plus
14
"(ii) if such excess equals or exceeds 133 1/3
15
percent but is less than 1662/3 percent of such
16
limit. an amount equal to one-third of such
17
limit; plus
18
"(iii) if such excess equals or exceeds
19
1662/3 percent of such limit, an amount equal
20
to one-third of such limit.
21
"(B) In the case of an eligible Senate candidate
22
who is not a major party candidate, an amount
23
equal to the least of the following:
24
"(i) The allowable contributions of the eli-
25
gible Senate candidate during the applicable pe-
card P 19
+ .S 3 PP18
19
1
riod in excess of the threshold contribution re-
2
quirement under section 501(e).
3
"(ii) 50 percent of the general election ex-
4
penditure limit applicable to the eligible Senate
5
candidate under section 502(b).
6
"(iii) The excess described in paragraph
7
(1).
8
"(c) INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE AMOUNT.-For
9 purposes of subsection (a)(3)(B), the amount determined
10 under this subsection is the total amount of independent
11 expenditures made, or obligated to be made, during the
12 general election period by 1 or more persons in opposition
13 to, or on behalf of an opponent of, an eligible Senate can-
14 didate which are required to be reported by such persons
15 under section 304(c) with respect to the general election
16 period and are certified by the Commission under section
17 304(c).
18
"(d) WAIVER OF EXPENDITURE AND CONTRIBUTION
19 LIMITS.-(1)(A) An eligible Senate candidate who receives
20 payments under subsection (a)(3) may make expenditures
21 from such payments to defray expenditures for the general
22 election without regard to the general election expenditure
23 limit under section 502(b).
24
"(B) In the case of an eligible Senate candidate who
25 is not a major party candidate, the general election ex-
t .S 3 PP1S
20
1 penditure limit under section 502(b) with respect to such
2 candidate shall be increased by the amount (if any) by
3 which the excess described in subsection (b) (1) exceeds the
4 amount determined under subsection (b)(2)(B) with re-
5 speet to such candidate.
6
"(2)(A) An eligible Senate candidate who receives
7 benefits under this section may make expenditures for the
8 general election without regard to clause (i) of section
9 501(e)(1)(D) or subsection (a) or (b) of section 502 if any
10 one of the eligible Senate candidate's opponents who is
11 not an eligible Senate candidate either raises aggregate
12 contributions, or makes or becomes obligated to make ag-
13 gregate expenditures, for the general election that exceed
14 200 percent of the general election expenditure limit appli-
15 cable to the eligible Senate candidate under section
16 502(b).
17
"(B) The amount of the expenditures which may be
18 made by reason of subparagraph (A) shall not exceed 100
19 percent of the general election expenditure limit under sec-
20 tion 502(b).
21
"(3)(A) A candidate who receives benefits under this
22 section may receive contributions for the general election
23 without regard to clause (iii) of section 501(c)(1)(D) if-
24
"(i) a major party candidate in the same gen-
25
eral election is not an eligible Senate candidate; or
+ .S 3 PP1S
21
1
"(ii) any other candidate in the same general
2
election who is not an eligible Senate candidate
3
raises aggregate contributions, or makes or becomes
4
obligated to make aggregate expenditures, for the
5
general election that exceed 75 percent of the gen-
6
eral election expenditure limit applicable to such
7
other candidate under section 502(b).
8
"(B) The amount of contributions which may be re-
9 ceived by reason of subparagraph (A) shall not exceed 100
10 percent of the general election expenditure limit under sec-
11 tion 502(b).
12
"(e) USE OF PAYMENTS.-Payments received by a
13 candidate under subsection (a)(3) shall be used to defray
14 expenditures incurred with respect to the general election
15 period for the candidate. Such payments shall not be
16 used—
17
"(1) except as provided in paragraph (4), to
18
make any payments, directly or indirectly, to such
19
candidate or to any member of the immediate family
20
of such candidate;
21
"(2) to make any expenditure other than ex-
22
penditures to further the general election of such
23
candidate;
+ .S 3 PP1S
30
1 ing a detailed explanation and justification of such rule
2 or regulation.
3 "SEC. 509. CLOSED CAPTIONING REQUIREMENT FOR TELE-
4
VISION COMMERCIALS OF ELIGIBLE SENATE
5
CANDIDATES.
6
"No eligible Senate candidate may receive amounts
7 under section 503(a)(3) under section 503(a)(4) unless
8 such candidate has certified that any television commercial
9 prepared or distributed by the candidate will be prepared
10 in a manner that contains, is accompanied by, or otherwise
11 readily permits closed captioning of the oral content of the
12 commercial to be broadcast by way of line 21 of the verti-
13 cal blanking interval, or by way of comparable successor
14 technologies.
15 "SEC. 510. SENATE ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND.
16
"(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF CAMPAIGN FUND.-(1)
17 There is hereby established on the books of the Treasury
18 of the United States a special fund to be known as the
19 Senate Election Campaign Fund (hereafter in this section
20 referred to as 'the Fund').
21
"(2) There are hereby appropriated to the Fund the
22 following amounts:
23
"(A) Amounts received in the Treasury
24
which are equivalent to the increase in Federal
25
revenues by reason of the repeal of the exempt
31
1
function income exclusion under section 527 of
2
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for author-
3
ized committees, and the graduated rates under
4
such section for the principal campaign commit-
5
tee, of any candidate who does not abide by the
6
campaign expenditure limits under this title,
7
but only to the extent such amounts do not ex-
8
ceed the amount certified by the Commission as
9
necessary to carry out the purposes of this title.
10
"(B) Amounts received in the Treasury
11
which are equivalent to the increase in Federal
12
revenues by reason of the disallowance of de-
13
ductions for lobbying expenditures, but only to
14
the extent such amounts do not exceed the
15
amount certified by the Commission under sub-
16
paragraph (A) reduced by amounts appro-
17
priated to the Fund under subparagraph (A).
18
"(C) Amounts transferred to the Fund
19
under any provision of this Act.
20
"(D) Amounts credited to the Fund under
21
paragraph (3).
22
"(3) The Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer
23 amounts to, and manage, the Fund in the manner pro-
24 vided under subchapter B of chapter 98 of the Internal
25 Revenue Code of 1986.
t .S 3 PP1S
32
1
"(4) Amounts in the Fund shall, subject to the avail-
2 ability of appropriations, be available only for the purposes
3 of-
4
"(A) providing benefits under this title; and
5
"(B) making expenditures in connection with
6
the administration of the Fund.
7
"(5) The Secretary shall maintain such accounts in
8 the Fund as may be required by this title or which the
9 Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the pro-
10 visions of this title.
11
"(b) PAYMENTS UPON CERTIFICATION.-Up: re-
12 ceipt of a certification from the Commission under section
13 504, except as provided in subsection (c), the Secretary
14 shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, prompt-
15 ly pay the amount certified by the Commission to the can-
16 didate out of the Fund.
17
"(c) REDUCTIONS IN PAYMENTS IF FUNDS INSUFFI-
18 CIENT.-(1) If, at the time of a certification by the Com-
19 mission under section 504 for payment to an eligible can-
20 didate, the Secretary determines that the monies in the
21 Fund are not, or may not be, sufficient to satisfy the full
22 entitlement of all eligible candidates, the Secretary shall
23 withhold from the amount of such payment or voucher
24 such amount as the Secretary determines to be necessary
33
1 to assure that each eligible candidate will receive the same
2 pro rata share of such candidate's full entitlement.
3
"(2) Amounts withheld under paragraph (1) shall be
4 paid when the Secretary determines that there are suffi-
5 cient monies in the Fund to pay all. or a portion thereof.
6 to all eligible candidates from whom amounts have been
7 withheld, except that if only a portion is to be paid, it
8 shall be paid in such manner that each eligible candidate
9 receives an equal pro rata share of such portion.
10
"(3)(A) Not later than December 31 of any calendar
11 year preceding a calendar year in which there is a regu-
12 larly scheduled general election, the Secretary. after con-
13 sultation with the Commission, shall make an estimate
14 of-
15
"(i) the amount of monies in the Fund which
16
will be available to make payments required by this
17
title in the succeeding calendar year: and
18
"(ii) the amount of expenditures which will be
19
required under this title in such calendar year.
20
"(B) If the Secretary determines that there will be
21 insufficient monies in the Fund to make the expenditures
22 required by this title for any calendar year, the Secretary
23 shall notify each candidate on January 1 of such calendar
24 year (or, if later, the date on which an individual becomes
25 a candidate) of the amount which the Secretary estimates
S 3 PP1S-3
34
1 will be the pro rata reduction in each eligible candidate's
2 payments under this subsection. Such notice shall be by
3 registered mail.
4
"(C) The amount of the eligible candidate's contribu-
5 tion limit under section 501(c)(1)(D)(iii) shall be in-
6 creased by the amount of the estimated pro rata reduction.
7
"(4) The Secretary shall notify the Commission and
8 each eligible candidate by registered mail of any actual
9 reduction in the amount of any payment by reason of this
10 subsection. If the amount of the reduction exceeds the
11 amount estimated under paragraph (3), the candidate's
12 contribution limit under section 501(c)(1)(D)(iii) shall be
13 increased by the amount of such excess.".
14
(b) EFFECTIVE DATES.-(1) Except as provided in
15 this subsection, the amendment made by subsection (a)
16 shall apply to elections occurring after December 31,
17 1994.
18
(2) For purposes of any expenditure or contribution
19 limit imposed by the amendment made by subsection (a)—
20
(A) no expenditure made before January 1,
21
1994, shall be taken into account, except that there
22
shall be taken into account any such expenditure for
23
goods or services to be provided after such date; and
24
(B) all cash, cash items, and Government secu-
25
rities on hand as of January 1, 1994, shall be taken
t .8 3 PP18
35
1
into account in determining whether the contribution
2
limit is met, except that there shall not be taken into
3
account amounts used during the 60-day period be-
4
ginning on January 1, 1994, to pay for expenditures
5
which were incurred (but unpaid) before such date.
6
(c) EFFECT OF INVALIDITY ON OTHER PROVISIONS
7 OF ACT.-If section 501, 502, or 503 of title V of FECA
8 (as added by this section), or any part thereof, is held
9 to be invalid, all provisions of, and amendments made by,
10 this Act shall be treated as invalid.
11 SEC. 102. BAN ON ACTIVITIES OF POLITICAL ACTION COM-
12
MITTEES IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS.
13
(a) IN GENERAL.-Title III of FECA (2 U.S.C. 431
14 et seq.), as amended by section 404, is amended by adding
15 at the end thereof the following new section:
16
"BAN ON FEDERAL ELECTION ACTIVITIES BY POLITICAL
17
ACTION COMMITTEES
18
"SEC. 327. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision
19 of this Act, no person other than an individual or a politi-
20 cal committee may make contributions, solicit or receive
21 contributions, or make expenditures for the purpose of in-
22 fluencing an election for Federal office.
23
"(b) In the case of individuals who are executive or
24 administrative personnel of an employer-
25
"(1) no contributions may be made by such
26
individuals—
+ .8 3 PP18
140
1 SEC. 802. BUDGET NEUTRALITY.
2
(a) DELAYED EFFECTIVENESS.-The provisions of
3 this Act (other than this section) shall not be effective
4 until the Director of the Office of Management and Budg-
5 et certifies that the estimated costs under section 252 of
6 the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
7 of 1985 have been offset by the enactment of legislation
8 effectuating this Act.
9
(b) FUNDING.-Legislation effectuating this Act
10 shall not provide for general revenue increases, reduce ex-
11 penditures for any existing Federal program, or increase
12 the Federal budget deficit, but should be funded by dis-
13 allowing the Federal income tax deduction for expenses
14 paid or incurred for lobbying the Federal Government and
15 by repealing the tax exemption under section 527 of the
16 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the exempt function
17 income of the campaign committees of a candidate who
18 exceeds the voluntary Federal campaign spending limits
19 (whether or not the candidate agreed to the limits).
20
(c) CLARIFICATION OF RELATIONSHIP TO POTEN-
21 TIAL RECONCILIATION ACT PROVISIONS.-The amount of
22 increased revenue to the United States that is determined
23 to be attributable to the disallowance of a deduction from
24 income tax for lobbying expenses made by any law shall
25 be paid into the general fund of the Treasury, to reduce
26 the deficit and, to the extent provided by law, shall be used
+ .S 3 PP1S
141
1 to reduce the role of special interests in congressional elec-
2 tions by funding the provision of benefits to candidates
3 to encourage their agreement to campaign expenditure
4 limits.
5 SEC. 803. SEVERABILITY.
6
Except as provided in section 101(c). if any provision
7 of this Act (including any amendment made by this Act).
8 or the application of any such provision to any person or
9 circumstance. is held invalid, the validity of any other pro-
10 vision of this Act, or the application of such provision to
11 other persons and circumstances, shall not be affected
12 thereby.
13 SEC. 804. EXPEDITED REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.
14
(a) DIRECT APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT.-An ap-
15 peal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the
16 United States from any interlocutory order or final judg-
17 ment, decree, or order issued by any court ruling on the
18 constitutionality of any provision of this Act or amend-
19 ment made by this Act.
20
(b) ACCEPTANCE AND EXPEDITION-The Supreme
21 Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the question
22 addressed in the ruling below, accept jurisdiction over. ad-
23 vance on the docket. and expedite the appeal to the great-
24 est extent possible.
.s 3 PP1S
136
1 be ineligible to receive benefits under this chapter on and
2 after the date of the conviction.
3 SEC. 710. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO PRESI-
4
DENTIAL CANDIDATES WHO RECEIVE PUBLIC
5
FUNDING IN THE GENERAL ELECTION CAM-
6
PAIGN.
7
Section 315 of FECA (2 U.S.C. 441a), as amended
8 by section 402, is amended by adding at the end the fol-
9 lowing new subsection:
10
"(o) Except to the extent permitted under sections
11 9003 (b)(2) and (c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of
12 1986, no person shall make a contribution to a candidate
13 who has become eligible to receive benefits under chapter
14 95 of such Code by making a certification described in
15 section 9003 (b) and (c) of such Code.
16 SEC. 711. APPLICATION OF INCREASED REVENUES TO RE-
17
DUCE THE DEFICIT.
18
(a) DEFICIT REDUCTION.-The amount of increased
19 revenue to the United States that is determined to be at-
20 tributable to the disallowance of a deduction from income
21 tax for lobbying expenses made by any law shall be paid
22 into the general fund of the Treasury, to reduce the deficit
23 and, to the extent provided by law, shall be used to reduce
24 the role of special interests in congressional elections by
+ .S 3 PP18
137
1 funding the provision of benefits to candidates to encour-
2 age their agreement to campaign expenditure limits.
3 SEC. 712. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT CONGRESS SHOULD
4
ADOPT A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN
5
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION THAT
6
WOULD EMPOWER CONGRESS AND THE
7
STATES TO SET REASONABLE LIMITS ON
8
CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES.
9
It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should
10 adopt a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
11 Constitution that would-
12
(1) empower Congress to set reasonable limits
13
on campaign expenditures by, in support of, or in
14
opposition to any candidate in any primary, general,
15
or other election for Federal office; and
16
(2) empower the States to set reasonable limits
17
on campaign expenditures by, in support of. or in
18
opposition to any candidate in any primary, general,
19
or other election for State or local office.
20 SEC. 713. SENSE OF THE SENATE.
21
It is the sense of the Senate that every employee in
22 the executive or legislative branch of the Federal Govern-
23 ment shall follow appropriate officially prescribed proce-
24 dures in contacts and dealings with the Federal Bureau
25 of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Servce.
+ .S 3 PP1S
47
1 public inspection and copying in the same manner as the
2 Commission under section 311(a)(4), and shall preserve
3 such reports and filings in the same manner as the Com-
4 mission under section 311(a)(5).
5
"(g) DEFINITIONS.-For purposes of this section.
6 any term used in this section which is used in title V shall
7 have the same meaning as when used in title V.".
8 SEC. 104. DISCLOSURE BY NONELIGIBLE CANDIDATES.
9
Section 318 of FECA (2 U.S.C. 441d), as amended
10 by section 134, is amended by adding at the end thereof
11 the following:
12
"(f) If a broadcast, cablecast, or other communication
13 is paid for or authorized by a candidate in the general
14 election for the office of United States Senator who is not
15 an eligible Senate candidate, or the authorized committee
16 of such candidate, such communication shall contain the
17 following sentence: "This candidate has not agreed to vol-
18 untary campaign spending limits.'.'
19 SEC. 105. EXCESS CAMPAIGN FUNDS OF SENATE CAN-
20
DIDATES.
21
Section 313 of FECA (2 U.S.C. 439a) is amended-
22
(1) by inserting "(a) IN GENERAL.-" before
23
"Amounts"; and
24
(2) by adding at the end the following new sub-
25
section:
+ .S 3 PP1S
48
1
"(b) RETURN OF EXCESS CAMPAIGN FUNDS.-(1)
2 Except as provided in paragraph (2), and notwithstanding
3 subsection (a), if a candidate for the Senate has amounts
4 in excess of amounts necessary to defray campaign ex-
5 penditures for any election cycle, including any fines or
6 penalties relating thereto, such candidate shall, not later
7 than 1 year after the date of the general election for such
8 cycle, expend such excess in the manner described in sub-
9 section (a) or transfer it to the Senate Election Campaign
10 Fund established under section 510.
11
"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any amounts-
12
"(A) transferred to a legal and accounting com-
13
pliance fund established under section 502(c); or
14
"(B) transferred for use in the next election
15
cycle to the extent such amounts do not exceed 20
16
percent of the sum of the primary election expendi-
17
ture limit under section 501(d)(1)(A) and the gen-
18
eral election expenditure limit under section 502(b)
19
for the election cycle from which the amounts are
20
being transferred."
21 SEC. 106. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS.
22
(a) RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS.-
23 Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
24 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
25 the following new section:
.S 3 PPIS
INSIDE CONGRESS
COVER STORY
Senate Passes Campaign Finance
By Gutting Public Funding
Candidates would get money if opponent overspent;
tax on those who break cap would pay the cost
S
enate Democrats, with the help of
tial public funds with a new tax on
seven Republicans, passed a
campaigns that do not comply with
sweeping overhaul of federal cam-
spending limits - four Democrats,
paign finance laws 60-38. But to wrench
besieged by colleagues who said their
the bill out of the reluctant chamber,
support was essential to end a filibus-
Democrats were forced to abandon a
ter, changed their votes after initially
longtime tenet of Democratic reform
voting no. Carol Moseley-Braun, D-
and a cornerstone of President Clin-
III., was one. "It might have hurt my
ton's plan: substantial public funding of
campaign," she explained later, refer-
congressional campaigns.
ring to her upset of an incumbent in
Senate Democrats also were com-
1992. But while the June 16 vote was
pelled to accept a number of amend-
still in progress and the outcome in
R. MICHAEL JENKINS
ments - notably one on May 26 that
question, they switched, and the
Senate leaders hail June 16 votes.
explicitly extended the prohibition on
amendment passed 52-47. (Vote 153,
political action committee (PAC) con-
BOXSCORE
p. 1614)
tributions to the House - that are
Republicans argue that the amend-
anathema to House Democrats.
ment marked a fundamental and un-
(House reaction, p. 1540)
Bill: S3 - Campaign finance.
constitutional shift away from using
Such was the price of winning a 62-
Latest action: Senate passed bill
the carrot of public funding to get can-
37 vote June 16 to choke off debate on
60-38 on June 17.
didates to comply with spending lim-
the bill, S 3. With GOP swing voters
Next likely action: House markup
its, upheld by the Supreme Court in
saying the PAC ban must survive in
(not scheduled).
1976, to the stick of taxation. (Con-
the final bill, coming up with a confer-
stitutional questions, p. 1539)
ence report may prove even more dif-
Background: Senate removed
But for Clinton and congressional
ficult than winning Senate passage.
most public financing for
Democrats, passage of even a watered-
(Cloture, vote 154, p. 1614; passage,
congressional campaigns,
down bill marked progress on an issue
vote 158, p. 1616)
adopted tax on campaigns that
they have proclaimed a high priority
The compromises and questions
do not comply with spending
after weeks of delays on his agenda.
about the bill's future cast a pall over
limits.
At a news conference a few hours
the Democratic victory celebration.
Reference: Senate action,
after the bill passed, Clinton called it
Senate Majority Leader George J.
Weekly Report, pp. 1455, 1338,
"a vast advance over the present law
Mitchell, D-Maine, hailed the mea-
1273; Clinton proposals, p. 1121.
in breaking the back of special interest
sure as a "victory for the American
domination of politics and elections."
people" and said it retained "the es-
(Text, p. 1604)
sence of reform" - spending limits on
Senate campaigns ranging from $1.2
Death of Public Funding?
million to $5.5 million. But even many
GOP Mavericks
In furious floor negotiations in the
of his Democratic colleagues sounded
final 48 hours of debate, Democrats
more relieved that the tedious three-
Seven Republican senators
saw to it that the group of swing Re-
week debate had ended than thrilled
voted to end debate on S 3 (vote
publicans who had outlined nine de-
by the outcome. (Bill highlights, p.
154) and for passage (vote 158):
mands to break the filibuster got just
1536)
enough of what they asked for to box
"It's incremental reform," said Bill
John H. Chafee, R.I.
them into voting yes on cloture. But
Bradley, D-N.J., a leading advocate
William S. Cohen, Maine
that is not to say any in the group came
for public funding.
Dave Durenberger, Minn.
away satisfied with either the bill or the
"It's a great leap sideways," said
James M. Jeffords, Vt.
process, which painfully pitted them
Paul Wellstone, D-Minn.
Nancy Landon Kassebaum, Kan.
against party colleagues who believe
On the amendment that broke the
the bill favors Democrats and incum-
logjam - one that replaced substan-
John McCain, Ariz.
bents. (Key Republicans, p. 1534)
Larry Pressler, S.D.
"I've never been beaten on so in
By Beth Donovan
my life," said James M. Jeffords, R-
CQ
JUNE 19, 1993 - 1533
INSIDE CONGRESS
Vt., one of the seven to
break ranks on the key
New Arithmetic for Campaigns
forced two cloture votes,
separated by four days but
votes. "I'm glad it's over."
just 15 minutes of debate,
"I'm still not thrilled
Here is how a theoretical Senate general-election race
when they knew full well
with the bill," said John
would work if one candidate complied with the spending
both would be soundly de-
McCain, R-Ariz., adding
limits in S3 and the other did not.
feated. The first attempt
that he and others sup-
went down June 10 on a
ported it because "in the
53-41 vote, the second
end, the status quo was
June 15 on a 52-45 vote. In
generally believed to be
neither instance did a sin-
unacceptable."
gle Republican member
Many lawmakers pri-
cross the line. (Vote 146,
vately wondered whether a
Weekly Report, p. 1518;
bill that eliminates PAC
vote 147, p. 1614)
contributions and bars
At the same time, it be-
senators from raising
came quietly but emi-
money out-of-state in the
nently clear that many
first four years of their
Democratic senators were
term without providing
anxious about hitting tax-
much public money could
payers with an estimated
achieve one of its prime
$200 million tab for con-
goals: reducing the amount
gressional campaigns un-
of time senators and candi-
der the original bill, which
dates spend fundraising.
Candidate A
Candidate B
provided public funds
Many foresee the opposite
equal to 25 percent of the
result, a fear echoed in the
House.
Eligibility
spending limit. (The Con-
gressional Budget Office
"Just how are we sup-
estimated that the postal
posed to raise money?"
Candidate A agrees to abide
Candidate B does not agree
subsidies in the final bill
asked a House leadership
by spending limits and wins
to abide by spending limits.
would cost $12 million per
aide when told of the deal.
the primary. He or she
He or she has to report to the
election cycle; no cost esti-
But few hold out any
informs the Federal Election
FEC as spending approaches
mate was available for the
Commission (FEC) after
the state's limit.
hope of reinstating the
full measure.)
public funds that were
raising 5 percent of the state's
limit in contributions of $250
Joseph I. Lieberman,
originally intended to re-
or less from state residents.
D-Conn., said that he had
place "special interest"
changed his view on the is-
money. If little else was
Benefits and Penalties
sue since he supported it in
clear as the bill headed to
1992. Carl Levin, D-Mich.,
the House, where Speaker
joined Jim Exon of Ne-
Thomas S. Foley, D-Wash.,
Candidate A gets to make two
Candidate B must pay tax at
braska, one of the two
said his goal of a floor vote
discounted mailings to every
the highest corporate rate
Democrats to vote against
by the August recess might
voting-age resident and can
(now 34 percent) on all
cloture, on a plan to forgo
slip, the Senate action
buy broadcast ads at half-
campaign receipts.
price within 60 days of the
public funding until a can-
seemed to sound the death
election.
didate complying with
knell for public financing.
spending limits was con-
"I don't think we'll see
fronted with an opponent
public funding returned to
As Spending Escalates
breaking them.
this bill," said Sen. John
Offstage, Democratic
Kerry, D-Mass., who of-
Once Candidate B has spent
The taxes on Candidate B's
senators whispered that
fered an unsuccessful
more than the spending limit
campaignihelp pay for the
past supporters including
amendment to increase
Candidate A gets federally
vouchers given to Candidate
Bob Kerrey, Neb., John D.
public funds to 90 percent
funded vouchers to help pay
Rockefeller IV, W. Va.,
of the spending limit. "The
for ads and mall.
and others were telling
outlook for it is pretty
them of growing reserva-
dim."
MARILYN GATES-DAVIS
tions. Bargaining with the
Even Common Cause, the citizens'
bill goes forward than if it doesn't,"
GOP then became essential not only
group that for more than two decades
said Fred Wertheimer, president of
to win Republican votes for cloture
has trumpeted public funds as "clean
Common Cause.
but to keep the Democrats on board.
campaign money," gave up on the idea
The final deal was worked out
for now. In a move that was pivotal for
The Deal
among Mitchell, David L. Boren, D-
passage but which deeply divided the
For the first three weeks of the
Okla., the lead sponsor of the bill,
group from others supporting the bill,
debate, Democrats held fast to public
Exon and the five Republicans. It was
Common Cause urged senators to vote
funding. Rather than cede ground to
a complicated merger of Exon's back-
for stripping most public funds as the
the Republicans, they repeatedly com-
up funding idea with a tax on cam-
only way to salvage the bill.
plained of a "Republican filibuster."
paign receipts, sponsored by Dave Du-
"We're in a stronger position if this
To underscore the point, Democrats
renberger, R-Minn., and originally
1534 - JUNE 19. 1993
CQ
INSIDE CONGRESS
Campaigns Over Proposed Limits
Below are proposed limits on how much each candidate
the center is the largest amount spent in the most recent
could spend on a Senate campaign (including both pri-
Senate election cycle by a candidate, according to reports
mary and general elections) under S 3, passed by the
of the Federal Election Commission. Campaigns that
Senate on June 17, according to the Rules Committee. In
exceeded the proposed spending limit are highlighted.
State
Proposed Limit
Amount Spent
Candidate, Election
Alabama
$ 2,201,060
$2,451,191
Richard C. Shelby, D, 1992
Alaska
2,004,000
1,663,865
Frank H. Murkowski, R, 1992
Arizona
2,063,285
3,481,915
John McCain, R, 1992
Arkansas
2,004,000
1,878,472
Dale Bumpers, D, 1992
California
8,250,000
10,368,600
Barbara Boxer, D, 1992
Colorado
2,004,000
2,215,791
Terry Considine, R, 1992
Connecticut
2,004,000
4,122,268
Christopher J. Dodd, D, 1992
Delaware
2,004,000
1,888,146
Joseph R. Biden Jr., D, 1990
Florida
5,336,485
2,979,552
Bob Graham, D, 1992
Georgia
3,069,043
4,894,620
Wyche Fowler Jr., D, 1992
Hawaii
2,004,000
2,971,128
Daniel K. Inouye, D, 1992
Idaho
2,004,000
1,305,338
Dirk Kempthorne, R, 1992
Illinois
4,593,335
6,594,570
Carol Moseley-Braun, D, 1992
Indiana
2,755,500
3,802,077
Daniel R. Coats, R, 1992
lowa
2,004,000
2,322,262
Charles E. Grassley, R, 1992
Kansas
2,004,000
1,990,098
Bob Dole, R, 1992
Kentucky
2,066,291
2,076,069
Wendell H. Ford, D, 1992
Louisiana
2,195,549
1,446,199
John B. Breaux, D, 1992
Maine
2,004,000
1,630,894
Neil Rolde, D, 1990
Maryland
2,512,682
3,161,104
Barbara A. Mikulski, D, 1992
Massachusetts
2,928,345
6,234,887
John Kerry, D, 1990
Michigan
3,894,440
6,930,262
Carl Levin, D, 1990
Minnesota
2,308,274
6,222,333
Rudy Boschwitz, R, 1990
Mississippi
2,004,000
567,446
Thad Cochran, R, 1990
Missouri
2,593,343
4,577,895
Christopher S. Bond, R, 1992
Montana
2,004,000
2,409,262
Max Baucus, D, 1990
Nebraska
2,004,000
2,350,326
Jim Exon, D, 1990
Nevada
2,004,000
2,725,713
Harry Reid, D, 1992
New Hampshire
2,004,000
875,675
Judd Gregg, R, 1992
New Jersey
7,698,200
9,563,942
Bill Bradley, D, 1990
New Mexico
2,004,000
1,925,057
Pete V. Domenici, R, 1990
New York
6,720,498
9,175,533
Alfonse M. D'Amato, R, 1992
North Carolina
3,164,650
2,952,102
Lauch Faircloth, R, 1992
North Dakota
2,004,000
1,124,512
Byron L. Dorgan, D, 1992
Ohio
4,424,248
3,999,271
John Glenn, D, 1992
Oklahoma
2,004,000
3,316,336
Don Nickles, R, 1992
Oregon
2,004,000
6,078,359
Bob Packwood, R, 1992
Pennsylvania
4,828,388
8,854,815
Arlen Specter, R, 1992
Rhode Island
2,004,000
2,350,128
Claiborne Pell, D, 1990
South Carolina
2,004,000
3,642,045
Ernest F. Hollings, D, 1992
South Dakota
2,004,000
2,878,375
Tom Daschle, D, 1992
Tennessee
2,560,277
1,630,919
AI Gore, D, 1990
Texas
6,255,820
9,799,104
Phil Gramm, R, 1990
Utah
2,004,000
4,034,241
Robert F. Bennett, R, 1992
Vermont
2,004,000
950,331
Patrick J. Leahy, D, 1992
Virginia
3,012,263
1,155,530
John W. Warner, R, 1990
Washington
2,562,281
2,504,777
Rod Chandler, R, 1992
West Virginia
2,004,000
2,650,320
John D. Rockefeller IV, D, 1990
Wisconsin
2,510,177
5,427,163
Bob Kasten, R, 1992
Wyoming
2,004,000
1,000,462
Alan K. Simpson, R, 1990
CQ
JUNE 19. 1993 1535
INSIDE CONGRESS
Highlights of Campaign Finance Bill
T
he campaign finance bill (S 3) approved by the Senate
making or soliciting contributions to a candidate for a
on June 17 would limit the amount Senate candidates
one-year period from the date of contact with a federal
could spend on general and primary elections in exchange
officeholder, official or staff assistant. Contributors
for certain benefits including an exemption from a new tax
would be prohibited from lobbying for one year.
on congressional campaign receipts. It would also eliminate
Personal funding. A complying candidate could
political action committee (PAC) contributions and restrict
give no more than $25,000 to the campaign.
fundraising and spending by political parties. The Senate
Children's contributions. Children under the age
extended the PAC ban and a ban on election-year mass
of 18 could not contribute to campaigns.
mail by members of Congress to the House, but other
provisions affecting House campaigns will be added later
Incentives and Disincentives
by the House. (Passage, p. 1533)
The bill would take effect immediately upon enact-
Participating candidates would be exempt from a new
ment. Following are highlights.
federal tax on campaign receipts. The tax rate would
equal the highest corporate tax rate, now 34 percent, and
Senate Spending Limits
would be imposed on non-complying candidates.
To be eligible for further benefits, a complying candi-
State limits. The optional spending limit would vary
date would have to win the primary and raise $250,000 or 5
from $1.2 million to $5.5 million in the general election,
percent of the general-election spending limit, whichever is
depending on state population. The primary limit would be
less, in contributions of $250 or less from state residents.
67 percent of the general-election limit or $2.75 million,
The candidate would receive the following benefits:
whichever was less. The limits would be indexed for popula-
Broadcast discounts. A 50 percent discount off the
tion and inflation beginning in 1995. (State limits, p. 1535)
lowest unit rate for broadcast advertising during the 60
Exemptions. Spending for legal and accounting ser-
days before the general election.
vices to comply with federal campaign laws would be
Postal discounts. A discounted postal rate equal to
exempt for up to 15 percent of spending limits or
the nonprofit bulk rate for up to two pieces of mail to
$300,000 per election cycle, whichever is less.
each voting-age resident in the state.
Offsetting vouchers. If the candidate faced an oppo-
Contribution Limits
nent who exceeded the spending limit, the participating
campaign would have its limits lifted in increments up to
In-state
con-
100 percent of the limit. In addition, it would receive, in
tributions. Senate
increments of a third of the limit, federal vouchers for mail
candidates would be
and broadcast ads up to the state spending limit.
permitted to raise or
Independent expenditures. If a complying candi-
accept contributions
date was adversely affected by an independent campaign
only from in-state
that spent more than $10,000, he or she would become
residents except in
eligible for federal communications vouchers equal to the
the two-year cycle
expenditure, with no limit on the maximum. Independent
that contains the
campaigns would be required to notify the Federal Election
election.
Commission (FEC) within 48 hours of obligating to spend
PAC ban. PACs
money, within 24 hours in the last 20 days of an election.
would be prohibited
from contributing to
Party Soft Money
any federal campaign - House, Senate or presidential. If
the Supreme Court struck down the ban, PACs would be
The bill would require all generic party activities at all
limited to contributing $1,000 per campaign per election
times by all party committees to be paid for with funds
cycle; no campaign could receive aggregate PAC contribu-
raised under federal guidelines, so-called hard money. This
tions in excess of 20 percent of the spending limit.
would severely restrict the role of "soft money" - money
Lobbyists. Lobbyists would be prohibited from
raised outside federal guidelines for activities such
proposed by Democratic lawyer Rob-
would go into a fund to provide fed-
deduction for lobbying expenses, part
ert F. Bauer in February.
eral communication vouchers worth
of the deficit-reduction bill. (Deficit
Lifting an existing tax exemption
up to 100 percent of the spending
bill, p. 1542)
for campaigns, the amendment would
limit for any complying candidate who
impose the highest corporate tax rate
faced an opponent who exceeded the
Twisting Democratic Arms
(now 34 percent and likely to rise in
limit. If that money were insufficient,
Before Democrats would allow a
the deficit-reduction bill currently un-
the fund could be supplemented with
vote on the Durenberger-Exon deal,
der Senate consideration) on them un-
money from the Treasury, which
they turned back an amendment that
less the candidate agreed to comply
sponsors said could be counted as
would have stripped all public funding
with spending limits. The revenue
money raised by ending the current
and spending limits. Sponsored by
1536
NE
1993
CQ
INSIDE CONGRESS
As Passed by the Senate on June 17
as voter registration drives - in federal campaigns.
money unless all required information (name, address,
Any party activity that promotes a federal candidate,
occupation, employer) on the donor were provided.
including get-out-the-vote drives and voter registration,
Computerized disclosure. The FEC would be di-
would have to be paid for with hard money.
rected to develop a system for computerized disclosure
In presidential election years, even get-out-the-vote
for political committees.
activities exclusively for state and local candidates would
have to be paid for with hard dollars.
Bundling
National committees could raise soft money only to
supplement party building funds, to buy or rent office
The bill would prohibit bundling of campaign contribu-
space, and to transfer to state parties for state purposes.
tions by all PACs, trade associations, lobbyists, corporate
State parties would be permitted to use soft money
or union officers and employees and agents thereof. In
for certain administrative costs, state level activities in-
bundling, the organizations solicit campaign contributions
cluding polling, building funds and, in odd-numbered
from individuals and pass them on to the candidate.
years, voter-list maintenance.
The bill would prohibit those individuals and organiza-
Fundraising. Federal candidates and officeholders
tions from "directly or indirectly" arranging contributions.
would be prohibited from raising soft money.
Individual contribution limits. The bill would raise
Presidential Campaigns
the limit on what an individual could give to candidates,
parties and political committees to $60,000 per two-year
State fundraising. To qualify for federal matching
election cycle from the current $50,000 limit. Individuals
funds in the primaries, presidential candidates would
could make annual contributions of up to $25,000 to candi-
have to raise $15,000 from 26 states, rather than $5,000
dates, $20,000 to national parties and $20,000 to state party
from 20 states in current law.
federal accounts for a new grass-roots fund.
Grass-roots funds. Candidates who agreed to com-
State grass-roots funds. New state party grass-
ply with spending limits would receive additional federal
roots funds would be established; they could be used only
funds for use in grass-roots campaigns. The sum would
to pay for generic party activities.
be equal to 2 cents per voting-age person or $11 million
in 1996, though it would go up after that.
Non-Party Soft Money
Debates. Candidates accepting public funds would
be required to participate in three debates; vice presi-
The bill would enhance disclosure of political activity
dential candidates would have to participate in one.
by independent and member organizations, including la-
Aggregate Limits. In the primary, candidates would
bor unions. Such organizations currently are not subject
be bound only by aggregate spending and fundraising
to any fundraising restrictions.
limits rather than the state-by-state limits in current law.
These organizations would have to notify the FEC of
expenditures of $2,000 or more 48 hours before disburse-
Miscellaneous
ment. In the last 14 days of an election, seven days'
notice would be required.
Franked mail. Franked mass mail would be prohib-
The bill would enable political parties to respond to
ited in any year the officeholder appeared on the ballot.
such campaigns if they are targeted at a party or slate of
Broadcast disclosure. All political advertisements
candidates. Parties could spend an equal amount from
would be required to include the candidate's photgraph and
newly established "response funds."
an audio statement by the candidate when possible stating
that the sponsoring candidate approved the advertisement.
FEC Compliance and Enforcement
Non-complying candidates would be required to state
in their broadcast communications: "This candidate has
Injunctions. The bill would enable a majority of the
not agreed to voluntary campaign limits."
six FEC commissioners to go to federal court to seek an
Personal use of funds. Campaign funds could not
injunction against a violation.
be spent for personal uses such as home mortgage pay-
Donor identification. Candidates could not spend
ments, clothes, country club memberships and vacations.
Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the
idea. They contend limits are essential
stalemate would look bad for Congress
only Democrat to vote against the fi-
to holding down the amount of time
and Clinton, Mitchell made direct,
nal cloture motion, and Mitch McCon-
senators spend raising funds, and say
personal appeals to many reluctant
nell of Kentucky, the Republican
limits will keep challengers from being
senators. He had publicly resisted
point man on campaign finance, it was
overwhelmed by well-financed incum-
compromise on public funding until
killed June 16 on a 53-44 vote. (Vote
bents.
the last minute, but now portrayed the
148, p. 1614)
"It's like location, location, loca-
vote on Durenberger-Exon as essential
Democrats are divided over many
tion" in real estate value, said Levin.
to passage.
issues in addition to public funding,
"Limits, limits, limits."
"There simply was not majority sup-
but spending limits are a unifying
Building on a perception that a
port for the [broader] system," he said.
CQ
JUNE 19, 1993 - 1537
INSIDE CONGRESS
A History of Spending Limits
T
he Watergate scandal surrounding the presidential
what congressional candidates could spend on their cam-
election of 1972 spawned efforts to limit spending
paigns, but within two years, the Supreme Court declared
on congressional campaigns, building on a 1971 law pro-
mandatory limits unconstitutional. Since then, Congress
viding partial public funding for presidential campaigns.
has been struggling over whether and how to hold down
Legislation enacted in 1974 limited for the first time
spending on congressional races. (Passage, p. 1533)
1974
1985
Congress enacted the Federal Election Campaign Act Amend-
The Senate took an inconclusive test vote on a proposal by
ments (PL 93-443) that imposed for the first time mandatory
Sen. David L. Boren, D-Okla., to limit PAC contributions. (1985
campaign spending limits for congressional candidates. Mem-
Almanac, p. 33)
bers debated whether to extend public financing to House and
Senate races, but the conference committee dropped the idea.
1986
Under the law, Senate candidates were limited to spending 8
The Senate approved proposals to limit PAC contributions
cents per eligible voter (with a $100,000 minimum) for primary
to candidates and political parties, but the bill did not come to a
elections and 12 cents per voter ($150,000 minimum) for the
final vote. (1986 Almanac, p. 42)
general election. For House campaigns, the limit was $70,000 for
the primary and general election. (1974 Almanac, p. 611)
1987
1976
The Democrats, in control of the Senate for the first time in six
years, proposed legislation setting overall campaign spending
On Jan. 30, nine months before Election Day, the Supreme
specified on a state-by-state basis, with public funds provided as
Court struck down the new campaign spending limits. In Buck-
an incentive to comply. Republicans were bitterly opposed. The
ley V. Valeo the court ruled that the mandatory campaign spend-
Senate made seven unsuccessful attempts to end debate on the
ing limits unconstitutionally abridged candidates' First Amend-
issue over the course of three months. (1987 Almanac, p. 33)
ment rights to free expression. The court reasoned that manda-
tory spending caps impinge on a candidate's ability to commu-
1988
nicate freely and forcefully to voters. However, the court al-
lowed voluntary spending limits as a condition for receiving
In late February of the next session debate on the legislation
public funding. (Weekly Report, p. 432)
got so heated and protracted with parliamentary maneuvers
On May 11 legislation was enacted providing federal funds
that Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., exercised an
almost obsolete power to have absent members arrested and
to the 1976 presidential candidates who spent no more than
$50,000 of their own or their family's money. But congressional
brought to the floor. The bill died after a record-breaking eighth
unsuccessful cloture vote. (1988 Almanac, p.41)
spending limits were not addressed. (1976 Almanac, p. 459)
1990
1977
President George Bush promised to veto any legislation with
President Jimmy Carter, the first
spending limits and public financing. Democrats were able to get
president elected with the help of public
each chamber to pass a bill with spending limits, but they could not
funds, introduced legislation in March to
reconcile their two plans. The House bill included incentives for
revamp the electoral system, including
complying with the limits but not public funding. The Senate bill
an extension of public funds to congres-
included public funding. (1990 Almanac, p. 59)
sional candidates who complied with
spending limits. But in Congress, Re-
1991
publicans were nearly unanimous in op-
position, and Democrats were divided. A
Congress essentially replayed the 1990 scenario, with each
bill to establish public financing in Sen-
chamber passing its own bill. Reconciling the two versions was left
ate general elections fell victim to a fili-
to the second session of the Congress. (1991 Almanac, p. 13)
buster in August and was blocked by the
Carter
House Administration Committee in October. (1978 Almanac, p.
1992
769)
A conference report was agreed on in April. It set up a two-
1978
tiered system, with separate rules for each chamber's cam-
paigns. The House set a $600,000 limit for its campaigns; the
House backers failed in two parliamentary maneuvers to
Senate set state-by-state limits ranging from $636,500 to $8.9
attach a public financing proposal to campaign finance bills.
million. Senate candidates who complied would receive vouch-
ers worth 20 percent of the spending limit for TV time and
1979
broadcasting and postage discounts, but the bill included no
mechanism for raising the funds to pay for these benefits.
The House Administration Committee in May rejected legis-
Both chambers approved the conference report in April. Bush
lation to provide partial federal funding of House general elec-
vetoed the measure May 9, calling it "a taxpayer-financed incum-
tion contests. A bill to limit contributions from political action
bent protection plan." The Senate fell nine votes short of overriding
committees (PACs) passed the House but died in a Senate
May 13. (1992 Almanac, p. 63)
filibuster. (1979 Almanac, pp. 551, 556)
-Пуве J. Veron
1538 JUNE 19. 1993
CQ
INSIDE CONGRESS
A Constitutional Question
T
establish congressional
tion do not depend on the content of their activities.
campaign spending limits
"Government has a lot of power to impose taxes
as "voluntary" - a constitu-
under its constitutional taxing power," says Thomas M.
tional imperative - Senate
Durbin, a legislative attorney with the Congressional
Democrats approved a deal
Research Service (CRS). In mid-March, long before leg-
that calls for a new tax on
islative language was prepared, CRS prepared a paper
campaigns that do not comply
finding the concept could be crafted without constitu-
with the limits. But they did so
tional problems.
without determining whether
To Democrats, the bill meets constitutional muster
the tax was constitutional.
because it does not discriminate against any political party
After repeated questioning
and it does not affect the content of political speech.
by reporters, Majority Leader
Opponents of the plan sharply differ.
George J. Mitchell, D-Maine, a
"If there was a tax on people who wanted to worship
McConnell
former federal judge, said
on Saturday instead of Sunday, everyone would recog-
June 17 only that he had not studied the issue, but one way
nize that as unconstitutional," says Robert Peck of the
or the other, "that provision is severable."
American Civil Liberties Union. "This doesn't differ."
Republicans, by contrast, did not mince words: "It's
Peck argues that in Grosjean U. American Press
DOA in the court," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, Ky., the
Company (1936), the court found unconstitutional a
Republican leader against the campaign finance bill (S
Louisiana tax on large newspapers that printed ad-
3) passed by the Senate on June 17. (Passage, p. 1533)
vertisements on grounds that the press can be taxed on
In its 1976 decision Buckley U. Valeo, the Supreme
gross revenues, like any business, but not on its content.
Court ruled that campaign spending in a mass media
Opponents also point to Speiser v. Randall (1958), in
age amounted to free speech and thus could not be
which the court rejected a tax exemption for those who
infringed on. The court found limits tolerable only when
took a loyalty oath.
they are voluntary as it approved a system of public-
Another legal question involves whether the new tax
funding incentives for presidential campaigns. (Back-
is punishment for those who reject limits or the contin-
ground, Weekly Report p. 431)
ued exemption is instead a benefit for those who accept
Senate Democrats sought a way to preserve spending
them. And the answer is much like whether a glass is
limits while backing away from the 25 percent public
half full or half empty. The amendment would modify
funding level set in the original bill. They found it in the
an exemption in Section 527 of the Internal Revenue
proposal to repeal an existing tax exemption for cam-
Service Code that now applies to all campaigns.
paigns that reject limits.
Even if the court finds the tax punitive, it could still
Supporters of the concept argue that Congress has
find that there is a compelling state interest for an
broad tax authority that is used to encourage or discour-
infringement on a First Amendment right. The court in
age a variety of behaviors. Further, they say, in Tax-
Buckley found corruption or the appearance of corrup-
ation with Representation of Washington U. Regan
tion to be the only reason to tread on political spending.
(1983), the court ruled that Congress can exempt orga-
The current court is untested on all of these issues.
nizations from taxes as long as the guidelines for exemp-
-Beth Donovan
In drafting the compromise
observers, Common Cause's endorse-
not come until after a primary.
amendment, Mitchell invited Kerry
ment was as important as Clinton's.
"Another letter that no one's going
in. His role as a public funding stal-
"The turning point was the sup-
to read that's no help to a chal-
wart sent an important signal to other
port of Common Cause," said a source
lenger," said Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-
liberals, and he successfully argued to
close to Democratic leaders. "Once
Del., of the deal he reluctantly sup-
retain Treasury funding for the bill if
they knew they wouldn't be ham-
ported.
the tax revenues were inadequate or
mered from the left and the right, it
"It's incumbent protection mas-
struck down by the courts. Kerry also
broke open."
querading as reform," said Gene Kar-
backed an increase in the discounted
But if the group's backing was crit-
pinski, executive director of U.S. Pub-
mail allowance from one piece per
ical to passage, it infuriated others
lic Interest Research Group, an
voter to two.
who see public funds early in the cam-
organization that backed public fund-
The White House quietly signaled
paign as essential to leveling the play-
ing to the end.
that the deal was acceptable. "It's im-
ing field for challengers. The benefits
portant that the process not break
for complying candidates - including
Republican Votes for Cloture
down on the Senate floor," said a
a mailing discount for two letters per
If the process stretched Demo-
White House aide two hours before
voter, a 50 percent broadcast discount
cratic alliances, it splintered Republi-
the vote. "I don't see a scenario in
and backup funds in the event of an
cans. Led by McConnell, Republican
which we pull the bill down and im-
independent campaign or a big-spend-
stalwarts argue vociferously that
prove it later."
ing opponent - appeared a pittance
spending limits lock in the advantages
According to several senators and
to some, particularly because they do
of incumbency for Democrats. They
CQ
JUNE 19. 1993 - 1539
INSIDE CONGRESS
Senate vs. House
O
ver the past decade, the Senate has always had an
A large bloc of Democrats de-
easier time passing campaign finance legislation
mand public funding. In addition to
than the House, and the Senate bill has always set the
those who see public money as
high-water mark for reformist groups such as Common
"clean money," many members say
Cause.
it is essential to offset proposed re-
There is nothing to suggest that this year will be
strictions on fundraising such as po-
different. In fact, with a Democratic president eager to
litical action committee (PAC) lim-
sign a bill, the contretemps in the House could escalate
its that affect House members more
as members realize their actions could soon govern their
than senators.
campaigns. Beyond congratulating their Senate col-
"We cannot pass a ban on all PAC
leagues for doing something by passing S 3, House Dem-
funding," said House Majority Lead-
ocrats had few kind words for the Senate bill. (Senate
er Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo.
Synar
action, p. 1533)
In its way stands a coalition composed of senior
"I think what the Senate produced is really abys-
members who easily reel in PAC dollars and minority,
mal," said Rep. Vic Fazio, Calif., who chairs the Demo-
female and rural members who are dependent on PACs.
cratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "What's left
They have support in high places.
is a shambles. They've capitulated to the minority."
"The notion that political action committees are
some kind of an essential evil is flat-out wrong," House
An Unexpected Alliance
Speaker Thomas S. Foley, D-Wash., said June 18. "The
The same factions that tried to buck the Senate
royal road to fairness is public financing, and the fact
compromise - members who oppose all public funds
that it is unpopular does not change its essential merit,"
and those who want more - are stronger and better
he added.
organized in the House.
House leaders say they expect their bill, which has
Although only 20 House Democrats opposed the bill
not been introduced yet, to differ substantially from the
that was vetoed in 1992, opponents of public financing, led
Senate on a variety of issues, including contribution
by Glen Browder, D-Ala., have increased their numbers
bundling and "soft," or unregulated, money as well as
with deficit angst high and a tax bill pending. Their
PACs. And Gephardt said of demands from across the
strength persuaded Mike Synar, D-Okla., long a stalwart
Capitol that the final bill have identical rules for House
for public funds, to release June 18 a bipartisan bill that
and Senate campaigns: "If the Republicans in the Sen-
strips all public funding. Browder did not endorse that bill
ate are saying that, we're not going to get a bill. We can't
because it also eliminated spending limits. (Synar, Weekly
pass that."
Report, p. 1339; previous action, 1992 Almanac, p. 63)
-Beth Donovan and Phil Kuntz
also say tight new restrictions on party
votes to end debate and pass the bill.
by several accounts, had indicated to
spending will undermine the GOP's
Along the way, six of the seven Re-
Republican leaders that he would not
ability to defend itself against unregu-
publicans who voted for the bill got
cast the decisive vote. In the end,
lated, unlimited spending by labor
their amendments included. McCain
Democrats had two votes to spare.
unions in behalf of Democrats.
got language added to restrict the per-
The renegade Republicans were also
"It's very emotional," said Jeffords
sonal use of campaign funds; Jeffords
cut some slack because of a divide
of his discussions with fellow Republi-
won support for added disclosure of
among their brethren. Some Republi-
cans. "You've got people who feel
labor spending; John H. Chafee, R.I.,
cans believed that the best course of
their lives are threatened, who believe
won on an amendment to restrict out-
action was to kill the bill in the Senate;
it means the end of the Republican
of-state fundraising to the final two
others preferred to let House Demo-
Party."
years of a Senate term; Larry Pressler,
crats or a conference committee do it in.
On an ideological plane, any public
S.D., strengthened the PAC ban; and
"I think maybe with the help of
funding of congressional campaigns is
Cohen stripped language designed to
House Democrats and the Democratic
a misuse of taxpayer dollars to many
strengthen the Federal Election Com-
cloakroom cheering the Republicans on,
Republicans, who dub it "food stamps
mission in a way Republicans feared
this bill can be defeated," said Senate
for politicians."
would be partisan.
Republican leader Bob Dole of Kansas
Even for several of the Republi-
But until the last moment, it was
moments after the bill passed.
cans who were working toward a com-
not at all clear that there would be 60
In the end, senators in both parties
promise with Democrats, the rela-
votes to end debate without which
seemed simply to want to move on to
tively small amount of public money
Mitchell had said the bill would die at
other matters. And with voters, edito-
left in the bill was a problem.
the end of the week.
rial writers and Ross Perot clamoring
"It's like saying I'm a little bit
Cohen reportedly extracted a last-
for reform, passage seemed the only way
pregnant," said McCain of the deal.
minute pledge to eliminate the FEC
to keep the issue from shadowing them
He and William S. Cohen, R-Maine,
language - "Why do you think we
for months and perhaps years.
voted against the Durenberger-Exon
went along with it?" asked a Demo-
"I supported it as the best we can
amendment but supported the final
cratic leadership aide and McCain,
do," said Moseley-Braun.
1540 - JUNE 19, 1993
CQ
POLITICS
Georgia, North Carolina and Texas.
REDISTRICTING
Yet Republicans will have only three
Southern Democratic targets next
"We're seeing a number of
year: Virginia's Charles S. Robb and
Maine Court Issues
the two Tennessee seats held by Jim
states where incumbency is the
Sasser and Harlan Mathews.
problem regardless of party
Remap Plan
Instead. most of the seats at risk
are in Frost Belt states rimming
label, and it doesn't have
The initial process of congressional
the Great Lakes or bordering Canada.
anything to do with who is in
redistricting for the 1990s came to a
Clinton does not seem inherently un-
the White House."
quiet close June 29, when the Su-
popular in this region. All but four of
preme Judicial Court of Maine issued
the Democratic senators running in
-Don Foley,
a new and non-controversial map for
1994 represent states that Clinton
carried. and two of the exceptions -
DSCC executive director
the state's two House districts.
The new map will be in effect for the
Nebraska's Bob Kerrey and North
1994 House campaign; all other multi-
Dakota's Kent Conrad -- start their
district states had new maps in place for
re-election campaigns as strong favor-
cause his supporters would mainly be
the 1992 elections. Maine is the only
ites.
casting "anti-incumbent votes."
state that defers redistricting until after
A number of Democratic incum-
Republican consultant Eddie
the first election that follows the decen-
bents also represent states that - for
Mahe, though, fears "a raft of third-
nial reapportionment of House seats.
whatever reason have not elected a
party candidates waving their United
The enactment of the Maine plan
Republican senator in more than two
We Stand America credentials and
does not necessarily set all the House
decades.
pulling 6, 8, 10 percent of the vote"
districts in place for the rest of the
Massachusetts (Kennedy), Michi-
that a number of GOP candidates
decade. Several states are measuring
gan (Riegle), Nebraska (Kerrey) and
might need for victory.
the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court
New Jersey (Frank R. Lautenberg)
Democratic strategists are unsure
ruling June 28 in the case of Shaw U.
have not elected a GOP senator since
whether Perot will play much of a role
Reno, in which the constitutionality of
1972. In Hawaii (Daniel K. Akaka)
in the 1994 Senate races, given his
"bizarrely" shaped districts designed
and Ohio (Howard M. Metzenbaum),
low-key involvement in the Texas spe-
to increase minority representation
the Republican drought extends back
cial election that featured an eleventh-
was questioned. (Weekly Report, p.
to 1970. In Byrd's West Virginia, the
hour endorsement of Republican Kay
1761)
GOP has not won a Senate race since
Bailey Hutchison. "His impact will be
Maine's new districts, however,
1956.
noticeable but less significant than
have regular contours and few minor-
when he himself is the candidate,"
Reform and Perot
ity-group residents and are unlikely to
says Graham.
face serious legal challenges.
Several big question marks hang
The map changes the existing dis-
over the 1994 Senate picture. One is
Lingering Uncertainty
tricts only slightly. According to the
the scope of any new campaign fi-
Strategists of both parties, though,
1990 census, the 1st District had
nance legislation. Another is Ross
agree that the electorate in 1994 is apt
45,044 more residents than did the
Perot.
to be at least as volatile as in 1992. In
2nd District, requiring the shift of
The campaign finance bill passed
that regard, next year's Senate races
about half that many people to bal-
by the Senate in June makes basic
could end up being a lot like those in
ance the populations. (District de-
changes in the way senators would
1978, the last midterm election season
scriptions. p. 1827)
have to finance their next campaign.
during which Democrats controlled
That was accomplished by reunit-
Even if a final version delayed imple-
both Congress and the White House.
ing Waldo County, which had been
mentation until 1996, senators up in
Then, Democrats lost a net of
split between the districts under the
1994 would be challenged to abide by
three Senate seats (dropping from 61
previous map, within the 2nd, and by
the new ground rules.
to 58), but that modest number ob-
moving five small towns in Kennebec
The Senate-passed version calls
scured the fact that a quiet revolution
County from the 1st to the 2nd.
for voluntary state spending limits
had taken place.
The swapped territory is mainly ru-
and a ban on political action commit-
Republicans picked up eight seats
ral and Republican-leaning, so 1st Dis-
tee (PAC) contributions. A spending
from the Democrats. Democrats
trict Democratic Rep. Thomas H. An-
cap could significantly affect the Sen-
grabbed five seats from the Republi-
drews had no qualms about donating it
ate ambitions of a well-heeled aspi-
cans. In all, three senators were beaten
to the 2nd, currently represented by
rant such as Republican Rep. Michael
in primaries, seven lost in the general
Republican Olympia J. Snowe.
Huffington of California. A PAC ban
election, and 10 retired, resulting in
Although there were few hitches in
could hurt Democrats in general be-
the largest freshman class since 1946.
redrawing the House map, it was
cause in the past they have been more
Democratic consultant Geoffrey
packaged with state House and Senate
dependent on PAC money. The mea-
Garin believes that the current politi-
redistricting plans that caused rancor
sure faces an uncertain future in the
cal climate could be even more volatile
among state legislators whose constit-
House.
this time.
uencies were being redrawn. When the
As for Perot, his effect on the 1994
"I can't recall a time when public
Legislature's efforts to pass the pack-
Senate contests depends on the angle
opinion was as much a moving target
age ended in stalemate, the job fell to
at which he is viewed. Gramm voices
as right now," he says. "I'm happy the
the state Supreme Court.
confidence that on balance Perot
elections are in November of 1994"
would help Republican candidates be-
and not July 1993.
By Bob Benenson
1826 - 10. 1993
CQ
RECONCILIATION
OTHER PROGRAM CHANGES
northern spotted owl, Clinton promised $1.2 billion in eco-
nomic assistance over the next five years to offset the jobs
Commerce
that would be lost. To meet that goal, the formula used to
determine how much counties will receive from federal
timber sales will be changed.
Radio spectrum. When President Clinton and Con-
Conferees also dropped a House provision that sought
gress embraced former President George Bush's plan to
to raise $10 million in fiscal 1994 by imposing a surcharge
auction radio licenses to the highest bidder, broadcasters
for the water used by farmers and other irrigators.
were assured they would be exempt from paying for their
-Laura Michaelis and Catalina Camia
use of the airwaves.
Indeed, the public broadcast portion of the spectrum
Banking
remain exempt from auctions in the reconciliation agree-
ment. But in a last-minute deal struck the week of Aug. 2,
conferees slapped television and radio stations and all
Only technical changes were required to complete the
other licensees with new user fees intended to raise an
House and Senate Banking committees' contributions to
average of $100 million annually for the Federal Communi-
the bill.
cations Commission (FCC).
The committees had earlier agreed to a $3.1 billion
House Energy and Commerce Chairman John D. Din-
deficit-reduction package that would:
gell, D-Mich., has long wanted to make users of the air-
Produce $750 million in savings from a "depositor pref-
waves foot most of the FCC's $130 million annual budget.
erence" law that would pay depositors ahead of other credi-
Users currently pay fees only for services rendered, such as
tors when the assets of failed banks and thrifts are liqui-
license renewals or permission to put up a new tower.
dated.
In the commerce subconference on the reconciliation,
Raise about $730 million through Government National
Dingell got Senate Commerce Chairman Ernest F. Holl-
Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) guarantee fees on a
ings, D-S.C., to drop his past opposition to the fees.
new type of mortgage-backed security called real estate
As a result, a VHF television station in a major market
mortgage investment conduits, or REMICs.
would have to pay $18,000 annually to the FCC or lose its
Gain about $1 billion in savings by allowing the Depart-
license. A small FM radio station, by contrast, would pay
ment of Housing and Urban Development access to IRS
$600. One satellite would cost up to $90,000.
income data to eliminate or cut the benefits of those found
The overall auction proposal overturns the current pol-
to be ineligible for housing programs.
icy of handing out radio licenses free through lottery or
Save $416 million through faster amortization of
merit review. It was largely uncontroversial, except for a
upfront Federal Housing Administration mortgage insur-
discrepancy over how much revenue it would raise.
ance premiums.
(Weekly Report, p. 2044)
Tap the Federal Reserve's surplus fund for $213 million
The Congressional Budget
in fiscal 1997-98.
Office has estimated that com-
-Andrew Taylor
petitive bidding of licenses
would raise $7.2 billion over five
Campaign Finance
years. But the Budget commit-
tees in Congress and Clinton's
Office of Management and Bud-
Presidential checkoff: Majority Leader George J.
get - under pressure to maxi-
Mitchell, D-Maine, included language in the Senate bill to
mize the bill's deficit-reduction
raise the taxpayer checkoff for the presidential campaign
targets - argued that the auc-
fund from $1 to $3. This was necessary to ensure that the
tions probably would raise as
fund did not run out of money before the 1996 campaign
much as $10 billion.
and had to be done in time to get on the 1993 tax return.
Only holders of radio licenses who sell access to the
House conferees went along with the Senate provision,
airwaves, such as cellular phone companies, will be re-
though they balked at a conference proposal to index the
quired to bid for the right to hold a license.
checkoff for inflation.
The bill also would launch the new "personal communi-
The checkoff was established by the 1974 campaign
cations services" (PCS) industry by making room on the
finance bill, and 1976 presidential candidates were the first
airwaves for new wireless communications devices such as
to benefit. The law allowed taxpayers to divert $1 of their
laptop computers and pocket-sized telephones.
tax bill to the fund from general revenues.
It would order the FCC to transfer 200 megahertz of
Lobbying expenses: The bill would disallow busi-
radio spectrum from government use to pave the way for
nesses from deducting expenses incurred by lobbying
PCS entrepreneurs. The bill also sets the regulatory land-
elected officials or senior government personnel, or by en-
scape for PCS by making new wireless services subject to a
gaging in political activity in behalf of any candidate, cam-
nationwide set of rules and treating them as "common
paign, referendum or legislative matter. It also would pro-
carriers" like today's telephone companies.
hibit businesses from deducting membership dues that are
States would largely lose their powers to set rates for
used for lobbying.
wireless services. Sen. Richard H. Bryan, D-Nev., won lan-
The campaign finance bill passed by the Senate envi-
guage to allow 19 states that currently set rates for cellular
sions a share of the funds raised by this provision being
services to retain those rights, though they must apply to
used to pay for limited public financing of congressional
the FCC within a year to show why they should be allowed
campaigns. To accomplish that, offsetting revenues would
to continue doing so.
have to be generated.
Conferees dropped from the proposal a Senate bid to
-Beth Donovan
assure that more than 1,000 land-based telephone compa-
CQ
AUGUST 7, 1993 - 2139
FOR THE RECORD
PROVISIONS
Campaign Finance Provisions
D
uring three weeks of floor action, the Senate rewrote its
but vetoed by President George Bush. (1992 Almanac, p. 63)
proposal to overhaul the laws that govern financing of
Initial versions of the legislation would have delayed its
congressional (and to some degree presidential) campaigns.
effective date to the 1996 elections. The current measure
The bill (S 3) that passed 60-38 on June 17 was significantly
would take effect on enactment except where otherwise
changed from the one that the Senate Rules Committee
noted; several major provisions have a delay. (Story, p. 2215)
approved March 18. The earlier version (S Rept 103-41) was
Following are the provisions of S 3 as passed by the
almost identical to the measure cleared by Congress in 1992
Senate.
Senate Campaigns
his or her spending limit would rise dollar for dollar with no
maximum.
Eligibility. To qualify for a federal tax exemption on campaign
Exemptions. Certain disbursements would not count against
receipts, a candidate would have to file a federal declaration stating
the spending limits:
that he or she would comply with numerous federal mandates,
Compliance funds. Spending for legal and accounting services
including:
to comply with federal campaign laws would be exempt from federal
(1) Spending limits in the primary, runoff and general elections;
limits up to 15 percent of the aggregate state spending limit with a
(2) Federal contribution limits, including a prohibition on con-
maximum of $300,000 per election cycle.
tributions from political action committee (PAC) contributions; and
Contributions to a compliance fund would count against cam-
(3) A $25,000 limit on personal expenditures and loans.
paign contribution limits for individuals.
After the primary, to qualify for limited federal aid and broad-
After the general election, a candidate could petition the Federal
cast and postal discounts, a candidate would have to win a place on
Election Commission to spend additional funds if needed to comply
the general-election ballot and face an opponent there. A candidate
with federal election laws.
would then file a declaration stating that he or she:
Travel to Washington, D.C. Expenses incurred by an office-
(1) Did not exceed primary or runoff spending limits;
holder or an eligible candidate and his or her spouse and children
(2) Will comply with the federal limits on spending, contribu-
for travel between Washington, D.C., and a candidate's home state
tions and other mandates during the general-election period;
would be exempt from spending limits.
(3) Has raised 5 percent of the general-election spending limit
(up to a maximum of $250,000) in contributions of $250 or less from
Benefits
in-state residents during the current election cycle.
Tax exemption. Under current law, campaign committees are
Spending Limits
exempt from paying taxes on receipts from contributions to political
committees. That exemption would be repealed and a new exemp-
Limits. Optional spending limits for Senate candidates would
tion would be established for campaigns that agree to comply with
vary according to state population. The limit would range from a
the provisions of this bill. Campaigns that did not agree to comply
high of $8.25 million for a candidate in California to $2 million in
with spending limits and other federal mandates would be required
small states.
to pay the highest federal corporate tax (now 34 percent) on all
General election. The general-election spending limit would
receipts.
not exceed $5.5 million or fall below $1.2 million. Within those
Postage. In the general election, eligible candidates would be
parameters, spending levels would be set by the following formula:
permitted to send up to two pieces of mail to each voting age
30 cents multiplied by the voting age population up to 4 million
resident at a rate equal to the nonprofit bulk rate, the lowest mail
people; and 25 cents multiplied by the voting age population over 4
cost (currently 11.1 cents apiece).
million.
Broadcast discounts. Television broadcasters would be re-
In New Jersey or any other state that has no more than one
quired to sell advertising time to eligible candidates at 50 percent of
VHF television station, the formula would be: 80 cents multiplied
the lowest unit rate for comparable time. Political advertisements
by the voting age population up to 4 million; 70 cents for each
could not be pre-empted by the broadcaster.
voting age person above that.
The discounts would apply during the 60 days before a general
The formulas would be indexed for inflation beginning in 1997.
election. They would not apply to ads purchased with federal funds
Primary election. The primary spending limit would be 67
to counter an independent expenditure.
percent of the general-election limit or no more than $2.75 million.
Public funding. In the general election, candidates would be
In states that require a runoff, when no candidate receives an
provided with federal funds in the following circumstances:
absolute majority in the general election, the limit for the runoff
Free-spending opponent. If an eligible candidate faced a
would be 20 percent of the general-election limit.
non-complying opponent, the eligible candidate would receive fed-
Exceptions. The spending limits would rise in the following
eral funds in increments of one-third of the spending limit (up to
circumstances:
100 percent) as an opponent raised, spent or obligated to spend
Free-spending opponent. If an eligible candidate faced an
funds above the general-election limit.
opponent who raised, spent or obligated to spend funds in excess of
Independent expenditure. If a complying candidate were
the spending limit, the spending limit would rise in increments of
adversely affected by an independent campaign that spent more
one-third up to 100 percent of the limit. An eligible candidate could
than $10,000, he or she would become eligible for federal funds
begin raising money above the spending limit immediately upon
equal to the expenditure, with no limit on the maximum.
learning that he or she would face a non-complying major-party
Funding offset. Benefits would be paid from a new Senate
candidate.
Campaign Fund that would receive money generated by the repeal
Independent expenditures. If an eligible candidate faced an
of the tax exemption for campaigns and the disallowance of
adversarial independent campaign that spent $10,000 or more,
deductions for lobbying expenses. If those sources did not appear
likely to generate sufficient revenues, candidates would be notified
By Beth Donovan
by Jan. 1 of an election year that federal benefits may prorated.
CQ
AUGUST 14, 1993 - 2239
FOR THE RECORD
The fund would receive funds only as necessary to pay for
District of Columbia, which would be directed to give it expedited
benefits.
handling.
Injunctions. The bill would enable a majority of the FEC's six
Contribution Limits
commissioners to seek injunctive relief in federal court for any
violation of federal election law.
In-state contributions. Complying Senate candidates would
Donor identification. No candidate would be permitted to
be permitted to raise or accept funds only from residents of their
spend a contribution unless all information on the donor currently
home state except in the two-year cycle that contains their election.
required (name, address, occupation and employer) were provided.
PAC ban. PACs would be prohibited from contributing to any
Computerized disclosure. The FEC would be directed to
federal campaign beginning Jan. 1, 1995. All PAC money raised
develop a system for computerized disclosure for political commit-
before Jan. 1, 1994, could be spent by an eligible candidate;
tees.
opponents of candidates who raised PAC money prior to that date
could raise PAC money up to the amount received by the candidate
Non-Complying Candidates
after then.
If the U.S. Supreme Court were to strike down the ban, PACs
Tax liability. Non-complying candidates would be subject to a
would be limited to contributing $1,000 per campaign per election
new federal tax equal to the highest corporate rate (now 34 percent)
(primary and general); no campaign could receive PAC contribu-
on all campaign receipts, including contributions from a candidate
tions in excess of 20 percent of the spending limit or $825,000,
to his or her own campaign.
whichever is less. The latter figure would be indexed for inflation
Expenditure disclosure. In addition to routine FEC filings
annually beginning in 1997. The amount an individual could
currently required, in the general election, non-complying candi-
contribute to a PAC would drop to $1,000 from $5,000.
dates would have to notify the government within two business days
(These provisions would also apply to House and presidential
of raising, spending or obligating to spend funds in excess of 75
campaigns.)
percent of the spending limit. Additional disclosures would be
Lobbyists. Lobbyists would be prohibited from making con-
required within two business days when the candidate raised. spent
tributions to or soliciting them for a candidate for a one-year period
or obligated funds in excess of 85 percent. 95 percent, 100 percent,
from the date of contact with the federal officeholder, official or
133 percent, 166 percent and 200 percent of the spending limit. The
staff assistant. Contributors would be prohibited from lobbying the
reports would have to detail all funds raised and spent and be
recipient of their contributions for one year after making a con-
provided to the opponent within two business days.
tribution.
Disclaimer. All advertisements would be required to include
(These provisions would be extended to House and presidential
the following disclaimer: "This candidate has not agreed to volun-
campaigns.)
tary campaign spending limits."
Personal funds. A complying candidate could not contribute
or lend his or her campaign more than $25,000 during an election
Soft Money
cycle. Candidates would be prohibited from raising money to pay off
a personal loan after the election.
"Soft money" is the term used to describe money raised under
state laws and then spent to influence federal elections - for
FEC, Enforcement and Penalties
instance, on a state party phone bank or get-out-the-vote drive.
Because federal campaign finance laws are generally stricter than
Filing. All reports would have to be filed with the Secretary of
state laws, it is easier to raise large donations from wealthy interests
the Senate and transmitted to the Federal Election Commission
under state law. In recent years, presidential campaigns in particu-
(FEC) within four working hours.
lar have raised large amounts of soft money to circumvent restric-
Election week. Any report or notice required by any activity
tions on presidential campaign spending. (Soft money, Weekly
in the final seven days of an election would have to be made within
Report, p. 1195)
24 hours.
The bill seeks to bring under federal guidelines all contributions
Federal, state and local officeholders. Anyone who held
to local, state and federal party committees that would be used to
elective office and spent money from a non-Senate campaign
influence a federal election.
treasury to promote his or her image or name recognition or for any
Generic party activity. The bill would require all voter
other purpose in an election cycle in which he or she becomes a
registration and generic party activity - campaign activity that
Senate candidate would be required to disclose that spending within
promotes a political party rather than any particular federal candi-
two days of becoming a candidate. The FEC would make a decision
date to be paid for with funds raised under federal guidelines, so-
as to whether the spending should be counted against Senate
called hard money.
campaign spending limits.
Promoting federal candidates. Any party activity by a
Audits. The FEC would be directed to audit every campaign
national, state or local party committee that promotes a federal
that received benefits under the bill and to conduct random audits
candidate would have to be paid for with hard money, even if state
throughout an election cycle.
candidates were also promoted. Any other activity that would
Excess spending. Penalties would be assessed and criminal
"significantly affect" a federal election would also have to be paid
charges could be pressed against any candidate who received
for with hard money.
benefits under this bill and was found to have exceeded the
Presidential election years. In presidential election years,
spending limit in the primary, runoff or general election.
all get-out-the-vote activity, even that designed exclusively for state
Civil penalties. A candidate who exceeded the limit by 2.5
and local candidates, would have to be paid for with hard money.
percent or less would pay a penalty equal to the excess expenditure;
National party committees. National party committees
a candidate who exceeded the limit by more than 2.5 percent but
could raise soft money only to supplement party building funds
less than 5 percent would pay a penalty equal to three times the
used to buy or rent office space and to transfer to state and local
excess expenditure; a candidate who exceeded the limit by more
parties for non-federal functions.
than 5 percent would pay a penalty equal to three times the excess
National party committees could transfer hard money to state
expenditure and, if it were found to have been a willful violation,
party grass-roots funds for generic party activity and to other state
would have to repay the government for all benefits provided under
party federal accounts.
the bill.
State party committees. State party committees would be
Criminal penalties. A candidate, treasurer, campaign man-
permitted to raise and spend soft money for certain administrative
ger or other senior campaign official who knowingly violated the
and overhead costs and party activities including meetings, conven-
act could be tried for aiding and abetting a federal crime.
tions, polling, building funds and, in odd-numbered years, voter-list
Judicial review. Any action by the FEC in carrying out this
maintenance.
bill could be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Grass-roots funds. New state party grass-roots funds would
2240 AUGUST 14, 1993
CQ
be established and would accept only money raised in compliance
an advertisement or communication that, as a whole, expresses
with federal guidelines. Individuals could contribute up to $20,000
support for or opposition to an eligible candidate and is made
per year. Generic party activities would be funded by the grass-
without the participation or cooperation of any candidate or cam-
roots accounts.
paign.
Fundraising. Federal candidates and officeholders would be
Prohibitions. The measure would specifically prohibit inde-
prohibited from raising soft money. Costs associated with raising
pendent expenditures by party committees, their officers, employ-
hard money would have to be paid for with hard money, even if soft
ees and consultants they employ.
money was also raised at the event.
The bill would preclude virtually all contact between candidates,
campaigns, party committees and their consultants and any individ-
Non-Party Soft Money
ual or group making an independent expenditure.
Broadcasters. An independent campaigner would have to
The bill would enhance disclosure of political activity and
notify a broadcaster of an intent to purchase advertising time. The
internal political communications by independent and member
station in turn would have to inform the other candidates, who
organizations, including labor unions, and would provide candidates
would be permitted to purchase time to respond immediately
and parties with the means to respond to adversarial activity. Such
afterward.
organizations are subject to very limited disclosure under current
Federal and state disclosure. Independent campaigners
law.
would by required to notify federal and state officials within 48
Disclosure. Such groups would have to disclose 48 hours in
hours of obligating to make expenditures aggregating more than
advance any expenditures on political activities adding up to $2,000
$1,000, within 24 hours in the final 20 days of an election.
or more. In the final 14 days of an election, seven days' advance
Additional disclosures would be required each time obligations or
notice would be required. The reports would be made available to
expenditures aggregating $10,000 were made in the same election.
the affected candidates and parties within 48 hours.
The intent to spend an aggregate of more than $5,000 in the
Party response funds. National parties would be permitted
final 20 days would have to be disclosed at least 20 days before the
to set up new response funds to counter such expenditures against
election.
the party or any of its federal candidates. Each fund could receive
All reports would be transmitted to the affected complying
individual contributions of up to $7,500 per year, money that would
candidate within 48 hours. within 24 hours in the final 20 days.
be exempt from other individual contribution limits.
Disclaimer. A television, radio or print advertisement run by
If a group spent more than $10,000 communicating with its
an independent campaign would have to carry notification of the
members about an election, an adversely affected party committee
sponsor in clear language and readable type.
could transfer an equal amount to a state grass-roots fund for the
Most nonprofits exempt. Nonprofit organizations that con-
state party to counter political activity against it. Funds would be
duct advertising campaigns exclusively to promote political ideas
transferred directly to candidate committees if a candidate was
would be exempt.
detrimentally affected by an independent campaign; the money
would not count against a candidate's spending limit.
Presidential Campaigns
Bundling
State fundraising. To qualify for federal matching funds in
the primaries, presidential candidates would have to raise $15,000
When an organization or individual raises money for a candi-
from 26 states, rather than $5,000 from 20 states as provided in
date, usually from associates, group members or employees, and
current law.
then forwards the checks together to the candidate, or otherwise
Grass-roots funds. Candidates who agreed to comply with
makes known their common bond, the practice is known as "bun-
spending limits would receive additional federal funds for use in
dling." The individual or organization is known legally as a conduit
grass-roots campaigns. The sum would be equal to 2 cents per
or intermediary, and under current law must disclose these activi-
voting age person, indexed for inflation beginning in 1997. For the
ties only under limited circumstances.
1996 election, the sum is estimated to be $11 million per candidate.
Bundling is the fundraising technique that enabled EMILY's
Debates. Candidates accepting public funds would be required
List, an independent group, to contribute more than $6 million to
to participate in three debates; vice presidential candidates would
Democratic women candidates in 1992. It was also a practice widely
have to participate in one.
used by savings and loan operator Charles H. Keating Jr. to raise
money for the Keating Five senators from his employees and family.
Aggregated primary spending limit. In the primaries,
candidates would be bound only by aggregate spending and
Prohibitions. The bill would prohibit the following from
serving as conduits or intermediaries: all PACs, trade associations,
fundraising limits rather than the state-by-state limits in current
lobbyists, partnerships, foreign agents, and corporate and union
law.
officers, employees and agents. The bill would also prohibit those
individuals and organizations from "directly or indirectly" arrang-
Other Restrictions
ing for contributions to be made to a candidate or party in excess of
their own individual spending limit.
Individual contribution limits. The bill would raise the limit
Authorized fundraisers. The bill specifically lists five cate-
on what an individual could give to candidates, parties and political
gories of individuals who would not be considered conduits or
committees to $60.000 per two-year election cycle from the current
intermediaries: federal candidates, authorized campaign employees,
$50,000 limit. Within that two-year limit. individuals could make
paid professional fundraisers, spouses and volunteers hosting a
annual contributions of up to $25,000 to candidate committees,
house party, provided the volunteer is not barred from bundling.
$20,000 to national parties. $20,000 to state party grass-roots funds
The exemptions would not cover activities such as those conducted
and $5,000 to other state party federal accounts.
by EMILY's List, which controls a PAC.
Individual contributions to national party response funds of up
The bill specifically says that the prohibition on bundling would
to $7,500 per year would be exempt from all such limits.
not apply to federal candidates and officeholders who might raise
Leadership PACs. Federal candidates and officeholders
money for other federal candidates.
would be barred from controlling any political committee other than
The bill also states that bona fide joint fundraising events by
their own campaign committee. party committee or a joint
two or more candidates or party committees would be permitted.
fundraising committee.
Executives and administrative personnel. Such individ-
Independent Expenditures
uals could not make contributions to candidates, parties or political
committees under the direction. control or influence of their em-
The bill would define independent expenditures as spending for
ployer. Contributions from such officials that met that standard
CQ
AUGUST 14, 1993 - 2241
FOR THE RECORD
could not aggregate more than $5,000 to a candidate or $20,000 to a
party or political committee. The bill does not specify who would be
responsible for enforcing the provision.
Spending Limits
Contributions by minors. No one under the age of 18 could
contribute funds to a federal campaign.
Candidate fundraising. Federal candidates would be prohibited
Below are proposed limits on how much each
from raising funds for any tax-exempt organization if asignificant portion
candidate could spend on a Senate campaign (includ-
of its mission was voter registration or get-out-the-vote campaigns. A
ing both primary and general elections) under S 3,
federal candidate or officeholder also would be prohibited from raising
passed by the Senate on June 17, according to the
funds for other candidates or party committees, state or federal, unless
Rules Committee.
the money was in amounts and from sources permitted by federal law.
Intimidation barred. The hill would prohibit any person from
State
Proposed Limits
forcing an individual to make a contribution by using or threatening
physical force, job discrimination or financial reprisals.
Alabama
$ 2,201,060
Cash contributions. Candidates would be barred from receiving
Alaska
2,004,000
cash contributions aggregating more than $100 from an individual.
Arizona
2,063,285
Polling data. A contribution of polling data would be valued at
a fair market rate with no more than 1 percent depreciation per
Arkansas
2,004,000
day from the day the poll was completed.
California
8,250,000
Colorado
2,004,000
Miscellaneous
Connecticut
2,004,000
Advertising disclosure. All federal candidates would have to
Delaware
2,004,000
state clearly their responsibility for their campaign ads. The bill
Florida
5,336,485
would set minimum standards for doing S0 in print, on radio and on
Georgia
3,069,043
television. For example, the candidate's image would have to appear
Hawaii
2,004,000
on the television screen for at least four seconds.
Idaho
Negative mail campaigns. A candidate, a campaign or any
2,004,000
other individual or group that places in the U.S. mail any communi-
Illinois
4,593,335
cation to the general public that directly or indirectly refers to a
Indiana
2,755,500
candidate, by name or inference. must file a copy of the communica-
lowa
2,004,000
tion with the FEC by noon on the day it is mailed.
Kansas
2,004,000
Broadcast endorsements. A broadcast station that endorses
a candidate for federal office in an editorial would be required to
Kentucky
2,066,291
notify all other candidates in the election of the date and time of the
Louisiana
2,195,549
broadcast and provide them with a taped or printed copy of the
Maine
2,004,000
editorial and a reasonable opportunity to reply. Such notification
Maryland
2,512,682
would be required within 24 hours of the broadcast if it was made
more than three days before an election; if it was within 72 hours of
Massachusetts
2,928,345
an election, advance notice would be required.
Michigan
3,894,440
Personal use. Campaign contributions could not be used for
Minnesota
2,308,274
any "inherently personal purpose," specifically including clothes.
Mississippi
2,004,000
home mortgage payments, country club memberships and vacations.
Excess campaign funds. Unspent funds in a campaign
Missouri
2,593,343
treasury up to 20 percent of the spending limit could be rolled over
Montana
2,004,000
within a year of the election to fund the candidate's next election.
Nebraska
2,004,000
Other unspent federal funds would have to be returned to the U.S.
Nevada
2,004,000
Treasury at the end of the election cycle. Unspent legal and
New Hampshire
2,004,000
accounting funds could be rolled over to the next election cycle.
New Jersey
7,698,200
Mass mail ban. Senators and House members would be
New Mexico
2,004,000
prohibited from sending franked mass mail in any calendar year in
New York
6,720,498
which they would appear on the ballot.
North Carolina
3,164,650
Inflation. All spending limits would be indexed for inflation
North Dakota
2,004,000
beginning in 1997.
Telephone voting for the disabled. The FEC would be
Ohio
4,424,248
directed to conduct a feasibility study on whether a system could be
Oklahoma
2,004,000
established to enable disabled persons to vote by telephone.
Oregon
2,004,000
Closed caption ads. Complying candidates would be required
Pennsylvania
4,828,388
to provide closed captioning for the hearing-impaired of all TV
Rhode Island
2,004,000
advertising.
South Carolina
2,004,000
Constitutional amendment. The bill says that it is the sense
South Dakota
2,004,00
of the Senate that an amendment to allow mandatory campaign
Tennessee
2,560,277
spending limits be considered.
FBI, IRS contact. The bill states that it is the sense of the
Texas
6,255,820
Senate that federal employees should follow official procedures in
Utah
2,004,000
contacts and dealings with the FBI and the IRS.
Vermont
2,004,000
Expedited review. An appeal of any court ruling addressing
Virginia
3,012,263
the constitutionality of the act could be taken directly to the
Washington
2,562,281
Supreme Court, which would be directed to expedite its review.
West Virginia
2,004,000
Severability. If any part of the provisions establishing a sys-
Wisconsin
2,510,177
tem of spending limits and benefits (with the exception of the tax
Wyoming
2,004,000
benefit) were struck down in court, the entire bill would be invalid.
All other provisions would be severable.
2242 - AUGUST 14. 1993
CQ
INSIDE CONGRESS
COVER STORY
Constitutional Doubts Bedevil
Hasty Campaign Finance Bill
Some scholars say compromise measure violates rights
to free speech and free association
S
titched together during three
Process Over Content
weeks of floor debate, the
Senators were aware of these
campaign finance bill that
problems when they passed the bill.
the Senate approved June 17 is a
Penalty
Hours afterward, Senate Majority
pastiche of deals and compro-
Leader George J. Mitchell, D-
mises. Each provision, each
Maine, was asked repeatedly to de-
amendment was crafted with an
fend the controversial tax provi-
eye toward securing 60 votes to
sion. The former federal judge said
break a threatened filibuster.
only, "That provision is severable"
Senate Democrats wound up
- meaning that if it were declared
with 62 votes for cloture, but they
unconstitutional, the rest of the leg-
also ended up with a bill that is
islation would be unaffected.
vague and inconsistent on numer-
"I don't believe that kind of tax
ous technical issues. More omi-
FREE
approach, that kind of penalty ap-
nously, a variety of election law-
proach, will be part of a realistic
yers say key provisions of the bill
campaign finance bill," says Fred
are patently unconstitutional.
Wertheimer of the public interest
"This thing needs a doctor,"
lobbying group Common Cause,
says Kenneth A. Gross, a lawyer
whose nod in favor of the amend-
who has studied the bill for Demo-
ment was critical to its passage.
cratic clients. Whom does he sug-
"But I don't know if that's a judg
gest? The Michigan doctor who
ment for Congress or the courts."
developed assisted suicide: "Dr.
These comments highlight a
Kevorkian."
quiet strategy of Democratic floor
On campaign finance, the First
MARILYN GATES-DAVIS
leaders: They accepted as many
Amendment restricts legislative
amendments as needed to win
deal-making. Trade-offs - and even
mittee (PAC) contributions and bun-
votes, knowing they would be
policy objectives - that make politi-
dling of contributions take away indi-
dropped, cleaned up or vitiated in
cal sense often run afoul of constitu-
vidual rights of association?
conference with the House or later in
tional rights to free speech and free
Does a prohibition on lobbyists' con-
the courts.
association.
tacting members within a year of mak-
For example, Senate Democrats
Setting aside partisan reactions to
ing political contributions force them to
accepted without debate a controver-
the bill (S 3 - S Rept 103-41), law-
choose between their right to petition
sial amendment by James M. Jeffords,
yers, academic observers and political
government for redress of grievances
Vt., that aimed to disclose political
operatives are debating an unwieldy
and their right of free speech?
spending by membership organiza-
list of questions about the bill's intent
Does providing federal funds to
tions, notably unions and groups such
and its constitutionality. (Provisions,
counter an independent campaign en-
as the National Rifle Association, and
p. 2239)
croach on the constitutionally pro-
to provide funds to counter the spend-
The most contentious debate cen-
tected right to run such a campaign?
ing. Jeffords was one of five Republi-
ters on the deal that led to passage:
"The Senate bill is unconstitutional
cans who had pledged to help break a
replacing public funding for candidates
in so many places that it could tie up the
filibuster if certain demands were met,
who comply with spending limits with a
courts for years - years," says Al Swift,
and he eventually did vote to do so.
tax on those who do not. To supporters,
D-Wash., who chairs the House Admin-
Many Democrats say privately
it is a fair application of Congress' right
istration Subcommittee on Elections.
that the amendment is patently un-
to tax. To critics, the tax is a blatant
Legislation is expected to be intro-
constitutional because the government
infringement on free speech.
duced in the House in September, and
cannot regulate the internal communi-
And that is just the first of a long
Democratic supporters are optimistic
cations of private groups. Senators
list of constitutional questions:
that the chamber can complete action by
and staff report that it will be dropped
Do bans on political action com-
year's end. But the measure is not
without debate in conference.
expected to look much like the Senate
"They were very disingenuous in
By Beth Donovan
bill. (House, p. 2216)
accepting many of the Republican
CQ
AUGUST 14. 1993 - 2215
INSIDE CONGRESS
House's Daunting Task
H
ouse Democrats are expected to start drafting cam-
campaign finance, he will bring his well-known listening
paign finance legislation in September with the aim
and negotiating skills to bear. Insiders predict a number
of passing it by the end of the year. But that is not to
of skull sessions in his office before a bill is brought out.
say anyone has much idea what the final bill will look
Gejdenson. Gejdenson says he
like.
is sticking with the plan approved
Majority Leader Richard A.
by the House in 1992 and given a
Gephardt, D-Mo., had a series of
seal of approval in the Clinton plan:
meetings in the spring to sound out
a $600,000 spending limit, with no
Democrats on the issue. While there
more than one-third of that total
was ample dissent over public fund-
coming from political action com-
ing of congressional campaigns,
mittees. Another one-third would
there was enough support to enable
come in public subsidies.
Gephardt and House Speaker
David R. Obey, D-Wis. Obey
Thomas S. Foley, D-Wash., to sign
is reported to be developing a plan
on to a plan by President Clinton
that would retain the one-
Gejdenson
that called for spending limits and
third/one-third formula. But rather than fund the pro-
Gephardt
one-third public funding. (Weekly
gram with general revenues, he proposes that taxpayers
Report, p. 1199)
be given the option of paying as much as $10 more in
But that idea looks dead. Having just passed a
taxes to help fund federal campaigns; a share of that
substantial tax increase in the reconciliation bill and
money would be used to educate the public about the
watched the Senate kill most public funding in its bill,
benefits of public financing.
members are not about to ask taxpayers to pony up for
Swift. Chairman of the House Administration Sub-
House campaigns.
committee on Elections, Swift is working on a plan that
"Only the hopelessly naive think there's any chance
would provide postal and broadcast discounts to candi-
to pass public financing," says Rep. Al Swift, D-Wash.
dates who agree to comply with spending limits; if their
The resistance to public funding
opponent broke the cap, the complying candidates could
is matched by an insistence that po-
keep the benefits and spend freely. Swift also would
litical action committee (PAC) con-
tolerate a PAC limit as high as 50 percent of the spend-
tributions be retained for House
ing ceiling.
campaigns. But from there, just
Glen Browder, D-Ala. The leader of conservative
about the only other issue bringing
Democrats who oppose public funding, Browder says he
House Democrats together is their
remains committed to spending limits. Even before the
anger at what they perceive as po-
Senate adopted a new tax on non-complying candidates,
litical posturing by the Senate.
Browder was studying the idea.
House members complain that
Mike Synar, D-Okla. A longtime supporter of
in the past the Senate has ap-
public funding, Synar has abandoned hope for it and for
proached campaign finance secure
Swift
spending limits. He has teamed up with several Republi-
in the knowledge that anything they pass would either
cans for a bill that would place a $1,000 limit on PAC
die in the House, be redrawn in conference or killed by
contributions and prohibit the use of money raised out-
veto - leaving the Senate free from blame and new
side of federal election law on federal campaigns.
campaign restraints.
John Lewis, D-Ga. The chief deputy whip repre-
House Democrats don't want to take the blame this
sented the Congressional Black Caucus position in the
year for delaying "reform." While they point to the
early Gephardt meetings. With many members running
difficulty of writing one set of rules for all districts
in poor and working-class districts, the caucus is con-
urban, rural, suburban, minority and female candidates
cerned that PAC restrictions and possible limits on out-
all have special situations, they say House Democrats
of-state fundraising would disproportionately hurt mi-
maintain they will do what the Senate could not: pass a
nority candidates. The caucus is also concerned that a
bill they can live with.
Senate ban on candidates raising money for groups that
"Let me say this about the Senate bill," says Sam
register voters - a ban prompted by the Keating Five
Gejdenson, D-Conn., a leadership point man on the
scandal - would keep them from working with civil
issue. "I will be insisting that the Senate get everything
rights groups.
it voted for. My position in conference will be that not a
Democratic Women's Caucus. Democratic
word will change in the Senate bill."
women are interested in protecting EMILY's List from
provisions designed to clamp down on bundling. Be-
The Major Players
cause they have fewer $1,000 donors than their male
When the House returns in September, the process
counterparts, some women are concerned that, like the
will start anew, and the following key players each bring
black caucus, the PAC limits will hit them too hard.
their own agenda to the table:
Gephardt. Emersed in the details and politics of
-Beth Donovan
2216 - AUGUST 14. 1993
CQ
INSIDE CONGRESS
amendments," says Steve Stockmeyer,
funding as an incentive to voluntary
compliance with spending limits and
who heads a business PAC association.
compliance. (First Amendment issues,
instead imposes a punishment on
The Senate also voted 85-7 for an
Weekly Report, p. 431)
those who opt out of the system.
amendment by John McCain, Ariz., to
Historically, the money political
"It's hard to think of this as volun-
make the bill effective immediately
committees raise from contributors has
tary when if you don't play, one-third
rather than waiting until the 1996 elec-
not been taxed. The Senate report ac-
of your receipts are taken by the IRS,"
tion cycle. McCain, another GOP defec-
companying a 1975 law formalizing the
says Roy Schotland, a Georgetown law
tor, says a drafting technicality left in-
exemption (PL 93-625, S Rept 93-1357)
professor.
tact the clause "except as otherwise
notes that the Internal Revenue Service
In legal briefs, critics equate the can-
provided" - which exempts the PAC
did not require political committees
didate's signature on a pledge to comply
ban, public funding and thus spending
even to file tax returns before 1973,
with spending limits to a loyalty oath,
limits from applying to the next election.
when the IRS ruled that they should pay
which the Supreme Court said cannot be
taxes on interest and dividends.
a condition of tax exemption in Speiser
Executive Ambiguity
The 1975 law added Section 527 to
U. Randall (1958).
Add to this political expediency
Many Democrats privately con-
the imprecision that accompanies
cede doubts about the provision's
any bill drafted on scratch pads on
constitutionality, but say the de-
the floor, and even many experts are
bate is spirited and complex enough
left unsure about precisely what the
to be worth taking to court.
Senate did and intended to do.
Supporters argue that Congress
"The question is what's real and
has broad taxing authority that is
what's not real," says Ellen Miller,
often used to encourage or discour-
executive director of the Center for
age various behaviors. They point
Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group
to the 1983 Supreme Court decision
monitoring campaign spending.
in Taxation with Representation of
One provision that has lawyers
Washington U. Regan, in which the
around town working overtime aims to
court upheld Congress' right to pro-
restrict the participation of corporate
vide tax exemptions if the guide-
personnel. A Democratic leadership
lines for determining whether an
aide says the bill would prohibit corpo-
organization would be exempt did
rate executives or administrative per-
not depend on the content of its
sonnel from contributing an aggregate
activities. The gross receipts tax,
of more than $5,000 to a candidate
they say, does not discriminate
under the direction, influence or con-
against any political party, and it
trol of the donor's employer.
does not affect the content of a can-
JOHN BLODGETT
Interest groups say this interpreta-
didate's speech or campaign.
tion would reverse decades of law
barring direct corporate contribu-
Strategic Severability
tions.
"I assumed it was a drafting error when
The tax provisions, as Mitchell
"It legitimizes corporate con-
I first read it. I'm still mystified."
says, are severable: A bill section
tributions," says Donna Edwards of
says if any single provision were
Public Citizen.
-Donna Edwards,
struck down by the court it would
Many lawyers, however, say the
Public Citizen
not threaten the remainder. Despite
language means even contributions
that language, several other key
made for personal reasons would be
provisions would not be so easily
subject to the corporate aggregate - so
the tax code; it exempts political com-
jettisoned.
that an individual would be prohibited
mittees from taxes on contributions.
As with the effective date, the sev-
from giving to a friend running for Con-
The report says Congress elected to
erability clause includes a pivotal ex-
gress if colleagues had contributed up to
treat most political entities "as tax ex-
ception - one buried 106 pages ear-
the corporate ceiling.
empt organizations since political activ-
lier, stating that if any part of the
"I've been quizzed on this by cli-
ity
is not a trade or business which is
eligibility, spending limits or benefits
ents," says Gross. "I can't set a stan-
appropriately subject to tax." (Back-
sections is struck down "this act shall
dard for them. Its vagueness creates a
ground, 1974 Almanac, p. 201)
be treated as invalid."
constitutional problem."
That sentiment evaporated in the
"I assumed it was a drafting error
heat of floor debate in 1993.
when I first read it," says Edwards.
First-Time Tax
The Senate bill depends on repeal
"I'm still mystified."
No provision is generating more
of the exemption except for campaigns
According to the leadership aide,
discussion than the proposed tax on
that comply with limits. The tax
the language is not a mistake: "We're
candidates who reject spending limits.
would be pegged to the highest corpo-
saying if the basis of this bill is uncon-
Hastily brought up in a late and
rate rate, now 34 percent, and be im-
stitutional, we start all over again."
pivotal amendment by Sen. Dave Du-
posed on all contributions, from the
One provision with potential to
renberger, R-Minn., it was forced on
first dollar a campaign receives.
bring the bill down concerns indepen-
supporters of expenditure limits be-
Foes, led by Republican Mitch Mc-
dent campaigns. The bill provides fed-
cause they lacked the votes to impose
Connell, Ky., in the Senate and the
eral funds dollar for dollar to
caps by the one route sanctioned by
ACLU outside, cry foul. They argue
offset any independent campaign
the Supreme Court: providing public
that the tax offers no new benefits for
waged against a complying candidate.
CQ
AUGUST 14, 1993 - 2217
"INSIDE" CONGRESS
To supporters of the language, it is
and all PACs, corporations and
Lobbyists and Other Issues
just practical politics: Candidates will
unions, and their agents, from bun-
The Senate bill, House leaders and
not agree to spending limits unless they
dling. Supporters say they are closing
President Clinton embrace the idea of
are protected against an onslaught from
a loophole that lets these groups cir-
banning lobbyists from making con-
outside. But to critics, the government
cumvent federal restrictions - in the
tributions for one year after contacting
subsidies would effectively neuter inde-
case of EMILY's List, the $5,000 limit
an elected official, officer or staff mem-
pendent campaigns, which the Supreme
on PAC contributions.
ber. The Senate bill also inverts the
Court in Buckley U. Valeo said were
Critics level not only the broad con-
proposition: no lobbying contact for a
entitled to First Amendment protection.
stitutional argument against the provi-
year after signing a check to an elected
"The Supreme Court has said
sion, they also point to technical prob-
official or candidate.
there is an absolute right for citizens
lems. They contend that the prohibition
The appeal is obvious: To ensure
to engage in independent campaigns,"
on "arranging" to have contributions
that the lines between legislative in-
says Robert Peck of the ACLU. "The
made is too vague: When does a friendly
terests and campaign contributions
government can't infringe on that."
suggestion turn to an arrangement?
are firmly drawn and to demonstrate
Another question that could threat-
to voters a commitment to locking
en the bill is whether the limited direct
special interests out of the process.
public subsidy the Senate approved is
The potential legal problems are
constitutional. In lieu of giving tax dol-
more subtle. First, many lawyers say,
lars to all candidates who limit spend-
is the problem that comes with requir-
ing, the bill provides federal money only
ing an individual to give up free
when a candidate faces a challenger who
speech rights in order to petition the
exceeds the limit. Critics argue that it is
government for redress of grievances.
punitive because public money is pro-
Supporters of the prohibition say
vided on the basis of an opponent's
registered lobbyists are not ordinary
action rather than any commitment or
citizens seeking redress, but paid pro-
action by the complying candidate.
fessionals. They contend that the one-
Questions of whether a provision is
year time limit will enable the provision
a penalty or an incentive are woven
to stand because it is for a short period.
throughout the debate. But both sides
But critics point to a 1976 Supreme
agree that a disclaimer requiring a
Court decision in Elrod U. Burns in
candidate who does not comply with
which the court said, "The loss of First
spending limits to say so in all politi-
Amendment freedoms for even minimal
cal advertisements - which the bill
periods of time unquestionably consti-
does - is probably unconstitutional.
tutes irreparable injury."
"It's forced speech," says Peck.
The Senate ban on taking out-of-
"Is that still in there?" asked the
state contributions during the first four
leadership aide. "I thought we got rid
R. MICHAEL JENKINS
years of a Senate term poses a similar
of it."
question: Does it temporarily deny indi-
viduals their freedom of speech? Pro-
Back Down on Bundling
posed as a floor amendment, its appeal is
The Senate's ban on PAC participa-
"The question is what's real and
clear: Senators should be beholden only
tion is widely thought to be vulnerable to
what's not real."
to their constituents, not activists in
constitutional scrutiny. The argument
Hollywood or Orange County, Calif.
against the PAC ban is simple: that it
-Ellen Miller,
Again, supporters see the time limit
violates the right of free association. The
executive director,
as a protection, but critics ask about the
complaint is so persuasive that bill
Center for Responsive Politics
rights of District of Columbia residents,
drafters included a fallback plan to limit
who have no senator; about the rights of
PAC participation if the Supreme Court
Republicans in Democratic-dominated
strikes down the ban.
"Its ambiguity raises a constitu-
states and vice versa; and about the
"I don't expect the PAC ban to
tional flag," says Gross.
interest of every American in senators
stand," says Wertheimer.
Some also see a difference between
with seats on powerful committees.
The sweeping ban on bundling in-
banning bundling for corporations
Few questions raised by the bill have
cluded in the Senate bill raises similar
(which have been prohibited from
clear-cut answers. Where the bill is un-
freedom-of-association issues, and Sen-
making direct contributions to candi-
clear, the problems compound. While
ate leaders reportedly have given private
dates since 1907) and banning grass-
the Supreme Court could fill in some
assurances to interested groups that they
roots groups from the practice.
gaps with legislative history some-
will step back from their current position.
That argument is likely to provide a
thing Justice Antonin Scalia, for one,
Used by the fundraising group
constitutional out for EMILY's List, a
objects to - the history is spare.
EMILY's List to funnel more than $6
popular group among Democrats. The
But any bill that affects political
million to Democratic women candi-
leadership aide said Senate Democrats
activity would raise tough questions,
dates in 1992, bundling is the practice of
were looking at language to allow non-
because it is the type of speech the First
soliciting contributions from an inter-
connected PACs (those not underwrit-
Congress had in mind when it wrote the
ested group of individuals for a candi-
ten by corporations, labor unions or
Bill of Rights.
date and letting the candidate know of
trade associations) that do not lobby
"What's the First Amendment for?"
the connection between the checks.
Congress to bundle - a formula that
asks Schotland. "To protect nude danc-
The Senate bill prohibits lobbyists
would protect EMILY's List.
ers?"
2218 - AUGUST 14. 1993
CQ
INSIDE CONGRESS
CAMPAIGN FINANCE
be deemed personal.
The draft suggests that other ex-
FEC Draft Rules Take Aim
penses would be considered suspect
when the FEC evaluated them to deter-
mine if they were for legitimate cam-
At Personal Spending
paign purposes or for personal use: fees,
gratuities or membership dues to a ten-
nis, health or country club and its em-
Lawmakers may not protest in public,
ployees, as well as greens fees, court fees,
but private pressure is expected
and payments to caddies and other pro-
fessionals who provide services at a club.
On several matters, the draft out-
C
ampaign funds must be used to
finance lawyer who asked not to be
lines alternatives that the commission
fund campaigns, not to support
identified. "A phone call from a well-
is considering. On the issue of cam-
the personal lives of candidates.
placed congressman or senator can
paigns employing a member of a can-
That's the gist of new regulations pro-
make a difference."
didate's family, one option is to per-
posed by the Federal Election Com-
mit payment for any "bona fide ser-
mission on Aug. 30.
Goodbye, Grandfather Clause
vices at fair market value." The other
The regulations would crack down
The FEC said new rules were nec-
would require past professional ex-
on practices that enable members of
essary in light of the expiration of the
perience by the family member.
Congress and their campaign opponents
so-called grandfather clause, which al-
The draft also includes alternatives
to pay for their mortgages, clothes, golf
lowed veteran members of the House
for payments on the use of a candidate's
outings, meals and even their own fu-
to convert their campaign treasuries
property. One option would reverse cur-
nerals with campaign contributions.
to personal use after leaving office.
rent policy and prohibit campaigns
Some payments would be off-limits;
from renting any property owned by the
others would be more closely scruti-
candidate, whether home or commer-
nized under the proposal.
cial. The other alternative would allow
Personal use of campaign funds is
"For years,
such rentals at "fair market value."
prohibited by statute and by House and
The FEC seeks comments on how
members of Con-
Senate rules. But the FEC often dead-
it might address two sensitive issues:
locks on what constitutes personal use,
gress have been
entertainment and legal defense.
and congressional rules contain signifi-
Vacations and meals that involve
living off cam-
cant loopholes. House rules permit
discussion of politics and sporting and
members to finance nearly any activity
paign money.
cultural events that are coupled with
that can be defined as "political" with
This goes a long
fundraising now are acceptable ex-
campaign contributions. Senate rules
penses. The FEC is asking whether it
allow members to supplement "official"
way toward stopping it."
should try to sort legitimate campaign
expenses from campaign accounts.
activities from private entertainment.
Already, interest groups are step-
-Fred Wertheimer,
The draft also solicits comments
ping up public pressure on the FEC to
president, Common Cause
on campaign committees' paying for
implement its proposal and to dis-
legal representation on matters unre-
suade Congress from interfering. On
lated to election law. In advisory opin-
Sept. 2, Ralph Nader released a survey
Congress voted in 1989 (PL 101-194)
ions, the FEC has said that such ex-
of "perks" financed with campaign
to end the practice at the start of the
penses are not campaign expenditures,
money, public funds and lobbyist fa-
103rd Congress. (1989 Almanac, p. 51)
but because congressional rules permit
vors that he said enhanced the life-
The draft says any spending that
broad use of campaign money for legal
styles of House members.
"would exist regardless of an individ-
defense, the FEC has not acted to stop
Several campaign professionals
ual's election to Congress" should be
the practice. In the draft, the FEC
and Capitol Hill staff members, point-
considered personal. Acceptable ex-
says only that the issue "raises the
ing to the potential for scandal in the
penses would be limited to those directly
question" of personal use.
ongoing investigation of Illinois Dem-
incurred as a result of a candidacy.
Many lawyers suggest that all of
ocratic Rep. Dan Rostenkowski's fi-
The draft includes a "non-exhaus-
these issues would be better resolved
nances, said members are unlikely to
tive" list of expenses that automatically
by passing a law rather than depend-
criticize the draft openly either during
would be considered personal: mortgage
ing on administrative rules. But de-
the written comment period, which
payments, rent or utilities on any build-
spite a Senate vote for a prohibition
ends Sept. 29, or during the public
ing not leased by the campaign commit-
on personal use of campaign funds
hearing expected in 1994.
tee, and loans or lease payments on
during consideration of its campaign
But they predicted a campaign of
vehicles not owned or leased by the
finance bill this year, interest groups
phone calls from members of Congress
committee. Living expenses, including
believe the FEC's efforts are the most
to the six FEC commissioners to soften
those for food, child support, health
realistic bet to crack down on sus-
the regulations. Four of the commis-
care, insurance and clothing, would be
pected abuses.
sioners need to vote for any rule change.
off-limits. Funeral, cremation and
"For years, members of Congress
"Oh, they're concerned, but who's
burial expenses also would be barred.
have been living off campaign money.
going to testify?" said one campaign
Payment of salary to a candidate,
This goes a long way toward stopping
which was allowed because the FEC
it," said Fred Wertheimer, president
By Beth Donovan
deadlocked on the issue in 1992, would
of Common Cause.
2334 - SEPTEMBER 4, 1993
CQ
INSIDE CONGRESS
CAMPAIGN FINANCE
Black Caucus: PAC Funds
A Must for Minorities
f political action commit-
caucus has played a promi-
I
tees are just moneyed spe-
nent role. A task force headed
cial interests, why then is
"If your district is poor, you're not
by first-term Rep. Corrine
the Congressional Black Cau-
wealthy and you're excluded from
Brown, D-Fla., was set up just
cus - a group that represents
before the August recess to
affluent circles, it's hard to raise
some of the most disadvan-
address concerns about the
taged Americans - suddenly
money."
potential for restricting
leading the charge to defend
PACs. Now, as the group be-
-Rep. Eva Clayton, D-N.C.
PACs?
gins its work, its concern has
Because they have to; be-
spilled over to many other as-
cause they can - that's the
pects of Democratic plans.
"The whole rationale for having
opinion of many African-
(Other provisions, p. 2524)
American House members
PACs was to enable small contribu-
The freshmen, who make
and academics who have
tors to have an influence. What is
up nearly half of the 38 House
watched this year's debate
wrong with that?"
Democrats in the black cau-
evolve.
cus, pushed the issue of mi-
President Clinton urged
-Rep. Melvin Watt, D-N.C.
nority candidate reliance on
Congress to curb "the power
PAC money to the fore. Pro-
and influence of political ac-
posals to restrict fundraising
tion committees"; the Senate
got their attention because of
passed a bill in June that
the relative poverty of their
would get rid of them altogether. But
Democrat who represents the district
districts: the nine poorest districts
PACs are a key source of funds for
with the lowest per capita income in
represented by African-Americans
House races, and Democratic leaders
North Carolina. "If your district is
(based on average per capita income)
are ready to fight to retain their
poor, you're not wealthy and you're
are held by first-term members. Add
$5,000 PAC checks.
excluded from affluent circles, it's
to that the difficulty all newcomers
This position - which delayed for
hard to raise money."
have in attracting campaign contribu-
weeks the formulation of a Democratic
Politically, black members can af-
tions, and the black freshmen have
campaign finance proposal this spring
ford to defend PACs because their
two strikes against them in fund-
- puts House leaders in a defensive
constituents care far more about
raising.
mode. Now, as they gear up for the
bread-and-butter economic issues
They got the attention of Speaker
expected high-profile October debate,
than political reform. Moreover, mem-
Thomas S. Foley, D-Wash., at a meet-
senior, white Democrats are all too
bers say, it is just common sense to
ing of the entire Class of 1992 in Feb-
happy to step back and let the newly
their voters that the only way to
ruary. According to several partici-
fortified black caucus put its populist
counter wealthy interests is to gather
pants, many blacks, along with women
spin on the fight for PACs.
many small contributions in PAC
and Hispanic members, told the
Black members say they must de-
pots.
Speaker that strict new limits on
fend PACs because minority candi-
"The enormous fear of PAC money
PACs would disproportionately hurt
dates face demographic and societal
is rooted in white, Protestant, puritan-
them and, perhaps most significantly,
obstacles to fundraising. PACs, they
ical traditions," says Frank A. Sorauf,
that they were not afraid to publicly
say, empower their voters and provide
a political scientist at the University
fight for PACs.
minority candidates with one of the
of Minnesota. "The minority commu-
Then in March, when freshman
few available sources of money.
nity is just not as easily played upon
Democrats met to put the final
Districts represented by blacks are
with PAC bashing."
touches on a much advertised "re-
disproportionately poor, and not
It has long been clear that House
form" plan, a late push to include a
many constituents can afford to con-
Democrats would not go along with a
PAC ban was quashed after Rep. Mel-
tribute more than a few dollars to po-
stiff ban on PACs. But the potential
vin Watt, D-N.C., stood up and said
litical campaigns. Outside their dis-
impact on minority districts, scarcely
he could not support a plan that
tricts, African-Americans often lack
mentioned a year ago, is now the rai-
would have hurt his last campaign and
the elite school and boardroom con-
son d'être for PAC backers in the
that of many other African-American
tacts that form lucrative fundraising
House Democratic Caucus.
candidates.
networks for many white candidates.
For Watt, and others in the fresh-
"We just don't have the resources,"
First-Time Players
man class, the attention this stance
says Rep. Eva Clayton, a first-term
Congress has been debating cam-
draws in Washington is uncomfort-
paign finance for more than a decade,
able. Watt says the issue is not impor-
By Beth Donovan
but this is the first time that the black
tant to his district, and he finds it
CQ
SEPTEMBER 25, 1993 - 2523
INSIDE CONGRESS
Protecting Minority Candidates
The Cons jumped Black
counts are not likely to in-
into
Wynn
duce many candidates to
the campaign finance de-
comply with the spending
bate for the first time this
limits.
year to protect political ac-
Bundling. The women
tion committee (PAC) con-
in the caucus want to pro-
tributions they say they
tect EMILY's List, a group
need to run decent cam-
that bundled more than $6
paigns. Now that they are
million in individual con-
involved, minority mem-
tributions for Democratic
bers are finding several
women candidates in 1992.
other provisions from past
In addition, many African-
bills that they say were
Americans are optimistic
written without an eye to
about the potential for
minority candidates or dis-
America's Fund, a new
tricts.
group modeled on EMILY's
The caucus intends to
List to raise money for can-
change that.
didates of color. S 3 would
"We don't need to go
R.
MICHAEL
JENKINS
put these groups out of busi-
back to a time when rich
The Senate campaign finance bill offers few benefits to
ness, although House lead-
white men in blue suits
candidates who comply with spending limits in primaries. But in
ers have said they will work
controlled the House,"
many majority-minority districts, those are the close races. In
to protect them.
says Rep. Corrine Brown,
1992, Rep. Albert R. Wynn, D-Md., won the primary with 28
Party spending. Like
D-Fla., who is heading a
percent of the vote, then got 75 percent in the general election.
PACs, party committees
new black caucus task
are a welcome source of
force on campaign finance. (Caucus, p. 2523)
large contributions for minority candidates. The 1992
In addition to PACs, minority members are expected
bill capped national, state and local party contributions
to focus on a number of issues:
to House candidates at an aggregate of $5,000, a sum
Primary benefits. The bill (S 3) the Senate passed
minority candidates would like to see increased. More-
this year offered benefits principally to general-election
over, minority candidates do not want to see new restric-
candidates to induce compliance. But in black-majority
tions on party spending to register and turn out voters.
districts, almost all of the competition takes place in the
"Keating Five" language. The 1992 bill included
primaries. For a campaign finance law to be meaningful
language that would prohibit candidates from raising
in those districts, greater benefits probably would have
money for tax-exempt organizations that register voters.
to be delivered in the primary.
Aimed at solving a problem raised in the Keating Five
Broadcast discounts. The Senate bill and the plan
scandal, such a provision would have the effect of pre-
proposed by President Clinton establish discounted
venting members of Congress from helping many civil
broadcast rates as a significant benefit. But minority
rights and voting rights groups. (Keating Five, 1991
candidates generally advertise only on black radio sta-
Almanac, p. 26)
tions, where ad rates usually are less expensive. Dis-
-Beth Donovan
frustrating that senior Democrats are
on their minds."
not only take away a primary source of
so apologetic about PAC money.
In the past, the lack of interest of
campaign revenue, it would leave all
"I've tried to stay out of all this
their constituents kept the black caucus
minority candidates who hope to rep-
folderol. It's too hard to get people
out of the fray. But now, with the likeli-
resent minority districts highly vul-
beyond the superficial arguments to
hood that whatever bill clears Congress
nerable to challenges by well-heeled
look at reality," he says. "The whole
will become law, black members say
outsiders.
rationale for having PACs was to en-
they no longer can afford to let white
"They're no different than anyone
able small contributors to have an in-
members argue about campaign finance
else," says Ronald Walters, a polit-
fluence. What is wrong with that?"
on their own terms. With the clout their
ical scientist at Howard University.
Other minority members echo the
numbers give them in the Democratic
"They're trying to protect their politi-
idea that their constituents have other
Caucus which will have to supply
cal base."
issues on their minds - such as civil
nearly all of the 218 votes to pass cam-
rights, minority business start-ups
paign finance legislation - the black
PACs' New Raison d'Etre
and feeding, educating and protecting
caucus is assured as large a role as it
For House Democrats, the black
their children.
wants in the debate.
caucus' move to the foreground could
"This is an issue for the national
And black members are more than
not have come at a better time. For
media," says Corrine Brown. "My con-
ready to stand up for PACs. They say
years, House Democrats have battled
stituents have more important things
the elimination of PAC money would
against a widespread public percep-
2524 - SEPTEMBER 25. 1993
CQ
INSIDE CONGRESS
Dependence on PACs
Many House members campaigns depend heavily on 1992 elections that were provided by PACs and the total
contributions from political action committees (PACs): amount of PAC contributions, based on Federal Election
Following are the percentages of campaign funds in the Commission data, for several.types of House members
House Democrats
Average PAC Total
52%
$283,947 Returning members
32%
159,930
Freshmen
House Republicans
40%
$213,384
Returning members
17%
99,177
Freshmen
Blacks
51%
$183,594
Returning members
36%
142,992
Freshmen
Hispanics
43%
$156,575
Returning members
33%
140,737
Freshmen
Women
45%
$230,969
Returning members
31%
198,551
Freshmen
Conservative Democratic Forum
$174,374
57%
Returning members
37%
282,306
Freshmen
Returning members
Freshmen
SOURCE: National Library on Money & Politics
MARILYN GATES-DAVIS
tion that equates PACs with special
elected," said Foley in March as he
munition behind the scenes, it gave
interests. Their position has been
was defending PAC money against
them a populist case to take to edito-
made more uncomfortable by Senate
Senate and White House efforts to
rial boards.
Democrats who have statewide and
craft a party plan that would slash
"It is a help to the leadership that
national fundraising sources and are
PAC participation.
they have the Congressional Black
unwilling to stand with their col-
The argument was persuasive
Caucus to shield them on PAC re-
leagues in the House.
enough in those tense negotiations to
form," says David Bostitis, a senior
In large part, House Democrats
get both Clinton and Senate Demo-
researcher at the Joint Center for Po-
have struggled to defend the contribu-
crats to back off somewhat.
litical and Economic Studies.
tions because the lopsided PAC pref-
"I favor a smaller PAC limit,"
erence for incumbents makes the ar-
Clinton said May 7 as he released his
Share of PAC Money
gument self-serving. In 1992, three-
proposals. But he went on to say that
The numbers show that black can-
quarters of the PAC money given to
"particularly those who come from
didates were not all that different in
candidates went to incumbents, ac-
very poor districts" would have diffi-
1992 than white candidates when it
cording to a new study by Larry
culty raising money with the lower
came to PAC funds. In fact, black can-
Makinson, a research analyst for the
limit.
didates who won in 1992 were on aver-
Center for Responsive Politics.
The Clinton plan included higher
age slightly less reliant on PAC money
But the sense that PACs are part
caps than the president originally
than was the typical House Democrat.
of the status quo may be shaken now
wanted and different levels for the
Only in the freshman class did black
that minority freshmen are speaking
House and Senate, something Senate
members collect a larger share of their
up for them. If voters can be con-
leaders had resisted. The plan re-
campaign treasuries from PACs than
vinced that PAC money can enable
tained the current $5,000 cap on PAC
did the average Democrat 36 per-
minorities and women - who almost
contributions to House candidates,
cent to 32 percent. (Chart, this page)
automatically take on the image of
lowered it to $2,500 for Senate candi-
One coalition that collected a larg-
"outsiders" - to strengthen their
dates and to $1,000 for presidential
er share of campaign funds from PACs
foothold in the House, then PAC de-
contenders. The bill passed by the
than did the black caucus is the Con-
fenders can hope to seize the "reform"
Senate on June 17 would eliminate
servative Democratic Forum, a 49-
label from PAC critics.
PACs for both chambers. (Senate pas-
member group that has no minority
"I don't think it's a reform
to
sage, Weekly Report, p. 1533)
members and only three women in its
cut off the opportunity of women and
For House Democrats, a stand in
ranks. It has not taken a position on
African-Americans and Hispanics and
defense of minorities' access to PAC
the issue.
other minorities to seek office and be
money not only gave them strong am-
When looking at real dollars rather
CQ
SEPTEMBER 25. 1993 - 2525
TNSIDE CONGRESS
than percentages, African-American
Only six black members represent
HOUSE RULES
members fall further behind the typi-
districts in which the per capita in-
cal House Democrat. The average
come exceeded the national average,
Democrats Drop
PAC tally among senior Democrats in
according to research by Fraioli-Jost,
1992 was $283,947 to $183,594 for
a Democratic fundraising group, based
Discharge Fight
blacks. While those figures might be
on 1990 census data.
skewed by a few House elders who pull
"You have to go to where the
in millions of PAC dollars, a far small-
money is," says Bostitis, "and it's not
House Democrats have abandoned
er share of black members surpassed
in the Congressional Black Caucus
their fight against Rep. James M.
the $200,000 aggregate PAC cap pro-
districts."
Inhofe's proposal to make public the
posed in the 1992 campaign finance
Although many of the women House
signatures on petitions aimed at forc-
bill. Just 13 of the 143 Democrats who
members come from more affluent sub-
ing floor votes on measures bottled up
topped that sum were black; 34 per-
urban districts, they share the problems
in committee.
cent of the black caucus compared
faced by black and Hispanic members
The House is set to vote on the
with 55 percent of the Democratic
in tapping contributors who can afford
Oklahoma Republican's measure Sept.
Caucus.
to write the $1,000 checks. According to
27. Without active opposition, it is ex-
African-American members are
research by the Center for Responsive
pected to generate a few dozen "nay"
not surprised that they come up short
Politics, women House members raised
votes at most. Inhofe got a vote by
in PAC money. Rep. John Lewis, D-
the largest share of their funds in con-
gathering 218 signatures on a discharge
Ga., says PAC directors often take
tributions of less than $200 - 24 per-
petition. (Weekly Report, p. 2435)
minority members for granted. He
cent. Blacks took in 19 percent in small
Opponents and supporters alike
says PACs assume minority members
donations; Hispanics, 16 percent. The
say the proposed rules change (H Res
rarely face serious challenges, "and if
average Democrat took in 16 percent;
134) will make it easier for rank-and-
we are to be eliminated, it will be in
members of the Conservative Demo-
file members to bring to the floor bills
the primary by a candidate who won't
cratic Forum depended on donations of
opposed by committee chairmen and
vote that differently."
$200 or less for only 13 percent of their
other Democratic leaders.
Moreover, with the exception of la-
funds.
The leadership had considered offer-
bor, few of the issues of concern to
Many blacks, Hispanics and women
ing an alternative to Inhofe's proposal to
black members are associated with
say they would have a far tougher time
make sure the discharge process re-
big-money PACs. And the business
replacing PAC money with $1,000 con-
mained difficult. That idea, advocated
PACs and others that can write the
tributions than would the average
by Rules Chairman Joe Moakley, D-
$5,000-maximum checks look for in-
white, male candidate.
Mass., was dropped Sept. 21 after dis-
cumbents with seniority on key com-
"They couldn't give a damn wheth-
cussions among leaders and chairmen.
mittees.
er they can get PAC money," says
Leadership aides said the Demo-
On that score, black members are
Watt. "They've got friends and asso-
crats will consider amendments later
better positioned to do well with PACs
ciates and brothers and mothers who
if Inhofe's proposal makes it too easy
this year than in the past. Three
can write the big checks."
to force bills to the floor.
blacks now chair full committees, and
On a personal level, minority can-
Discharge petitions are pending on
another 10 head subcommittees. As
didates are concerned that if PAC
a term-limits proposal and a line-item
policy players, they can steer PAC
contributions are scaled back from the
veto bill, both GOP-backed measures
contributions not only to themselves
current $5,000 limit, they will be left
opposed by the Democratic leadership
but also to junior members who might
trying to fill the void with $25 and $50
and stalled in committee. Inhofe said
otherwise be overlooked.
contributions contributions that
he had agreed the signatures on those,
"PAC interest in black caucus
are labor-intensive and cost-ineffec-
believed to number about 75 each,
members is new," says Walters.
tive to solicit.
should remain secret. If the propo-
Moreover, even if those contribu-
nents initiate new petitions next year,
Women and Hispanic Members
tions form a base sufficient to sustain
the signatures will be made public.
Women and Hispanics also come
a House race, they are of limited value
According to the Congressional Re-
up short in real PAC dollars, but they
in setting up a statewide campaign.
search Service, of 493 discharge peti-
join black members in arguing that
"A community base is great," says
tions filed since 1931, when the modern
eliminating the money would hurt
Michael Brown, political director of
discharge rule was first adopted, only
them disproportionately.
America's Fund, a new group that
three discharged measures have made it
Unlike the typical House member
bundles contributions to minority
all the way through the legislative pro-
who depends on his or her constitu-
candidates. "But it's not enough to
cess the Fair Labor Standards Act of
ents to form the base of individual
take a step up."
1938, the Federal Pay Raise Act of 1960
contributors, black and Hispanic
On a broader level, African-Ameri-
and a House rules change adopted dur-
members need to look outside because
can House members, and many of their
ing the 78th Congress (1943-44) that had
they represent disproportionately
fellow Democrats, are hopeful that the
no effect because it applied to the 77th
poor districts. In 16 of the 22 states
black caucus will be able to temper the
Congress and opponents refused to al-
with minority representation, the
near-universal negative perception of
low an amendment. (Sixteen other mea-
poorest district based on per capita
political action committees.
sures subjected to discharge petitions
income is represented by a black or
"PACs came into being as part of the
were finalized through other means.)
Hispanic member. And in states with
last reform," says Lewis. "They allow
Inhofe's effort will mark only the
more than one minority-dominated
working people to pool their dollars so
fourth time a measure has received final
district, they are clustered at the low
the millionaires and the big-money in-
approval solely through the discharge
end of the economic scale.
terests won't be in the game alone."
process.
2526 - SEPTEMBER 25, 1993
CQ
INSIDE CONGRESS
COVER STORY
Reforms Are Hard To Come By
As 'Reform Month' Looms
Behind schedule and facing powerful opposition, leadership readies
a flurry of bills on campaign finance, lobbying, other issues
B
attered by complaints
too far - and for not going
that Congress is too
far enough," said Rep. Al
slow to change, law-
Swift, D-Wash.
makers are responding with a
flurry of legislation to "re-
Holdups in the House
form" the political system.
The Senate already has
But nothing is moving easily
passed campaign finance and
or quickly, and everything
lobbying-disclosure bills, so
may be too timid to satisfy
most of the action in the com-
Congress' critics.
ing weeks will be in the House.
On the agenda for the
The campaign finance bill
coming weeks and months are
has been slowed by disagree-
bills to restructure how mem-
ments among Democrats over
bers of Congress are lobbied,
public funding of campaigns
entertained, judged, financed
and other issues. The lobby-
as candidates and treated as
ing bill is bogged down in
employers - not to mention
controversy over a Senate-
a much-ballyhooed examina-
passed provision imposing
tion of virtually all of Con-
strict new limits on gifts
gress' internal procedures.
members can receive from
House Speaker Thomas S.
lobbyists.
Foley, D-Wash., repeatedly had
P. 2614
Foley had said the House
said he would push most of
Campaign Finance
also might act in October on
those measures through the
House Democrats Scramble
proposals to restructure Con-
House in October. Democrats
To Settle on a Plan
gress. But the panel drafting
talked optimistically about "reform
P. 2616
the plan - the Joint Committee
month" - or even a single "reform
Lobbying Disclosure
on the Organization of Congress
week" - when the House would pass
Gift Restrictions Put House
has fallen behind schedule, killing
a campaign finance overhaul and
On the Defensive
any chance that either chamber
other bills revamping the way Con-
would vote on its recommenda-
gress does business. But the schedule
P. 2617
tions before next year.
already has slipped, fueling skepti-
Reorganizing Congress
But two key issues before the
cism among Congress' critics.
Markups Delayed
Joint Committee may be ad-
"We have reform week and not
dressed sooner.
much reform legislation," said
P. 2617
In the Senate, two task forces
Fred Wertheimer, president of
Ethics Process
are expected shortly to make rec-
Common Cause, a leading critic of
A Role for Outsiders?
ommendations on revamping the
the campaign finance system.
P. 2618
ethics process and on bringing
However, Democratic leaders
Ending Exemptions
Congress into compliance with la-
recently have stepped up efforts to
Details in the Air
bor laws and other statutes it im-
ready these bills for floor action
poses on others. House Democratic
before the end of the year, even if
leaders have considered bringing a
they miss the October target.
compliance proposal to a vote this
While the changes in the works are likely to fall short of
year, without waiting for the Joint Committee.
what Congress' critics want, the proposals also face internal
opposition from powerful members who have a big stake in
The Freshman Factor
the status quo.
A key force behind the fall agenda in the House are the
"I've never seen a reform that wasn't criticized for going
110 freshmen who rode to office on the anti-establishment
tide of the 1992 election. Many face tough re-election fights
By Janet Hook
in 1994 and want to be able to say they have made headway
and the Congressional Quarterly staff
on their agendas for change.
CQ
OCTOBER 2, 1993 - 2613
INSIDE CONGRESS
The freshmen have been the loudest voices calling for
Although many meetings will be held and an array of
new limits on gifts. And in March, the Democratic fresh-
party loyalists will be consulted over the next two weeks, in
men set a Sept. 30 deadline for action on campaign finance.
the end, the decision on what bill to press lies with two men:
The leadership said it could not meet that deadline, but
Foley and Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo.
promised action in October.
And from their perspective, Democrats face a no-win
Senior members also are trying to seem responsive to
dilemma on campaign finance: They can bring to the floor
the public's demand for change in Washington. When the
a bill that includes substantial public financing of House
House on Sept. 28 moved to make it easier to force floor
campaigns and face certain defeat, or they can try to find a
votes on populist bills, few dared oppose the change. It
compromise that might pass but will get hammered in
passed 384-40. (Discharge petitions, p. 2618)
editorials. The New York Times on Sept. 26 called one
By scheduling campaign finance
such trial balloon a "disgraceful re-
and lobbying bills around the same
treat" and Foley "a grand artificer."
time, Democrats say they hope the pub-
"We can't win," said one Demo-
lic relations effect will be amplified.
"If they can't find a solution
cratic leadership aide.
"In concentrating the scheduling of
For years, public funding has been
all these measures in one month. I believe
and pass [public financing], they
the Achilles' heel of proposals to re-
that Democrats can underscore dramati-
don't want reform."
vamp the way congressional campaigns
cally our commitment to making govern-
are financed. Many critics of the cur-
ment fairer, more open and more respon-
- Fred Wertheimer,
rent system say it is the only way to
sive to the public's needs," Foley said in a
president of Common Cause
limit the influence of private donations
Sept. 10 letter to Democratic freshmen.
and special interests. But Republicans
"I trust that this October will offer solid
and conservative Democrats decry it as
proof of congressional earnestness to deliver what we have
welfare for congressmen.
promised."
To groups such as Common Cause and the Center for
Responsive Politics that have lobbied hard for "clean"
Targeting Foley Again
public funding of congressional campaigns, Democratic
The House will be turning to these issues at a time
leaders are copping out by declining to aggressively whip a
when Foley has again become a lightning rod for criticism
tax-based public funding formula.
of Congress. Last year, many members complained bitterly
The groups want members put to the test. They point
that Foley had not moved aggressively enough to head off
out that Democrats overwhelmingly approved public fund-
the House bank scandal. (Bank, 1992 Almanac, p. 23)
ing in 1992 when a veto by President George Bush was
Just as he seemed to put that behind him, Foley has
guaranteed, and that the vast majority of the Democratic
come under fire from other quarters. The New York Times
freshmen pledged to support it in their campaigns.
has run editorials criticizing Foley in harsh, personal terms
"If they can't find a solution and pass this, they don't
for not doing more to pass a major overhaul of campaign
want reform," Fred Wertheimer, president of Common
finance. Mother Jones magazine this summer ran an article
Cause, says of Democratic leaders.
portraying Foley as a major obstacle to reform.
On the other side, many Democratic members say vot-
But Foley complains that the House has not gotten
ers won't cotton to their voting to raise taxes in August and
credit for changes it already has made such as closing
to fund their own campaigns in October.
the House bank, hiring a professional administrator to run
While there is little fresh about this debate, it is coming
House operations and curbing the patronage system.
to a decision point because of the leadership's pledge to
"Much attention was given to the problem," Foley said
move a bill to the floor soon.
at a Sept. 23 speech at the National Press Club. "Very little
"These issues aren't new," said Gephardt, who spear-
attention has been given to the solution."
heads a working group on campaign finance. "We've got
Following is a review of issues awaiting action in Congress:
some decisions to make."
The major options are these:
Repeat the 1992 bill. Rep. Sam Gejdenson, D-Conn.,
Campaign
a leadership point man on the issue, wants Democrats to
stick with the 1992 formula that set a $600,000 spending
Finance
limit for House campaigns, provided one-third public fund-
Democrats Scrambling
ing and set one-third ceilings for political action committee
money and large contributions.
To Find House Plan
Such a proposal, however, begs the question: Where
does the money come from? Revenues from a new tax on
I
n 1992, House Democrats saw a sweep-
lobbying expenses that Clinton and congressional Demo-
ing campaign finance bill vetoed; in
crats had hoped would pay for campaign finance were
1993, they made the same bill a top priority as HR 3; on
usurped for deficit reduction in August by the reconcilia-
May 7, Speaker Thomas S. Foley, D-Wash., joined Presi-
tion bill.
dent Clinton to unveil a revised plan; on June 17, the
One option is to leave the funding issue for another day.
Senate passed its bill.
The 1992 bill did not include a means to raise the money
But none of that should suggest that House Democrats
and included a proviso that made the law ineffective until
have a bill ready to go. As of Oct. 1, House Democratic
taxpayer money was raised.
leaders face trouble in their own ranks as they attempt to
Voluntary contributions. House leaders are giving
craft a package that would limit campaign spending and
serious consideration to a proposal by Rep. David R. Obey,
political action committee (PAC) contributions and pro-
D-Wis., that would allow taxpayers to add a sum to their
vide partial public financing.
annual tax bill to help fund campaigns. The leadership
2614 - OCTOBER 2. 1993
CQ
INSIDE CONGRESS
A Reprieve on Political Funds
D
emocrats and Republicans may not
Vic Fazio, D-Calif., chairman of the
agree on what political reform is, but
House Democrats' fundraising committee,
there is backroom unanimity on what it
said members were very interested when
is not: a stiff crackdown on personal use
they saw the FEC proposals. "There's a fear
of campaign funds.
that there could be a very strict interpreta-
After hearing directly and indirectly
tion and a very serious break with what has
from members of Congress from both
been the norm," he said. Fazio said mem-
parties, the six members of the Federal
bers needed a more detailed understanding
Election Commission announced Sept.
of what the FEC was trying to do. "No-
30 that they would extend the public
body's trying to protect what could be
comment period on proposed regulations
described as abuses where the use of cam-
that seek to limit campaign expenditures
paign funds may have gone too far," he said.
to those incurred directly as a result of a
One measure of the depth of the bi-
candidacy. Set to expire Sept. 29, the comment period
partisan concern about the proposed regulations is the
will now run through Nov. 15.
source of the initial request for a delay: Leading Demo-
This will give members more time to find a strategy
cratic and Republican campaign finance lawyers Bob
to deal with the draft proposal, which could crimp their
Bauer and Jan Baran wrote to the FEC Sept. 27.
lifestyles. They are loath to criticize it publicly for fear
"It's the first thing the commission has done in its
of being accused of lining their own pockets.
history where there's bipartisan agreement," Baran said.
The proposed regulations, published Aug. 30, attempt
Rep. Charlie Rose, D-N.C., chairman of the House
to delineate what expenditures would be considered
Administration Committee, also requested a 45-day ex-
strictly personal and off-limits: clothes, mortgages, utility
tension for public comments. According to an aide, Rose
bills, payment of salary to a candidate and funeral ex-
believes that the issue would be better dealt with legisla-
penses, among others. The draft lists other expenses that
tively. He would like the House to follow the Senate lead
would be considered suspect: membership fees to clubs,
by including personal-use restrictions in a campaign
greens fees and gratuities to club staff. The commission
finance bill, which will be marked up by his committee.
requested comments on how to deal with meals and other
(Senate provisions, p. 2239)
entertainment during which politics and pleasure are
But if Rose has a jurisdictional interest in the issue,
combined. (Proposals, Weekly Report, p. 2334)
he also carries baggage on it that could limit his role. In
Personal use of campaign funds is prohibited by
1988, he received a "letter of reproval" from the House
statute and by House and Senate rules. But the statute
ethics committee over a complaint that he had improp-
has never been fleshed out, and House rules permit
erly converted nearly $64,000 in campaign funds for
campaign funds to pay for any "political" activity; sena-
personal use.
tors are allowed to use them for any "official" purpose.
-Beth Donovan
would add a backup to the plan so that if the fund was
ing to the Treasury, not to pay for public funding). A
insufficient to meet the one-third public contribution,
Senate proposal that would tax every dollar raised by non-
members could raise as much as 45 percent of their funds
complying candidates is not being seriously considered by
from PACs.
House leaders, in part because of questions about its con-
This is the idea that drew the wrath of The New York
stitutionality.
Times. Many critics argue that if less than 20 percent of
While the freshmen are working to influence the debate,
taxpayers check the box that allows $1 of their tax bill to go
many Democrats are wondering what role the White House
to presidential campaign funds, far fewer are likely to add
will play and how far it will let the House pull back on
to their tax bills for Congress.
PACs and public funding. In recent weeks, Clinton has
Within the House, the voluntary nature of the fund is
been silent on the issue, and the aide assigned to it, Mi-
not as controversial as is the fear that raising the PAC
chael Waldman, has been reassigned to lobby for the North
limit that high could cause some to abandon the leadership.
American Free Trade Agreement.
"Backsliding on PACs would be a serious mistake," says
"Now that the White House has walked away, there's
Rep. Eric D. Fingerhut, D-Ohio, who co-chairs the fresh-
no telling what they'll come up with," says Ellen Miller of
man reform group. "The freshman class is firm on that."
the Center for Responsive Politics.
Tax on contributions. The Democratic freshmen are
House leaders say they may take as long as two weeks to
looking over a proposal by Common Cause to impose a 7
finalize a decision and then test it with members. House
percent tax on contributions to candidates, parties and
Administration Committee Chairman Charlie Rose, D-
PACs to pay for partial public funding of congressional
N.C., said that once a bill is outlined, his panel will mark it
campaigns.
up quickly. The other committees with jurisdiction will be
Rep. Glen Browder, D-Ala., a leading House critic of
given short deadlines to act.
public funding, introduced a new bill Sept. 30 that would
"Once a decision is made, things can move quickly,"
impose a tax on campaign receipts over $600,000 as an
said a leadership aide.
incentive to comply with spending limits (with money go-
-Beth Donovan
CQ
OCTOBER 2. 1993 - 2615
INSIDE CONGRESS
CAMPAIGN FINANCE
Democrats Eye a New Idea:
Taxing Political Funds
ow can the congressional cam-
17. The House tax could be less
H
paign finance system be
controversial because it is smaller and
cleaned up? The latest answer
"The taxpayer
would apply universally, though Dem-
on Capitol Hill is: Tax the candidates.
ocratic leaders are leaning toward
The Senate came up with a 35 per-
financing beast
adding a penalty tax for non-compli-
cent tax on candidates who reject
is dead.
ers. Either way, critics argue that any
spending limits; the idea broke a filibus-
tax on political activity restricts free
ter and cleared the way for passage in
Now we can talk."
speech. (Senate provisions, Weekly
June. Now, House Democratic leaders
Report, p. 2239)
- Rep. Glen Browder. D-Ala.
are looking at a 7 percent tax on con-
"Because it is a tax aimed at ex-
tributions to House candidates as a way
pressive activity, it is an unconstitu-
to solve a long-simmering political
tional tax," said Robert Peck of the
problem: how to fund federal benefits
American Civil Liberties Union.
for candidates who do comply with
spending limits.
Passing Constitutional Muster
In a series of meetings with fellow
Democratic leaders have long sup-
Democrats the week of Oct. 11, House
ported spending limits as the key to
leaders began to solidify support for an
campaign finance reform. To be con-
across-the-board tax on House cam-
stitutional, limits must be voluntary,
paigns. The idea, first floated by the
and providing public benefits is the one
independent citizens' lobbying group
proven way to encourage compliance
Common Cause, is winning favor
without running afoul of the Supreme
among traditional supporters of public
Court. Funding those benefits with tax
funding as well as among opponents
dollars, however, is anathema to many
who do not want to soak taxpayers
members. Hence the appeal of a plan
with a fat bill for their own elections.
that raises money without dipping into
"The taxpayer financing beast is
the pockets of average taxpayers.
dead," said Glen Browder, D-Ala.,
activity
The main objection to both the
who led opposition to past Democratic
Senate and House tax proposals would
bills that relied on tax revenues. "Now
unconstitutional tax
appear to be the constitutional ques-
we can talk."
tion. But supporters of the House
The outline backed by Majority
- Robert Peck, American
Democratic plan say it raises fewer
Civil Liberties Union
Leader Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo.,
problems than does the Senate tax.
would direct revenues from a contribu-
"A minimal, uniform tax might
tion tax to a fund for partial public
withstand constitutional scrutiny,"
financing of candidates who comply
ocratic congressional leaders in May:
said Kenneth A. Gross, a Democratic
with spending caps. The fund would be
spending caps for campaigns, benefits
election lawyer. "It's better than the
augmented with proceeds from a steep
for candidates who comply and limits
Senate's punitive tax."
new registration fee for political action
on PAC contributions. (Proposal,
Advocates of the across-the-board
committees (PACs) and with voluntary
Weekly Report, p. 1121)
tax say the courts could look favorably
donations from taxpayers who could
"We see positive momentum and
on use of the revenues to provide di-
add a sum to their annual tax bills.
view the new negotiations as a very
rect federal funding to candidates be-
Leaders are hoping to come up
positive development," said Michael
cause it would reduce their depen-
with a bill that could be marked up by
Waldman, the White House aide on
dence on large individual and PAC
the House Administration Committee
campaign finance. He said Clinton
contributions. In its landmark 1976
in time to get it to the floor by the last
could actively support a bill like the
decision in Buckley U. Valeo, the Su-
week in October, although many de-
one being developed by House leaders.
preme Court said that some infringe-
tails were left unresolved when the
The idea of a contribution tax does
ment on First Amendment rights was
House adjourned Oct. 15.
not seem likely to quiet Republican
acceptable if it would reduce corrup-
The emerging bill would keep
opposition. Republicans fundamen-
tion or the appearance of corruption
many features of HR 3, a bill identical
tally object to spending limits and are
in the political process. (Constitution-
to one vetoed by President George
toying with the idea of proposing a
al issues, Weekly Report, p. 431)
Bush in 1992, and of an outline pre-
ban on all PAC contributions.
Some critics also question whether
sented by President Clinton and Dem-
Nor would such a tax necessarily
it is constitutional to require a politi-
bypass constitutional concerns raised
cal entity to pay taxes that will go to
By Beth Donovan
by the Senate bill (S 3) passed June
philosophical foes.
CQ
OCTOBER 16, 1993 - 2787
INSIDE CONGRESS
All of these issues were raised in a
impose a 35 percent corporate tax on
much money they would collect.
1992 case before the Florida Supreme
receipts in excess of 110 percent of the
Democratic leaders are relying on
Court challenging a 1.5 percent state
spending limit, an idea similar to one
estimates from party consultants who
tax on PACs and political parties to
Browder proposed. The problem is
place the price tag between $70 mil-
provide partial public funding to state
that this would raise the very issues
lion and $80 million, but they caution
candidates. In a 6-1 ruling in State of
that draw legal fire at the Senate bill.
that the figure could go higher. If two
Florida U. Republican Party of Flor-
House leaders do not intend to
candidates in each congressional dis-
ida, the court found the tax uncon-
touch the portions of the Senate bill
trict were to collect 80 percent of a
stitutional.
that deal with Senate campaigns, and
maximum $200,000 federal contribu-
"The assessment is a substantial
so the across-the-board tax would ex-
tion, the cost would be $140 million.
burden on
First Amendment
empt Senate and presidential candi-
Democratic leaders expect the con-
rights," the court declared Aug. 27.
dates, according to leadership sources.
tribution tax to generate roughly $25
Political action committees are
million a maximum of $38,500 per
Democrats' Competing Interests
likely to be hit hard. The question is,
campaign which means the benefit
Ironing out the details of the pro-
how often. House leaders are looking
fund will rely heavily on other sources.
posal will be difficult - particularly
According to one source close to the
because Democrats are assuming they
negotiation, PACs may be asked to
will have to find the 218 votes needed
kick in as much as $40 million.
for passage within their own ranks,
"I think of it as a user fee."
and different factions of the party
Taxpayer Donations
have different interests.
-Rep. Karen Shepherd, D-Utah
More money could come from a vol-
Common Cause began publicly ad-
untary contribution plan pushed in re-
vocating the tax after the Senate bill,
cent months by David R. Obey, D-Wis.,
which it backed, drew harsh criticism.
at a direct registration fee for PACs -
a strong proponent of public financing.
It proposed the 7 percent tax after
$5,000 for non-connected PACs and
Obey's idea was to add a box to federal
looking at total contributions to the
$10,000 for connected PACs. In addi-
income tax returns allowing taxpayers
registered political entities in the 1992
tion, the receipts tax could be applied
to donate $10 to fund congressional
cycle - $1.5 billion to presidential
to contributions to PACs, which raises
races. House leaders are looking at an
and congressional candidates, national
the question of whether they would be
optional $5 add-on.
party committees and political action
taxed again when contributions are
Although such voluntary contribu-
committees and calculating that a 7
made to candidates.
tions do not raise the ire of conserva-
percent levy on that sum would raise
Another issue is whether to tax con-
tives, Browder would prefer to leave
about $100 million. According to the
tributions to political parties - which
taxpayers out of the equation alto-
Congressional Budget Office (CBO),
would hit the Republicans harder than
gether. But dropping the idea would
that would be enough to pay for public
it would the Democrats, because they
drive Obey out, and Democratic leaders
funding for House candidates.
raise more money. Participants in the
consider his imprimatur important.
The idea took off in early October
talks say they would turn to parties only
Few supporters of public funding
when first-term Rep. Karen Shepherd,
if the revenue became essential.
think Obey's plan would raise much
D-Utah, began talking it up. She and
money. In the 11 states that use tax-
Eric D. Fingerhut, D-Ohio, who co-
Who Pays How Much?
payer add-ons, participation tops at 1.8
chair the Democratic freshman reform
The final calculations on whom to
percent, according to Common Cause.
task force. circulated a "dear col-
tax how much will be made once Demo-
Part of Obey's plan is to include a
league" letter advocating the idea Oct.
crats figure out how much money they
substantial advertising campaign to
15. They call it "players pay."
need to offset the public funding. It will
educate the public about the impor-
"I think of it as a user fee," said
be tough for them to play numbers
tance of voluntary federal funding of
Shepherd.
games because they need to prove to
campaigns. With such a campaign,
Shepherd says Gephardt will con-
their troops that the public money will
Obey estimates, 15 percent of taxpay-
tinue to work out the details, even
be sufficient before the Democratic
ers would give $5, which would gener-
though he is preoccupied with the de-
Caucus will sanction a cap on PAC
ate $64 million. (About $20 million of
bate over the North American Free
funds of $200,000 per campaign, on
that would be spent on advertising.)
Trade Agreement.
which Clinton reportedly is insisting.
Currently, 17 percent of taxpayers
The Congressional Black Caucus is
According to several sources, House
check the box that permits $1 of their
among the groups Gephardt must get
leaders are committed to retaining the
tax bill to be diverted to fund presi-
on board to pass a plan. Its mem-
outline of the 1992 bill and the similar
dential campaigns. The check-off was
bers have expressed concern that the
plan endorsed by Clinton. Their bill
raised to $3 earlier this year.
tax would unduly burden small cam-
would set a $600,000 spending limit,
The Obey plan would require tax-
paigns. To address the issue, House
indexed for inflation and with exemp-
payers to raise their tax bills by the
leaders are considering a graduated
tions that could top $150,000. The bill
amount designated. The black caucus
tax that would exempt the first
could provide $200,000 in public funds,
is considering a plan to raise the exist-
$100,000 in receipts.
though a lower sum is being considered.
ing check-off to fund congressional
To win over Browder, who is a
In April 1992, CBO estimated that
candidates without raising tax bills.
spokesman for conservative Demo-
the earlier bill would cost $50 million to
But that would require the House to
crats on this issue, leaders are also
$100 million for House races every two
come up with an alternative general
looking at a significantly higher tax
years. CBO stressed, however, that
revenue source and would revive the
rate for candidates who exceed the
there is no way to determine how many
troublesome issue of direct taxpayer
spending limits. One possibility is to
candidates would participate and how
funding.
2788 - OCTOBER 16. 1993
CQ
INSIDE CONGRESS
CAMPAIGN FINANCE
House GOP Plan Backs
Ban on PAC Funds
Proposal could boost Republican chances,
embarrass House Democrats
H
ouse Republicans of-
wood," said Livingston.
fered a campaign fi-
Democrats object that
nance plan Oct. 19
women and minorities would
that meets two important
be unfairly hurt by limits be-
party aims: It could make Re-
cause they have a hard time
publican challengers finan-
raising money in their districts.
cially competitive with well-
But their better argument may
heeled Democratic incum-
rest on legal grounds.
bents, and it is ripe with
Legal experts say that
potential embarrassment for
such a limitation would dis-
Democrats.
criminate against those who
The latter is more politi-
live in districts dominated by
cally significant because Re-
voters of another party and
publicans lack the votes to en-
that it would needlessly en-
act their plan. But even if they
courage parochialism. On a
could, they would run into the
more fundamental level, the
same brick wall Democrats
limitation could be outside
struggle to scale on campaign
guidelines established by the
finance: the First Amendment.
R. MICHAEL JENKINS
Supreme Court for restricting
Republicans released their
Leader Michel outlines GOP plan, backed by (from left) Reps.
political contributions.
proposal in advance of House
Hoke, Horn, Thomas and Livingston.
"Any limitation on con-
Democrats, who are trying to
tributions has to be linked to
prepare a bill for a markup the week of
in the way of banning all PACs: House
potential corruption," said Robert Peck
Oct. 25. Concern about the constitu-
Democrats," said Rep. Martin R.
of the American Civil Liberties Union.
tionality of their draft plan is one of
Hoke, R-Ohio.
"It's impossible to show any connection
many issues slowing their progress.
But if Democrats find defending
between corruption and an out-of-dis-
(Democrats, p. 2861)
$5,000 contributions from labor union
trict contributor."
Item No. 1 in the GOP plan is an
and business PACs an unpleasant po-
Republicans tout a feature of their
outright ban on political action commit-
litical task, defending a ban in court is a
bill that would allow party committees
tees (PACs). While the idea was contro-
monumental legal job. Liberal and con-
to greatly enhance the financial position
versial within party ranks, supporters led
servative scholars agree that the guar-
of certain challengers. Under the plan, if
by Robert L. Livingston, La., argued that
antee of free association protects the
a candidate begins the race with a sub-
Democrats would suffer far more than
right of individuals to contribute collec-
stantial war chest - as many incum-
Republicans if PACs were put out of
tively to the candidate of their choice.
bents do - a party committee could
business because the money flows most
Aware of the problem, House Re-
match the sum for a challenger. The
forcefully to incumbents and chairmen.
publicans included a fallback plan (as
idea is to "level the playing field for
By staking a position in favor of a
did the Senate bill): If the Supreme
challengers" - and it is one that stands
PAC ban, House Republicans also iso-
Court struck down the ban, the con-
to benefit Republican challengers more
late their Democratic counterparts as
tribution cap for PACs, now $5,000,
because their party committees usually
the lone defenders of the PAC system
would fall to $1,000.
are far better funded than their Demo-
so maligned by editorial writers as a
The second issue highlighted by
cratic counterparts.
vehicle for special interests. On May
House Republicans is a requirement
26, the Senate without dissent added a
that candidates raise a majority of their
A United Front
ban on PAC contributions to Senate
funds from individual contributors who
Republicans put on a united show
campaigns to its bill, S 3, and then
live within their districts. Republicans
of support for their plan - with out-
voted 85-12 to extend the PAC provi-
tout a study by a Democratic polling
going Minority Leader Robert H. Mi-
sions to the House. (Senate action,
firm that shows overwhelming public
chel, III., there to endorse the plan
Weekly Report, p. 1338)
support for in-district fundraising.
alongside his likely successor, whip
"There is only one group standing
"There's something distasteful
Newt Gingrich of Georgia.
about candidates raising 95 percent of
But the plan was controversial
By Beth Donovan
their money in New York and Holly-
within the Republican conference, and
CQ
OCTOBER 23, 1993 - 2859
INSIDE CONGRESS
the freshmen were key to the outcome.
"There was a lot of wailing on the
Democrats on Hold
PAC ban," said Steve Horn, a first-
termer from California. "People who've
been here a long time, in both parties,
The, meetings multiplied the week of Oct.
but House Democrats again delayed
are comfortable with the system."
decisions on key issues that will make or
Other provisions include:
break a campaign finance bill. Despite
"Soft money" ban. All funds used
to influence federal elections would have
pressure by House Speaker Thomas S. Fo-
ley, D-Wash., to bring a revised version of
to be raised under federal guidelines.
their campaign finance bill (HR 3) to the
Bundling ban. Registered lobby-
floor the week of Oct. 25, that goal is out of
ists and PACs would be prohibited from
reach, according to leadership aides.
the practice of bundling checks from
And because the package will be pre-
individuals to give to a candidate.
sented to the full Democratic Caucus before
Wealthy candidates. If a candi-
it goes to mark up, it will be difficult even for
date spends more than $250,000 in per-
the House Administration Committee to be-
sonal funds, contribution limits would
gin its work before the week of Nov. 1.
be lifted for his or her opponent.
Union dues. Labor unions would
"An enormous number of people are not addressing the merits of the bill
but their own political profiles," said a participant in the talks who re-
be required to get written permission
from members before dues could be
quested anonymity. "The process is maddening."
House leaders have not backed away from the framework of spending
used for political purposes.
limits, partial federal funding and political action committee limits en-
1994 election. The Republican
dorsed by President Clinton. But drafting the details is slow work. The
proposal would apply to the 1994 elec-
issues impeding progress have been static for days as leaders and their aides
tion cycle, which began Jan. 1, 1993.
try to calculate how much the package will cost and how much money
various revenue sources will raise.
In addition, House leaders have yet to reckon with a host of issues raised by
the Congressional Black Caucus. The leadership plan was drafted with scant
ELECTIONS
input from minority members, and caucus members say it shows. At a minimum,
the caucus wants to ensure that federal benefits will be available in primaries, the
FEC Makeup Ruled
most competitive races in most black majority districts.
Among other basic issues still on the table are:
Unconstitutional
Federal funding. To lower the bill's price tag, there is considerable
pressure to slide the public benefit available to qualifying candidates down
A federal appeals court Oct. 22
from $200,000 to $100,000. However, Karen Shepherd, D-Utah, says the
held that the composition of the Federal
freshmen will insist on the higher level, with backing from many public
Election Commission (FEC) is uncon-
interest groups.
stitutional. The court ruled that Con-
Leaders are considering a $200,000 limit that would decline if the funding
gress exceeded its authority when it put
mechanism fails to raise enough money. Part of their calculation is that it is
representatives of the House and Sen-
unlikely that many candidates would receive full benefits because of the
ate on the independent commission as
inefficiencies of raising the small contributions on which benefits depend.
non-voting ex officio members.
Contributions tax. House leaders anticipate that as much as a third of
A panel of judges from the U.S.
the federal funding could come from a tax on contributions to candidates. But
Court of Appeals for the District of
opposition has emerged. (Tax, Weekly Report, p. 2787)
Columbia Circuit struck down the
In a closed-door session, caucus Chairman Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland
provision of the Federal Election
argued that the tax is unconstitutional. Several other senior Democrats joined
Campaign Act that empowered the ex
him, although none has said the tax would be a deal-breaker. House leaders,
officio members. Because the provi-
however, are eager to scale the tax rate back, perhaps to as low as 2 percent.
sion is severable, the six-member com-
A proposed 35 percent tax on contributions over the spending limit is
mission can continue to function. But
drawing constitutional fire, but it will stay in the plan because it is the price
it is not clear what impact the ruling
of an endorsement from Glen Browder, D-Ala., who is thought to have the
will have on the thousands of commis-
votes of many conservative Democrats. Leaders also believe it is more
sion actions since 1976.
acceptable than the Senate plan because it does not discriminate between
While the two members do not vote,
those who adhere to spending limits and those who do not, and it does not
they participate in commission delib-
kick in until after a candidate raises 110 percent of the limit.
erations on sensitive political matters.
Soft money. House leaders are committed, according to aides, to adher-
The FEC represents itself in legal
ing to the outline but not the details of the Senate plan (drafted in
matters, and general counsel Law-
conjunction with the White House) to eliminate most of the "soft money"
rence M. Noble did not immediately
that evades federal guidelines. House members do not necessarily disagree,
decide whether to recommend that the
but they may seek to raise the federal contribution limits to offset the loss
commission appeal the decision in
of soft money. They also are looking at means to enable state parties to
Federal Election Commission U. the
spend some non-federal money on generic party activities.
National Rifle Association. The bi-
-Beth Donovan
partisan commission is scheduled to
meet in executive session Oct. 26.
2860 - OCTOBER 23. 1993
CQ
INSIDE CONGRESS
CAMPAIGN FINANCE
Democrats Float Draft Bill,
But Schedule Is Slipping
ouse Democrats plan to review a
leaders reportedly hope will raise at
H
new campaign finance bill at a
least $25 million, roughly a quarter of
caucus meeting Nov. 3. Key
the bill's cost. One plan under consid-
members are already busy vetting new
eration calls for a 10- to 12- step fee
drafts of the bill in order to bring a plan
scale that begins at a few hundred dol-
to the floor before the House adjourns.
lars and goes up to $40,000. The size of
Hopes to take the bill up before
a PAC's fee would depend on its gross
the scheduled Nov. 17 vote on the
receipts and whether it was tied to a
North American Free Trade Agree-
business or labor union.
ment, however, are fading fast. Lead-
If the funding for the bill runs
ership aides now suggest the bill will
short, the new documents say only
be the last to clear the House on Nov.
that benefits will be provided on a
22 or 23. (NAFTA, p. 2949)
"pro rata" basis. There is no discus-
But meeting even that goal will be
sion of how members would make up
difficult. Many speed bumps lie ahead:
lost funds.
BOXSCORE
Party leaders must themselves
reach agreement on a handful of key
Questionable New Taxes
details, including the nagging problem
Bills: HR 3, S3 - Campaign
The first political obstacle to swift
of how to pay for public benefits.
finance.
action is the Ways and Means Com-
The Ways and Means Committee
Next likely action: Democratic
mittee, which rarely relinquishes juris-
must be persuaded to relinquish juris-
Caucus considers bill Nov. 3;
diction on tax matters (except some-
diction on the bill's tax provisions.
markup by House Administration
times for user fees). The campaign
Then 218 of the 258 members of
Committee possible.
finance bill proposes entirely new
the Democratic Caucus must be con-
taxes on candidate contributions -
vinced that passing the bill is in their
Background: House Democrats
which some legal experts suggest may
personal best interest - since no GOP
are looking at a new draft of the
be unconstitutional. It also adds a line
votes will be available.
bill that would tax contributions,
to the basic 1040 tax form for the vol-
None of it will be easy, particularly
impose fees on political action
untary taxpayer add-on.
as members raise concerns about a
committees and use voluntary tax
Early in the process, leadership
new section-by-section analysis of an
checkoffs to pay for public
aides said with great confidence that
Oct. 28 draft bill.
funding of House campaigns.
the committee would not pose a prob-
The latest draft bill relies heavily on
Reference: Tax plan, Weekly
lem. But as panel members have re-
the formula of spending limits and fed-
Report, p. 2787; Senate passage,
viewed the document, that has
eral benefits approved by the House in
p. 1533; Clinton plan, p. 1121.
changed, and the panel has not de-
1992 and recommended by President
cided how to treat the bill.
Clinton in May - a $600,000 spending
The full committee met in a closed-
limit, with no more than one third com-
called "soft money," funds raised out-
door session the week of Oct. 25 to
ing from political action committees
side federal guidelines. Though aides
discuss campaign finance along with
(PACs) and another third from individ-
emphasize that final decisions have not
other matters. Chairman Dan Rosten-
uals who give more than $200. Candi-
been made on soft money, the latest
kowski, D-III., has met several times
dates who agree to those conditions
plan permits 40 to 50 percent of generic
with Speaker Thomas S. Foley, D-
would receive up to one-third of the
party activity and voter registration ef-
Wash., and Majority Leader Richard A.
limit in federal benefits. (Background,
forts to be paid for with soft money. The
Gephardt, D-Mo., to discuss the bill.
1992 Almanac, p. 63)
Senate and President Clinton rejected
At week's end, Ways and Means
But the spending ceiling is likely to
such an allocation formula.
staff reported that the committee
look more like $1 million if candidates
The draft outlines a way of financing
would not have to act because the bill
avail themselves of the many loop-
the bill from several sources. It would
would include language stating that a
holes and the sum is indexed for infla-
include a 5 percent tax on candidate
separate tax bill would be required.
tion. The aggregate PAC cap also
receipts and a 35 percent tax on receipts
"We prefer one bill," said a leader-
could climb if candidates opt to fi-
above the spending limit. It would also
ship aide. "But we can only lose 40
nance exempt activities such as legal
allow individuals to include an unlim-
votes, so we're not in the business of
expenses and taxes with PAC money.
ited contribution on their tax return.
alienating anyone."
In addition, the draft departs sig-
(Aides say a voluntary $10 taxpayer
Resolving the dispute that way
nificantly from the Senate plan on so-
add-on is likely to be substituted.)
would also solve a potential par-
The draft does not include a for-
liamentary problem: Because the Sen-
By Beth Donovan
mula for PAC registration fees, which
ate passed the bill first, a conference
CQ
OCTOBER 30, 1993 - 2939
INSIDE CONGRESS
bill would take a Senate number. But
- according to the draft proposal.
the House draft would let state parties
bills that raise revenues must origi-
Moreover, candidates could add up
pay for 40 percent of those activities
nate in the House.
to 10 percent of the spending limit for
with soft money in presidential election
Democratic leaders also face a re-
fundraising and overhead costs.
years and 50 percent in off years.
volt led by a former fan of spending
Money raised for those expenses
"We're not going to support a bill
limits and public funding: Mike Sy-
would have to comply with the general
that doesn't shut down the soft money
nar, D-Okla. He has abandoned such
fundraising formula: no more than
system, and you can't do that with an
plans and introduced a bill that would
one-third from PACs and one-third
allocation formula," said Fred Wert-
limit PACs and soft money and dis-
from contributions over $200.
heimer, president of the lobbying
courage independent campaigns. Sy-
group Common Cause. He said he ex-
nar says he will actively work against
pected the soft money language to
the Democratic bill and hopes to have
change before a final bill is drafted.
his bill offered as a substitute.
"The Demo-
While Democratic aides working
"The Democratic plan doesn't pass
cratic plan
on the bill agree that no final decision
the smell test," said Synar. "It's un-
has been made, they rebut the posi-
constitutional, and it will have a hard
doesn't pass the
tion of Common Cause and others.
time passing because of it."
smell test. It's
"The groups don't live in the real
However, Democratic leaders ap-
world," said one aide. "It's a very elit-
pear to have won over a key critic of
unconstitu-
ist attitude to say you can't spend
past bills: Glen Browder, D-Ala. The
tional, and it
money raised under state law to regis-
price of his support is a tax equal to
ter voters."
the highest corporate rate on con-
will have a hard time passing
The House bill raises the amount a
tributions over the spending limit, a
because of it."
PAC can contribute to a national party
controversial tax included in the draft.
committee to $20,000 from $15,000. The
-Rep. Mike Synar, D-Okla.
Senate measure would ban PACs.
Draft House Plan
In other respects, the House draft
For many first-term Democrats
parallels S 3, passed June 17 by the
and public interest groups, retaining
Candidate spending on legal ad-
Senate. It would raise the individual
the $200,000 level for public funding
vice, audit costs, and federal, state,
federal contribution limit to $60,000 per
in the draft is a significant victory.
local and payroll taxes - including a
election cycle from $25,000 per year.
Though this is the level approved by
new 5 percent federal tax on contribu-
Within the aggregate limit, individuals
the House in 1992 and recommended
tions - would not count against the
could give annual contributions of up to
by Clinton, House leaders for weeks
expenditure cap and would not be lim-
$25,000 to federal candidates; $30,000 to
discussed lowering the figure to bring
ited. According to an analysis that ac-
national party committees (S 3 allowed
down the bill's price tag.
companied the draft, the fundraising
$20,000); and $20,000 to new state grass-
"We lobbied it hard," says Donna
restrictions would not apply to those
roots funds that would be used for mixed
Edwards, a staff attorney with Public
revenues - meaning that PACs and
state-federal party activities.
Citizen, a watchdog group.
wealthy contributors could fund them.
Other provisions of the draft bill:
In the draft, benefits will be pro-
Candidates could also raise up to 5
Bundling. Language prohibiting
vided only in the general election, a
percent of the spending limit for ac-
most individuals and groups from act-
significant setback for the Congres-
counting and compliance. Again, no
ing as conduits for candidate contribu-
sional Black Caucus. Its members re-
fundraising restrictions would apply,
tions would exempt independent
peatedly remind leaders that nearly all
according to the draft.
PACs, including EMILY's List, a
of the competition in their districts oc-
Finally, the spending and fund-rais-
women's fundraising network.
curs in the primary. Those drafting the
ing caps would be lifted and the benefits
Severability. If any portion of
legislation, however, note that including
retained if a candidate who had agreed
the spending and fundraising limits or
primary candidates could cause costs to
to them faced a challenger who rejected
the federal benefits was found uncon-
skyrocket. They say that in 1992, 2,600
the voluntary federal package and
stitutional, the House campaign sec-
candidates competed in the primaries;
raised more than 25 percent of the
tion would be invalidated. All other
843 major-party candidates made it to
spending limit. The limits also would be
provisions are severable, including the
the general election.
lifted if the opponent contributed more
funding plan.
The draft has benefits in the form
than $50,000 in personal funds. (Simi-
Independent
expenditures.
of communications vouchers that
larly, under the draft, complying candi-
Candidates complying with federal
could pay for advertising, buttons,
dates could not contribute more than
spending limits would receive match-
bumper stickers, pamphlets, postage
$50,000 in personal funds.)
ing funds on a dollar-for-dollar basis if
and the like. Candidates would receive
an independent campaign spent more
benefits on a matching basis for the
Soft Money Plays
than $10,000 against them. Broadcast
first $200 each individual contributed.
The House has always been more
stations would be required to provide
When indexed for inflation, the
supportive than the Senate of party
free air time for candidates to reply.
spending limit would be closer to
committees that want to raise and
Ballot initiatives. The draft
$700,000 when the bill took effect for
spend money under state guidelines.
would require state initiative cam-
the 1996 elections, and it includes large
This year looks like no exception.
paigns that affect federal elections -
loopholes. If a candidate won a primary
While the Senate bill would require
such as term limit measures - to
with a 20 percent margin or less, the
parties to pay for all generic party activ-
comply with federal contribution lim-
limit would go up by $150,000 - includ-
ity and voter registration efforts with
its and register with the Federal Elec-
ing $50,000 in additional public benefits
money raised under federal guidelines,
tion Commission.
2940 - OCTOBER 30, 1993
CQ
INSIDE CONGRESS
CAMPAIGN FINANCE
less meetings on the bill. And he gave a
leading critic of past bills, Glen Browder,
Election-Subdued Democrats
D-Ala., a role in drafting the 1993 ver-
sion. Browder's statement to the caucus
Go Forward on New Bill
in support of the bill quelled traditional
conservative criticism.
"We'll have strong support among
Southerners," Browder said afterward.
L
ong lacking the spirit to champion
African-American members con-
Icampaign finance legislation, House
tinue to object to the plan because it
Democrats have lost the will to fight it.
provides no benefits in the primary,
With the tepid acquiescence of their
when they face their most serious chal-
troops, House Democratic leaders the
lenges. But party leaders point out that
week of Nov. 1 took the first formal steps
candidates will receive a guarantee of
to bring a new campaign finance bill to
federal money during the primary al-
the floor before Congress adjourns.
lowing them to borrow against it, and a
A lightly attended Democratic
rebellion now appears unlikely.
Caucus meeting Nov. 3 to review a
Similarly, the New York delegation
leadership proposal failed to turn up
is unlikely to go AWOL, but its members
passionate opposition or demands for
call insufficient a provision that would
major changes. Unlike past sessions on
raise the spending limit by $150,000
campaign finance that sent drafters
following contested primaries. Many in
back to the drawing board and leaders
retreating from promised floor votes,
While some senior members and
the delegation instead want to raise the
spending limit by 75 percent of the
Democrats emerged from the 90-min-
key voting blocs remain
amount spent by a primary challenger.
ute closed-door session sounding re-
signed to a bill moving forward.
skeptical, Democrats seem
These and other concerns will be
addressed before the bill hits the floor.
"It's subject to criticism, but I
resigned to passing the bill as a
Democrats cannot afford to take a sin-
don't know of a better solution," Rep.
Peter Hoagland, D-Neb., said.
symbol of change.
gle vote for granted since no Republi-
cans are expected to side with them.
As the meeting concluded, Speaker
"All of the members of the caucus
Thomas S. Foley, D-Wash., publicly re-
weren't there," said Gephardt after
newed his pledge that the House would
about campaign spending limits and do
the meeting, "and we've got to talk to
vote on a campaign finance package
not like federal subsidies were subdued.
all of them."
before adjourning this year, and the
"I have respect for people who say
House Administration Committee
these issues don't come up voluntarily at
Changes in the Plan
scheduled a markup of a new version of
town meetings," said Romano L. Maz-
The outline presented to Demo-
HR 3 for Nov. 10. The markup promises
zoli, D-Ky. "But just look at the election
crats included several significant
to be a formality, as Chairman Charlie
yesterday - people want change."
changes from recent drafts.
Rose, D-N.C., will ask Democrats and
Voter resistance to federal funding is
Universal PAC limits. A pro-
Republicans to hold their fire until the
addressed in the bill with a complicated
posed $200,000 aggregate limit on politi-
bill goes to the floor.
formula that generates revenues from
cal action committee receipts and a
Between now and then, Majority
political action committees (PACs), vol-
$200,000 aggregate limit on contribu-
Leader Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo.,
untary taxpayer contributions and per-
tions of more than $200 would apply to
and Sam Gejdenson, D-Conn., will
haps a contribution tax on candidates.
all House candidates - whether or not
continue to flesh out details of a bill.
Expecting this "players pay" plan
they opt to comply with spending limits.
Their plan relies heavily on one out-
to blunt criticism of the bill's price tag
Contribution tax postponed. A
lined by President Clinton in May and
of $70 million to $90 million, many
5 percent tax on candidate receipts
approved by the House in 1992 - a
Democrats now see resistance to a
would not kick in until the 1998 elec-
$600,000 spending limit with up to
campaign finance overhaul as bad
tion, and only then if the fund to pay
one-third coming from political action
politics. Particularly among the fresh-
for federal benefits fell substantially
committees and another third from
man class, inaction is anathema.
short of money in 1996.
the federal government. (Draft pro-
"This will become an election issue
Federal benefit not guaranteed.
posal, Weekly Report, p. 2939)
if Congress fails to act," said first-
The bill would authorize up to $200,000
term Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif.
Elections Make Inaction Anathema
in federal matching funds, but if the
Many senior members left officially
fund to pay for them ran short, candi-
The Republican sweep of the major
uncommitted, including Chief Deputy
dates would receive benefits on a pro
1993 elections the day before the Demo-
Whip Butler Derrick, D-S.C., and Ways
rata basis. If that figure reached 50 cents
cratic session cast a pall over the pro-
and Means Committee Chairman Dan
on the dollar - up to $100,000 per
ceedings. While many Democrats fear
Rostenkowski, D-III. But there was little
candidate - the contribution tax would
the election returns will draw challeng-
enthusiasm voiced for an alternative
not be imposed in the next election.
ers out of the woodwork and the bill will
advocated by Mike Synar, D-Okla., that
The outline did not discuss how can-
put money in their pockets, once vocifer-
does not include spending limits.
didates would make up lost revenues.
ous arguments that voters do not care
The caucus session went more
Gejdenson wants candidates to have to
smoothly than those in the past in large
rely on small contributions, but no
By Beth Donovan
part because Gephardt has held count-
agreement had been reached.
3032 - NOVEMBER 6, 1993
CQ
INSIDE CONGRESS
CAMPAIGN FINANCE
House Will Vote on Limits
Nearing $1 Million in '96
Despite months of bargaining among Democrats,
bill has changed little from 1992 version
T
he path is clear for the House to
going nowhere," said John A.
vote before it adjourns for the
Boehner, R-Ohio.
year on a bill to limit spending
The effort Democrats expended to
on its own campaigns, but the limits
clear various provisions within their cau-
are far looser than they first appear.
cus did ensure that the bill moved
The House Administration Com-
through a testy, four-hour markup un-
mittee Nov. 10 approved a bill (HR 3)
scathed. Two minor amendments were
over Republican protests that ostensi-
approved by voice vote; 23 were rejected
bly caps spending on House cam-
on mostly party-line votes. A Republi-
paigns at $600,000. But once exemp-
can substitute was defeated 7-12.
tions and inflation are factored in, the
cap will be closer to $1 million for
Public Perceptions
many campaigns by the time it takes
Many Democrats say that spending
effect for the 1996 elections.
limits are the key to restoring public
The higher limits mean that rela-
BOXSCORE
confidence in campaigns. They argue
tively few campaigns would be seri-
that candidates now are forced to spend
ously pinched. In 1992, a third of cur-
too much time raising money and that
rent House members spent more than
Bills: HR 3, S3 - Campaign
voters fear the seats are virtually bought
$600,000 to win their seats, but only
finance.
by big-time contributors.
35 topped $1 million.
Latest action: House
"Without spending caps, you don't
"These limits are higher than we
Administration Committee
have real reform," said Sam Gejden-
wanted. But in the long run, they will
approved new draft of HR 3 on
son, D-Conn.
cut into spending," said Fred
Nov. 10.
No campaign, however, would ever
Wertheimer, president of Common
be subject to a $600,000 spending
Cause, which has lobbied in favor of
Next likely action: Floor vote as
limit. Assuming a 3 percent inflation
campaign finance reform for years.
early as Nov. 19.
rate, the base limit would exceed
Despite intraparty wrangling that
Background: Democrats' bill
$675,000 by the 1996 election, when
held up the measure for months, Dem-
offers federal benefits to induce
the bill would go into effect.
ocratic leaders wrought a bill similar
candidates to limit spending.
The bill also includes a 10 percent
to one passed in 1992 that was vetoed
Reference: Background, Weekly
exemption for overhead and an unlim-
by President George Bush. Approved
Report, p. 3032.
ited exemption for spending on legal
by the committee on a party-line 12-7
fees and taxes. On top of that, any
vote, it would provide up to one-third
candidate who wins a primary with a
of spending in federally funded com-
dates, a practice barred in the 1992 bill.
margin of 20 percent or less would get
munications vouchers and limit candi-
The two bills are similar in that
a "bump-up" of $200,000 to the
dates to raising one-third of their
neither includes a way to pay for the
spending limit.
money from political action commit-
federal benefits. Weeks of negotiation
In the 1992 election, 192 candidates
tees (PACs). (Highlights, p. 3092)
were dedicated to producing a new
would have qualified for the maximum
The bill is changed from the 1992
plan that would pay for the vouchers
spending limit because they ran within
version in several places. In addition to a
without tapping general revenues. But
20 points of their primary opponents: 25
provision that could significantly in-
the Ways and Means Committee re-
incumbents; 69 candidates running in
crease the spending limit, it frees candi-
fused to give up its hold on tax-related
open seats and 98 challengers.
dates to raise money for causes other
provisions, and they had to be severed.
For such candidates, not counting
than their own campaigns. The new bill
Democratic leaders say that next
the legal fee exemption, the limit
allows members to run their own PACs;
year the House will consider a sepa-
jumps to $970,000 after it is indexed
the 1992 bill forbade it. The new bill also
rate bill likely to include a steep new
for inflation to 1996.
allows federal candidates to raise "soft
registration fee on PACs, voluntary
"When you proceed to the floor, I will
money" - money that is not subject to
taxpayer contributions and a possible
take great delight in pointing out to the
federal guidelines - to aid state candi-
tax on candidate receipts.
American people
the phony spending
The two-bill plan drew GOP ridi-
limits and tremendous loopholes," said
By Beth Donovan
cule. "We all know this proposal is
Robert L. Livingston, R-La.
CQ
NOVEMBER 13, 1993 - 3091
INSIDE CONGRESS
Highlights of Campaign Finance Bill
T
he campaign finance bill (HR 3) approved by the
Large-donor limits. Candidates could accept no
House Administration Committee on Nov. 10 would
more than a total of $200,000 from contributors who
give House candidates up to $200,000 in federal benefits
make donations of $200 and more. This limit applies to
if they agree to limit campaign spending. That and other
all candidates, regardless of whether they agree to abide
sums in the bill would be indexed for inflation with 1992
by federal spending limits.
as the base year. (Committee, p. 3091)
Individual contributions. The bill would raise the
The bill would not become effective until separate
limit on what an individual can give to candidates, par-
legislation to fund it is enacted and no sooner than the
ties and political committees to $60,000 per two-year
1996 election cycle. Following are major provisions:
election cycle from $50,000 per cycle. Within that limit,
an individual could make annual contributions of up to
House Spending Limits
$40,000 to state party committees, $20,000 to national
party committees and $25,000 to candidates.
House candidates. The spending limit for candi-
Contested primary. If a candidate wins a primary
dates who participate would be set at $600,000; indexed
with a margin of 20 percent or less, he or she could raise
for inflation, it should near $675,000 by 1996.
an additional $66,600 in PAC contributions and $66,600
Contested primaries. The limit would rise by
from large donors.
$200,000 for candidates who win primaries with margins
Personal contributions. To be eligible for federal
of 20 percent or less.
benefits, candidates could not contribute to or loan their
Exemptions. Spending for legal services and taxes
campaigns more than $50,000 in personal funds.
would not count toward spending and contribution lim-
Carry-over of funds. Contributions carried over
its. Spending for fundraising, accounting and overhead
from past elections would be "undesignated" and not
also would be exempt from spending limits up to 10
count against any aggregate contribution cap. Funds ex-
percent of the expenditure cap.
pended would count against the spending limit.
Limits lifted. The spending limit would be voided
Limits lifted. All contribution limits would be lifted
and federal benefits retained if a candidate who had
and federal benefits retained for an eligible candidate
pledged to comply with federal limits faced an opponent
who faced an opponent who did not pledge to abide by
who did not do so and raised or spent more than 25
spending limits and contributed more than $50,000 in
percent of the spending limit ($150,000).
personal funds. The contribution limits would remain in
place for the opponent.
Contribution Limits
Minors. No one under 18 could contribute to a politi-
cal campaign.
PAC limits. Candidates could accept up to $5,000
per election from a political action committee (PAC), the
Federal Benefits
same amount as in current law, but with a new aggregate
cap of $200,000. This limit applies to all candidates,
Candidates who agreed to comply with optional
regardless of whether they agree to abide by federal
spending limits would be eligible for partial federal fund-
spending limits.
ing of their general-election campaigns.
Not only is the potential spending
seats. Unlike incumbents, who generally
about the bill. Martin Frost, D-Texas,
limit higher than that in the 1992 bill,
coast to nomination, outsiders often slog
said he would oppose it on the floor.
it would extend to many more candi-
through tough primaries.
"I will vote to report this, but I
dates. Last year's bill offered $150,000
The PAC cap and the federal bene-
think it's a bad bill," he said, adding
(now $200,000) in added spending for
fits would grow alongside the spending
that the bill had "basically flawed and
candidates who won with margins of
cap. Candidates with contested prima-
unworkable sections."
10 percent or less (now 20 percent).
ries would get an added $66,600 in
With Democrats skittish about
Critics of the bump-up say that a
each category. After indexing for infla-
changing the way campaigns are run,
candidate with a difficult primary may
tion, they could collect over $225,000
Republicans aimed to tar the bill
campaign hard, win by 21 percent and
from PACs and $225,000 in vouchers.
rhetorically. The tone quickly became
lose the money, while a candidate with
partisan and personal.
four marginal challengers may win by 19
Restive Democrats
A Republican amendment to ban
percent and get the funds.
While Democrats held ranks
PACs provoked the most hostile ex-
"It really requires candidates to
throughout the markup - never los-
change of the day. Livingston argued
predict how much they're going to win
ing more than one member on a roll
that 90 percent of PAC money goes to
their primary by," said Benjamin L.
call nearly everyone expressed res-
incumbents and that it should be
Cardin of Maryland, the only Demo-
ervations about the bill.
eliminated to level the field for chal-
crat to join Republicans in an unsuc-
"None of us are totally happy,"
lengers. Democrats fired back that
cessful 8-11 vote to strip the provision.
said Barbara B. Kennelly, D-Conn.
PACs give small donors a chance to
The add-on is most likely to benefit
Committee Chairman Charlie Rose,
participate on a par with the wealthy.
challengers and those running in open
D-N.C., offered no insight on his views
"The gentleman is going back to
3092 - NOVEMBER 13. 1993
CQ
INSIDE CONGRESS
That House Will Consider on Floor
Communications vouchers. Eligible candidates
facilities. They also could transfer soft money to state
who face a general-election opponent would be entitled
party committees for state uses and contribute soft
to up to $200,000 in federal communications vouchers.
money to state candidates.
The vouchers could pay for advertising, postage and
State parties could use money raised under state
voter contact material (bumper stickers, brochures, but-
guidelines for most administrative and overhead ex-
tons, yard signs) used during the general-election period.
penses, party conventions and other state functions.
The vouchers would be provided on a matching basis:
Credit cards. The bill would overturn an existing
The first $200 contributed by an individual would be
Federal Election Commission (FEC) prohibition on
matched with federally funded vouchers.
party committees entering into profitable relationships
Contested primaries. Eligible candidates who win
with banks to establish credit card services.
a primary with a margin of 20 percent or less would be
Federal candidate fundraising. Federal candi-
eligible for an additional $66,600 in federal benefits.
dates and officeholders would be prohibited from raising
Independent expenditures. Eligible candidates who
soft money for party committees. They could raise non-
are adversely affected by attacks from independent groups
federal money for state candidates.
that spend more than $10,000 would be eligible for federal
PAC contributions. The bill would increase the
communications vouchers equal to the expenditure. Use of
amount PACs can give annually to national parties to
the vouchers would not count against the spending limit.
$25,000 from $15,000. It also would increase PAC con-
tributions to state party committees to $15,000 a year,
Soft Money
up from $10,000.
The bill would restrict the role of "soft money" -
Miscellaneous
funds raised outside federal restrictions - by all party
committees. Only money raised within federal guidelines,
Bundling. The bill would prohibit bundling of cam-
"hard money," could be used for generic party activity
paign contributions by political parties, lobbyists, trade
and any other party activity that promotes a federal
associations, partnerships, foreign agents and corporate
candidate or significantly affects a federal election.
and union officers, employees and agents. PACs that are
State party committees would have to use hard
connected to a union, business or other entity that lob-
money for all voter registration and get-out-the-vote
bies Congress also would be barred from bundling.
drives in presidential election years. In other years, such
Ballot initiative committees. Committees working
drives designed exclusively for state candidates could be
for or against a ballot initiative that affects federal of-
paid for with soft money.
ficeholders or candidates term limits, for instance -
State party committees would have to use hard
would be required to comply with federal fundraising
money for voter list development during even-numbered
guidelines and disclose all expenditures to the FEC.
election years.
Severability. If any portion of the optional spend-
Exemptions. National party committees could raise
ing limits or federal benefits package is found uncon-
and spend soft money for funds to construct and main-
stitutional, the entire section would fall. All other provi-
tain office buildings and television and radio broadcast
sions of the bill are severable.
the country club, to the boardrooms
GOP Amendments
Court decisions. Thomas' amendment
to represent the rich," Gejdenson
As the markup drew to a close, Liv-
was defeated 8-9.
said to Livingston.
ingston offered a Republican substi-
Livingston amendments that were
"Gimme a break," said Livingston.
tute that would ban political action
defeated by partisan voice votes would
"This is not the Larry King show,"
committees, require funds to be raised
have: cut PAC contributions to $1,000;
interjected Rose. "Everyone will
from constituents and provide added
prohibited PACs from bundling; and
please behave."
party funding for candidates who face
required corporations, labor unions and
"I dare say that the gentleman
incumbents with large warchests.
non-profit groups to report political ac-
knows more people in board rooms
(GOP plan, Weekly Report, p. 2859)
tivity.
and country clubs than I do," Living-
Its rejection on a party-line vote
An amendment by Boehner to ban
ston shot back to Gejdenson after
marked the last in a long series of
franked mass mail in election years was
pulling out a 1992 fundraising report.
defeats. Only one Republican amend-
defeated on an 8-11 vote, with Dale E.
"Wrapping yourself in all the poor
ment was accepted, and it repeated
Kildee, D-Mich., joining Republicans.
people and all the women and all the
language already in the bill.
Only two Democratic amendments
downtrodden
is a fundamental hy-
Thomas offered an amendment de-
were offered. One, by William L. Clay,
pocrisy," added Bill Thomas, R-Calif.
signed to force the Supreme Court to
Mo., was accepted by voice vote. It
A comment by Steny H. Hoyer, D-
revisit the issue of mandatory spending
would require most organizations that
Md., finally cooled tempers: "There's
limits by moving to strike the voucher
lobby Congress to disclose their funding
no doubt why the public calls us all a
provisions. Democrats say the vouchers
sources. A Cardin amendment to limit
bunch of snakes, because we all call
are necessary to get candidates to com-
spending in the general election to
each other a bunch of snakes."
ply with limits in accordance with past
$500,000 was defeated by voice vote.
CQ
NOVEMBER 13, 1993 - 3093
INSIDE CONGRESS
CAMPAIGN FINANCE
House Takes First Big Step
In Overhauling System
Dissatisfied Democrats join forces with GOP
in revolt that almost keeps bill from floor
W
ith their bags packed to
and a PAC ban were both specifically
spend the next two months
rejected by House leaders. (Senate pro-
back home, House members
visions, Weekly Report, p. 2239)
decisively - if anxiously approved
"It's going to be a very hard confer-
a sweeping overhaul of the congres-
ence, but it's doable," said Fred
sional campaign finance system Nov.
Wertheimer, president of Common
22. But the vote is just the first of
Cause, which lobbied for the bill.
three needed before campaigns will
"You've got to combine the best features
have to change the way they raise
of both bills to come up with reform that
money - difficult votes on a confer-
represents a breakthrough."
ence report and separate funding leg-
Moreover, the bill was passed only
islation loom for next year.
by shunting the controversial question
Passed 255-175, the Democratic lead-
of how to raise funds for the benefits it
ership bill (HR 3) would provide partial
offers. And even if enacted, it would not
Foley praises passage Nov. 22.
public funding of House campaigns for
take effect until separate legislation to
candidates who agree to comply with
BOXSCORE
provide those funds becomes law.
federal spending caps. It also would limit
The Congressional Budget Office es-
the aggregate amounts candidates can
timates that House candidate benefits
receive from political action committees
Bills: HR 3 (H Rept 103-375), S 3
will cost $93 million, and the total elec-
(PACs) and individual contributors who
- Campaign finance.
tion cycle cost is put at $181 million. So
give more than $200. (Vote 605, p. 3288;
Latest action: House passed HR
far, the Ways and Means Committee
billhighlights, Weekly Report, p. 3092)
3 by 255-175 on Nov. 22.
has shown little interest in taking up a
"There was real skepticism whether
major funding bill for congressional
Congress could do anything meaningful
Next likely action: House-Senate
campaigns. (Ways and Means, p. 3247)
on campaign finance reform," said Rosa
conference next year.
"Nothing will happen - no limits,
DeLauro, Conn., who headed the Demo-
Background: Democrats' bill
no controls — unless a financing pack-
cratic whip task force on the issue.
offers federal benefits to induce
age is passed," said California Rep.
"This bill is real reform."
candidates to limit spending.
Bill Thomas, a leading Republican
Despite the leadership enthusiasm,
Separate legislation would be
critic of the Democratic plan. "Go
even some Democrats take issue with
needed to provide financing.
home and tell your folks that."
that statement, arguing that the spend-
Reference: Committee approval,
ing and PAC limits should be lower. And
Weekly Report, p. 3091; Senate
Synar Wasn't Bluffing
Republicans argue that the bill will not
passage, p. 1533.
Despite the lopsided vote for the bill
reform the House but merely preserve
- which included 22 Republicans and
Democratic hegemony.
all but four of the 66 Democratic fresh-
"The bill is awful, it's goofy, it's
peared Democratic leaders might falter
men - it came within a whisker of not
complex, it's unfair, it's unbelievable,
as the House was poised to reject the
even making it to the House floor. Only
it's unconstitutional," said Republican
rule to bring the bill to the floor. But in
a relentless series of personal appeals by
Rep. Robert L. Livingston, La. "Its
the end, they pulled in the votes needed,
Speaker Thomas S. Foley, D-Wash.,
sponsors should be ashamed."
setting the stage for a conference with
and aggressive Democratic whipping
Early this year, it appeared that
the Senate sometime next year.
during an unusual Sunday session fi-
House Democratic leaders would be an
"Each step of the way, people tell me
nally cleared the way for passage.
obstacle to passage as they slowed
it can't be done," said Sam Gejdenson,
Three days before the key Nov. 21
White House plans to unveil a unified
Conn., chief architect of the Democratic
vote, Mike Synar, D-Okla., called an
proposal by insisting that the $5,000
plan. "I just keep going a step at a time."
afternoon news conference to announce
PAC contribution limit be retained.
The next two steps, however, will be no
that he had the votes to block consider-
And then Qctober - once slated to be
easier than the last. Conferees have to
ation of the bill. He said members on
"reform month" came and went
craft a package that can be approved in
both sides of the aisle would reject a rule
without House action.
both chambers despite major differences
that prohibited amendments or alterna-
Even in the waning hours, it ap-
between the House and Senate bills. The
tives other than the one put forward by
tenets of the Senate bill- a steep new tax
the Republican leadership - alterna-
By Beth Donovan
on candidates who reject spending limits
tives such as his own.
3246 - NOVEMBER 27, 1993
CQ
INSIDE CONGRESS
A Formidable Hurdle
W
hen the whipping was done and votes
the committee. "None of the 23 Democrats
were tallied, the name of one Demo-
expressed any enthusiasm for the plan
crat stood out among the 39 who crossed
when we finally saw it."
party leaders on the key vote on campaign
In the end, the lack of funding may have
finance: Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois.
helped Democrats lock in a few votes, but it
Rostenkowski stood fast Nov. 21 against
also opened them up to ridicule from Re-
the rule that allowed the bill (HR 3) to get
publicans and renewed suspicion from in-
to the floor. While he voted for the bill the
terest groups who have long questioned
next day, he was one of 25 Democrats to
Democratic leaders' commitment to partial
vote with Republicans to send the bill back
federal funding of House campaigns.
to committee, which would have killed it for
And passing a funding bill may now be
the year. Though his opposition did not
the biggest hurdle to making their theoreti-
determine the outcome of those votes, Ros-
cal campaign finance plan a reality.
tenkowski, as chairman of the Ways and
Dan Rostenkowski
Along with Rostenkowski, four other Dem-
Means Committee, retains the power to
ocrats on the panel voted against the rule. And
thwart the bill later. (Votes 599, 604, 605, p. 3288)
of those who supported it, several said Ways and Means
Even if signed into law, the Democratic leadership's
would not take up the funding question until pressed to do
campaign finance bill will not become effective until
so - though none would be identified on the point.
funding for candidate benefits is enacted. And the fate
"No one is going to get serious until we know we have
of that legislation lies next year with Ways and Means.
to, until after there's a conference report," said one.
"It's going to need Ways and Means' support," said
The pressure is not likely to come from the chair-
Benjamin L. Cardin, D-Md., a member of the panel.
man. In a statement inserted in the Congressional
"Ways and Means is very hostile to it right now."
Record immediately before the vote on the rule, Rosten-
Led by Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, Dem-
kowski expressed deep reservations about the bill and
ocrats worked long and hard to devise a funding mecha-
partial federal funding of congressional campaigns.
nism that could raise the nearly $100 million needed to
"I must express great concerns about the public fi-
provide candidates with up to $200,000 in public bene-
nancing provisions contained in the task force pro-
fits if they comply with optional spending limits.
posal," he wrote. The taxpayer add-on and PAC reg-
Without tapping general revenues - something the
istration fees "would finance approximately one-fifth of
bill's report explicitly forbids - they came up with a plan
the cost of the legislation I repeat, about 20 percent.
to allow taxpayers to voluntarily contribute $10 for House
Even if all the other task force ideas for financing were
campaigns and to impose new registration fees on political
implemented
the estimates available to me today
action committees that could go as high as $20,000. If those
indicate a substantial shortfall.
revenues fell short, Democratic leaders were ready to
"I have great fear that the eventual burden for fund-
endorse a 5 percent tax on candidate receipts.
ing this legislation may rest on some broad cross section
The plan was vetted by many members active on
of the American taxpaying public. I find it unacceptable
campaign finance, but none who served on Ways and
that the American taxpayer would pay for congressional
Means, according to committee members. When they
elections."
finally saw it at a Nov. 3 Democratic Caucus, the panel
The question for next year is how far will he go to
balked and the funding plan was stripped out of the bill.
find other means to pay for a bill Democratic leaders say
"The early briefings we got came from news ac-
is important to them and their party.
counts," said Robert T. Matsui, D-Calif., a member of
-Beth Donovan
Long a backer of public financing of
nance overhaul. Their objections were
amendments were rejected - all but six
campaigns, Synar this year was shoved
echoed in editorials in The Washington
of them from Republicans - as well as
outside the leadership loop after he
Post and The New York Times on the
three other substitute measures.
abandoned support of federal funding,
morning of Nov. 20, when the Rules
"C-SPAN should be at the Rules
saying it lacked the votes to pass. In-
Committee was set to meet on the bill.
Committee," said first-term Rep.
stead, together with Republicans in-
"The practical effect of widening
Martin R. Hoke, R-Ohio, referring to
cluding Reps. Fred Upton, Mich., and
the choices would be to provide cover
the cable network that televises con-
Steve Gunderson, Wis., he advocated
for opponents of reform who wish to
gressional proceedings, "because that
lower PAC and individual contribution
gut the Democratic bill," wrote the
is where the tyranny of the majority
limits in lieu of a spending cap.
Times. The Post called HR 3 "the best
takes place."
Calling his plan "the second best bill
of the lemons on the lot."
But even as the panel approved the
for both parties," Synar said he simply
Armed with rare editorial backing
rule on a partisan 7-3 vote (Martin
wanted a vote on it.
for a closed rule, the committee sat
Frost, D-Texas, abstained), Demo-
Public interest groups including
through more than three hours of testi-
cratic leaders were only beginning to
Common Cause attacked his effort as a
mony as Synar and a score of others
review a preliminary whip count that
subterfuge for killing a campaign fi-
paraded in. As expected, all 35 proposed
showed Synar was not bluffing.
CQ
NOVEMBER 27, 1993 - 3247
INSIDE CONGRESS
IAFTA Distractions
done to respond to public disgust with
Democratic leaders had been dis-
campaign fundraising and spending
tracted for weeks with the North
without running afoul of constitu-
American Free Trade Agreement vote
tional or budgetary imperatives.
Nov. 17 and were nervously looking
"The American people have told us
ahead to a difficult budget vote.
over and over again
that
they've
had
Meanwhile, Synar quietly gathered
enough of business as usual," said Herb
support for his effort to present his
Klein, N.J. "This bill may not be per-
plan. (NAFTA, Weekly Report, p.
fect, but it is a real, bold step forward."
3174; Budget, p. 3254)
The spending limit - which could
He started with a solid base of GOP
easily go as high as $970,000 by 1996 for
support. Not only do most Republicans
candidates who face competitive
oppose the Democratic bill - they ar-
primaries - drew a mixed response
gue that spending limits hurt challeng-
The House- is considering legislation
from Democrats. Many said they
ers most also oppose closed rules at
Campaign: Finance Reform.
wished the limits were lower, but nearly
any time. Although Common Cause and
all said challengers will benefit from
C-SPAN
other groups lobbied the 15 Republi-
spending limits and federal assistance.
cans who had voted for a similar 1992
Rep. Robert L. Livingston donned a
"Do not tell me spending limits lock
clown's hat and nose Nov. 22.
bill that was vetoed, the GOP votes were
in an incumbent advantage," said first-
never in doubt.
termer Eric D. Fingerhut, D-Ohio. "You
Among Democrats, Synar assem-
Along with appeals to party loy-
and I know incumbents can raise as
bled an odd lot. In addition to friends
alty, Democratic leaders and interest
much money as they want."
and a few who supported his idea, he
groups warned that if the bill went
For their part, Republicans alter-
won backing from some Democrats who
back to the drawing board, it would
nated between calling the limit an "in-
complained the leadership bill did not
become more difficult to rebuff efforts
cumbent protection" and ridiculing it
go far enough and others who said it
to lower the $5,000 PAC contribution
as exorbitant, repeatedly referring to
went too far. Supporting Synar were
limit, which has been a baseline de-
"the $1 million spending limit."
first-termer Martin T. Meehan, D-
mand of the Democratic Caucus. Clin-
While many Democrats applauded
Mass., who complained the Democratic
ton, the Senate and many first-term
the aggregate cap that will keep PACs
PAC limit was too high, and other Dem-
Democrats favor a lower limit.
from providing more than a third of a
ocrats who had voted against past cam-
"The people whipping for the bill
campaign's funds, several others stood
paign finance bills such as Frost; Bob
are saying it could be a lot worse," said
to defend the role of PACs in the po-
Carr, Mich.; Gene Taylor, Miss.; and
Texas Democrat Charles Wilson, who
litical process. Democrats argue that
W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, La.
voted for the rule.
PACs enable small donors to pool
"All these guys who oppose reform
As Sunday wore on, Democrats
their resources to help candidates and
are hiding behind Synar," one Demo-
whittled their deficit down from 15
that the public is served because the
cratic whip groused hours before the
votes to 12 to 8 votes until they finally
PAC interests are well known, while it
vote. "It's incredible."
secured a majority. To ensure the troops
is hard to trace the agendas of rich
Democratic leaders went into high
held, Foley made one last appeal from
individual donors.
gear on Sunday, Nov. 21. The bill was
the well of the House. It was the first
"If you eliminate PACs, all you do
supposed to come up early that after-
time his staff could recall his speaking
is drive the money trail underground,"
noon - with the crucial vote on the rule
in behalf of a rule and only the fourth
said David R. Obey, D-Wis.
coming first - but a laundry list of non-
time he voted for one as Speaker.
The GOP alternative, which was re-
controversial bills was slipped onto the
"We have promised to deal with
jected 173-263, would ban PACs, and
schedule one by one to buy time.
this issue this year," Foley exhorted.
throughout the debate, Republicans
"We didn't have the votes an hour
"Let us do it."
hammered Democrats for retaining the
ahead of time," said Barbara B. Ken-
The rule was adopted, 220-207,
"special interest money." They also an-
nelly, D-Conn., a chief deputy whip.
with 39 Democrats voting against it
grily denounced Democrats for retain-
Foley spent much of the day cajoling
and only three Republicans voting for
ing so-called leadership PACs that en-
members personally on the floor, work-
it. (Vote 599, pg. 3288)
able members to establish PACs to give
ing the phones when the floor was quiet.
to colleagues. (Vote 603, p. 3288)
President Clinton called Synar at 4 p.m.
Final Passage
"Political action committees have
- 90 minutes after debate was first
After the drama of the rules fight,
poisoned the political process," said
scheduled to begin - to ask him to back
final passage - put off until the fol-
Wayne T. Gilcrest, R-Md., who ousted
off. And White House lobbyists - al-
lowing day - was an anticlimax, if a
a Democrat in 1990.
ready lining Capitol hallways to fight a
sometimes theatrical one. Democrats
The Republican plan would re-
spending cut amendment sponsored by
and Republicans alike knew the vote
quire candidates to raise a majority of
Reps. Timothy J. Penny, D-Minn., and
would swell in favor of the Democratic
their funds in their districts. To Re-
John R. Kasich, R-Ohio - added a yes
bill with many members unwilling to
publicans, this would keep level the
vote on the campaign finance rule to
vote directly against campaign fi-
playing field for challengers and en-
their litany.
nance. Eighteen Democrats and 18
hance voter confidence in the system.
"The Speaker called me and indi-
Republicans who voted against the
"Of course you spend too much
cated how important it is to him per-
rule supported the bill.
time raising money," said Thomas.
sonally. That rarely happens," said
Almost to a one, the Democrats
"You're never in your district. You're
Dan Glickman, D-Kan., as he reversed
who rose in favor of the bill called it
in New York, Hollywood."
his earlier support of Synar.
imperfect, but the best that could be
Democrats counter that confining
3248 NOVEMBER 27, 1993
CQ
INSIDE CONGRESS
fundraising would put those from poor
ORGANIZATION
districts and those lacking access to
affluent voters at a disadvantage.
"Over 90 percent of the people who
Congressional Reform Panel
sent me here earn less than $25,000 a
year," said James E. Clyburn, D-S.C.,
Winds Up Work in Discord
who said that without outside
fundraising. he could not have cam-
paigned for the seat he won in 1992.
House members approve modest proposals
Another line of Republican attack
with most Republicans opposed
was the effective date of the Demo-
cratic bill, which would take effect in
1995 at the start of the next election
The Joint Committee on the Orga-
laws and other statutes from which it
cycle. Republicans say a new law
of Congress ended on a
is now exempt - a change intended to
should be effective for the 1994 elec-
sour and partisan note Nov. 22, when
address the oft-heard complaint that
tions. Democrats counter that the cur-
House members approved recommen-
Congress holds itself above the laws it
rent election cycle is already half over.
dations to improve Congress that Re-
passes. (Highlights, p. 3250)
That had been a sticking point
publicans derided as a pale shadow of
The Senate members of the Joint
with interest groups involved in the
real reform.
Committee approved a separate set of
issue, but as passage now seems un-
The recommendations - designed
recommendations Nov. 4. House and
likely until late next year, it is no
to streamline committees, revamp the
Senate members have no plans to rec-
longer high on their agenda. Instead,
budget process and make Congress
oncile the differences between their
groups such as Common Cause and
more accountable — were adopted, 8-4.
proposals before introducing them as
Public Citizen will work to eliminate
A majority of Republicans were op-
legislation. The Senate, for example,
leadership PACs and include the Sen-
posed, but Vice Chairman David Dreier
calls for the elimination of all joint
ate's tougher restrictions on money
of California and Bill Emerson of Mis-
committees; the House does not. Next
raised outside federal guidelines.
souri reluctantly voted for the propos-
year, both chambers' recommenda-
The groups also will work to pass a
als, saying they hoped that the GOP
tions will have to be considered by
bill to fund the federal benefits in the
could make major
several committees
House package and to persuade the
changes when the
before they can go
Senate to include some measure of
plan hits the House
to the floor.
public funding.
floor next year.
Although Sen-
For Republicans, the latter issue is
"This is the
ate members fin-
red meat. During the House debate,
lowest-common-
ished their recom-
they repeatedly attacked the Demo-
denominator re-
mendations in a
cratic plan for lacking a funding mech-
form package,"
one-day drafting
anism and suggested Democrats would
said Dreier. "We
session, House
soon be picking taxpayers' pockets to
can do better than
members' debate
foot the bill. Livingston donned a
this, and I hope we
spanned five days
clown's hat and bulbous red nose to
can on the floor of
and dragge
illustrate his views on the Democratic
the House."
through the week-
plan.
House Joint
end of Nov. 20. The
If Democrats disliked Livingston's
Committee Chair-
House debate took
get-up, they also know that federal
man Lee H. Hamil-
R. MICHAEL JENKINS
longer in part be-
funding is the issue that causes them
ton, D-Ind., hailed
Hamilton explains plan Nov. 22
cause it was more
the most trouble internally on cam-
the package as "sig-
partisan than the
paign finance. To impose the spending
nificant and meaningful reform." He
Senate's. The process was complicated
limits that they see as essential, Dem-
acknowledged that the package "falls
by the fact that the Joint Committee's
ocrats must offer an enticement to en-
short of most anybody's concept of bold
rules prohibited proxy voting, so meet-
sure that the limits remain voluntary.
or major reform," but said the recom-
ings had to be scheduled at a time when
The only incentive the Supreme Court
mendations would have no chance of
all members could attend — a difficult
has sanctioned thus far is public
being carried out if the panel had been
task during Congress' year-end work-
money.
more ambitious.
load crush.
Majority Leader Richard A. Gep-
As approved by the House mem-
During consideration of an initial
hardt, D-Mo., said that he hopes the
bers of the Joint Committee, the rec-
plan drafted by Hamilton, House mem-
House can move a funding mechanism
ommendations call for establishing a
bers of the Joint Committee rejected
in time to bring it to conference, but
two-year cycle for budget and appro-
many Republican amendments for
that will be difficult.
priations, authorizing use of non-
more drastic changes on 6-6 party-line
"If there is any attempt to use tax-
members of Congress in ethics investi-
votes, including proposals to ban proxy
payer funds for these campaigns, I will
gations and imposing tighter limits on
voting in committee and restructure the
be in vigorous opposition," said Glen
the number of committees and sub-
committee system. Also rejected were
Browder, Ala., a conservative Demo-
committees that members can sit on.
amendments to make it harder for the
crat whose support for the bill was
The panel also recommended requir-
majority party to bring bills to the floor
said to be vital to Democratic success.
ing Congress to comply with labor
under fast-track procedures, to give Re-
This fight will be continued
publicans more committee staff and to
later.
By Janet Hook
make other changes that would
CQ
NOVEMBER 27, 1993 3249
VOTE STUDIES
14. Mining Royalties
conference, the strength of the House vote gives House
negotiators added leverage against divided Senate confer-
Members have tried since 1987 to revamp the 1872
ees.
Mining Law. one of the last remaining "homesteading"
George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Natural
measures enacted to entice development of the West. But
Resources Committee, Rahall and Energy and Mineral Re-
with other natural resource and public lands issues,
sources Subcommittee Chairman Richard H. Lehman, D-
Western senators have long managed to outmuscle their
Calif., crafted HR 322 so it would leave no doubt about the
House colleagues on mining disputes, so the 121-year-old
House's position on mining while still appeasing House
has remained in a virtual stalemate.
Democrats from states containing most of the nation's
The House this year gave a major boost to supporters of
hard-rock minerals.
in overhaul by passing a tough mining bill (HR 322) on
"The House was not ambivalent on this issue," said
Nov. 18. The lopsided vote is expected to give the House
Philip M. Hocker, president of the conservationist Mineral
much leverage in upcoming negotiations with the Senate,
Policy Center. "The House does not want an ambivalent
which passed a much leaner version by voice vote on May
conference." (Weekly Report, pp. 3191, 1355.)
25.
House passage came on a 316-108 vote: R 70-102; D 245-
15. Campaign Finance
(ND 166-3, SD 79-3); I 1-0.
The 1872 Mining Law requires no royalties to be col-
For most of 1993, House
lected from miners who extract valuable ores from federal
Democratic leaders resisted
lands. It also allows miners to buy, or "patent," claims on
action on legislation to over-
federal lands for as little as $2.50 an acre. The law requires
haul the campaign finance
MOTOR
limited repair of abandoned hard-rock mines.
system. But in the waning
Under the House-passed bill, sponsored by Nick J. Ra-
days of the session, under
hall II, D-W.Va., miners would be required to pay an 8
pressure from the freshman
0-28-02
percent royalty on hard-rock minerals
class and editorial writers,
HAICH
but would be allowed to deduct the
they reversed course and used
costs of transportation. The bill would
their clout to wrest a bill from
FINANCE
climinate patenting and require min-
defeat at the hands of an un-
ers to pay an annual lease fee of $100
usual bipartisan coalition.
on existing claims and $200 a year for
Early in the year, House leaders delayed completion of
new claims.
a joint administration-congressional Democratic plan by
The bill also would impose tough
demanding that the current $5,000 limit on political action
federal standards for the repair of fed-
committee (PAC) contributions be maintained for House
eral land and require miners to be
candidates. Then - after the plan was presented May 7
more environmentally sensitive.
and the Senate passed its version June 17 - House leaders
The House passed HR 322 despite
Rahall
delayed further, saying they did not have the votes to pass
strong objections from Republicans that the measure
a bill because of opposition to provisions calling for partial
would lead to a loss of jobs in states where the mining of
federal funding of campaigns.
gold. silver, copper and other hard-rock minerals is a domi-
For years, Democrats have struggled with the Supreme
nant industry.
Court mandate that spending limits must be voluntary and
Only six Democrats voted against the measure, while
accompanied by direct federal subsidies to candidates.
nine Republicans from Western, Rocky Mountain or Plains
Most Democrats support restrictions on spending, but
States voted for the measure, including New Mexico's Ste-
many resist providing public benefits. With concern about
ven H. Schiff and Joe Skeen, who hail from a state with
the deficit high, the funding question became particularly
large copper mines.
salient.
The Senate's alternative bill (S 775), crafted by Larry
Nearly all Republicans oppose any federal funding of
E. Craig, R-Idaho, would impose a 2 percent royalty, but
congressional campaigns, and many object to spending lim-
would allow most exploration, mining and development
its. Alone, they can do little to block a Democratic bill, but
costs to be deducted. Patenting would still be allowed,
this year they were joined by an odd assortment of Demo-
although miners would be required to purchase federal
crats - some who resist federal funding; some who say the
land at fair market prices. The bill balks at establishing
spending and PAC limits are too high; and yet others who
new federal reclamation standards, choosing instead to al-
resist change in the system that elected them. For months,
low state laws to govern the repair of damaged public
Democratic leaders made little effort to unite their party
lands.
on the issue.
The House vote on mining is especially important be-
By early fall, however, they were under pressure from
cause of the unusual "ticket to conference" strategy
first-term members who said voters would not tolerate
adopted by the Senate. At the behest of Energy and Natu-
inaction. Although October - once dubbed "reform
ral Resources Chairman J. Bennett Johnston, D-La., the
month" - came and went without public action, Demo-
Senate quickly moved Craig's bill through committee and
cratic leaders did begin serious, private negotiations to
the floor with no amendments and little debate. The Sen-
reach a consensus within the House Democratic Caucus.
ate's leading mining reform advocate, Dale Bumpers, D-
They cobbled together a funding mechanism that met with
Ark., agreed to hold his fire until the House-Senate negoti-
preliminary caucus approval. It relied heavily on voluntary
ations.
taxpayer contributions and a new PAC registration fee. But
The Senate's Western coalition, usually in agreement
when the Ways and Means Committee balked at waiving its
on public lands issues, is expected to split on mining re-
right to review tax legislation, it was dropped from the plan
form. And because the final bill is likely to be written in
and an unfunded bill was readied for floor action.
CQ
DECEMBER 18, 1993 - 3449
VOTE STUDIES
In that way, the 1993 bill was identical to a plan Con-
care program, the health-care subsidy for the elderly and
gress approved in 1992 that was vetoed by President
disabled.
George Bush. The two bills are also similar in that both
Clinton is planning his own revisions to the Medicare
include spending limits with up to one-third coming in
system to help pay for his proposed overhaul of the health-
federal money; both also cap PAC and large individual
care system, while the Penny-Kasich amendment would
contributions at one-third of a candidate's total funds.
have steered Medicare savings only toward reducing the
The 1993 spending limits, however, are potentially far
deficit.
higher than those in the 1992 bill. The new plan also
The other feature of the Penny-Kasich bid that made
permits leadership PACs and allows candidates to roll over
the White House and Democratic leaders nervous was its
substantial war chests from one election to the next, prac-
mandate to lower ceilings on annual appropriations below
tices restricted in the earlier bill.
levels ordered in the August deficit-reduction plan. Un-
Once the bill was formally presented, the coalition that had
der that law, dis-
stymied action began to lose steam. Naysayers were more
cretionary spend-
adamant behind closed doors than in public; and many
ing was capped for
Democrats who had voted for or endorsed the 1992 bill when it
five years at fis-
was certain to be vetoed were reluctant to vote no now.
cal 1993 levels.
The loose coalition had one last card to play: the vote on
The Penny-Kasich
the rule bringing the bill to the floor. From the Republican
amendment would
bloc to the scattered Democrats, all had amendments they
have reduced those
wanted to support, but the rule forbade them.
limits by another
To overcome their campaign to defeat the rule, Demo-
$43 billion through
cratic leaders - even Speaker Thomas S. Foley, D-Wash.
fiscal 1998.
- worked the House floor for hours during an unusual
"We have just
Penny
Kasich
Sunday session. The vote was delayed repeatedly as party
begun to look for
whips counted and recounted their votes. Late in the day,
places to reduce the deficit," conceded Majority Leader
Nov. 21, the House narrowly approved the rule, 220-207: R
Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo., in a floor speech that paid
3-168; D 216-39 (ND 156-15, SD 60-24); I 1-0.
homage to the spirit, if not the content, of the Penny-
Passage of the bill the next day was anticlimactic. Many
Kasich amendment. "But if we act on this amendment
members who were willing to vote against the rule were
tonight, we act prematurely, because we not only cut, we
unwilling to vote against the package. (Related Senate
take the caps down further."
vote, p. 3452; background, Weekly Report, p. 3246)
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John
P. Murtha, D-Pa., helped lead the charge against the
16. 'Reinventing Government'/Spending Cuts
amendment on grounds that the lower spending limits
would endanger defense spending, because budget rules no
When President Clinton eked out enough votes to pass
longer put up protective "fire walls" that insulate defense
his five-year deficit-reduction plan in August, the hard-
from spending cuts.
fought victory came with a price: To win the votes of
Other chairmen of Appropriations subcommittees
recalcitrant fiscal conservatives who thought the package
launched their own lobbying assaults. One tactic criticized
of budget savings and tax increases did not cut enough,
by lawmakers was a form letter by Energy and Water
Clinton had to promise they would get another chance to
Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Tom Bevill, D-
glean more savings before the year's end.
Ala., and ranking Republican John T. Myers of Indiana
Clinton kept that promise and gave lawmakers another
threatening that specific water projects in members' dis-
vote on spending cuts, in the dual form of a package of
tricts might be at risk should the Penny-Kasich amend-
rescissions from just-passed appropriations for fiscal 1994,
ment pass.
plus selected cost-saving proposals from Vice President Al
Before the vote, Clinton called wavering lawmakers and
Gore's "reinventing government" initiative. But when that
recruited Cabinet secretaries and first lady Hillary Rod-
package (HR 3400) came to the floor Nov. 22, it opened the
ham Clinton to urge freshmen to vote against it.
door for a bipartisan group of aggressive "deficit hawks" to
Clinton prevailed again as the House rejected Penny-
offer their own deficit-reduction package, forcing the ad-
Kasich, 213-219: R 156-18; D 57-200 (ND 33-139, SD 24-
ministration once again to scramble for votes to protect the
61); I 0-1.
president's five-year budget plan.
The vote was a late-session affirmation not only of
The showdown vote came on an amendment by Timo-
Clinton's continued ability to thwart attempts by fiscal
thy J. Penny, D-Minn., and John R. Kasich, R-Ohio, who
conservatives for more drastic deficit reduction, it also
wanted to cut the budget by $90 billion over five years. It
showed he still could count on the votes of labor-oriented
was Penny who had extracted the promise from Clinton
liberal Democrats just days after the fractious vote on the
and House Democratic leaders for a chance to offer a major
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
deficit-cutting plan.
In contrast to the NAFTA vote of Nov. 17, Clinton
The original Clinton proposal was a relatively modest
enjoyed help from labor groups, which considered the cuts
package of about $11.5 billion in savings. When the Con-
too draconian: 125 Democrats came back to Clinton on the
gressional Budget Office later declared the package would
Penny-Kasich amendment after opposing him on the free
save only $305 million, the White House beefed up its plan
trade agreement vote. Lobbyists for the AFL-CIO and
by adding language already proposed by the administration
other unions were lined up outside the House, calling on
to trim the federal work force by 252,000 employees over
lawmakers to kill the amendment, though some continued
five years, bringing total savings to $37.1 billion in outlays.
to speak bitterly about Clinton's treatment of labor during
A large bulk of Penny-Kasich savings, by contrast, was
the NAFTA debate. (Background, Weekly Report, pp.
$34.2 billion that would have come from cuts in the Medi-
3254, 3174)
3450 - DECEMBER 18. 1993
CQ
VOTE STUDIES
signaled his willingness to compromise. His proposed 25
essentially models a plan endorsed by Clinton on May 7.
percent cut, however, did not meet the basic Republican
The Senate passed the bill June 17 on a vote of 60-38: R 7-
demand: any spending beyond the $4 billion for extended
35; D 53-3 (ND 42-0; SD 11-3). (Related House vote, p.
unemployment benefits had to be offset with cuts in other
3449; background, Weekly Report, p. 1533)
programs. Although a handful of Republican moderates
said they were interested in compromising, none voted for
4. Budget-Reconciliation
cloture April 21. Mitchell offered to trim the bill to $12.9
billion in appropriations and trust-fund spending, with $5
It was the closest Senate
billion in offsetting cuts. Minority Leader Bob Dole, R-
vote in six years, and Presi-
Kan., rejected that proposal, and Mitchell refused Dole's
dent Clinton came perilously
counteroffer of a $6.55 billion package with $2.55 billion in
close to seeing his entire eco-
offsetting cuts.
nomic plan go down to defeat
at the hands of rebellious
94
By voice vote, the Senate then agreed to strip the bill
down to one provision - a $4 billion emergency appropria-
Democrats. But in the end, he
tion for extended unemployment benefits. The truncated
won passage of the budget-
measure quickly passed, and Clinton signed it into law
reconciliation bill (HR 2264
April 23 (PL 103-24). (Related House vote, p. 3442; back-
- PL 103-66) that was de-
ground on Senate action, Weekly Report, p. 1001)
signed to put a reworked ver-
sion of his plan into law.
: 3. Campaign Finance
The bill passed only with
the intervention of Vice President Al Gore, who cast the tie-
For three years in a row - from 1990 through 1992 -
breaking vote shortly after 3 a.m. June 25. The vote was 50-49:
the Senate approved campaign finance legislation that
R 0-43; D 49-6 (ND 38-3, SD 11-3).
would have provided substantial public funding to candi-
Clinton's heavy reliance on tax increases to reduce the
dates who agreed to comply with spending limits.
deficit was initially the cause of the division among Senate
But this year Democrats could not break a Republican-
Democrats. Conservative Democrats, many of them from
led filibuster until they stripped out all public funding.
energy producing states, balked at his proposal for an
While concern over the deficit was a key factor, another
energy tax, based on the heat content of fuels. They wanted
was the occupant of the White House. Republicans had not
more emphasis on spending cuts, and when the bill came
tried to filibuster those previous bills because they knew
over from the House, some were determined to kill the
that then-President George Bush would veto them. Presi-
energy tax, even if it meant bringing down the entire pack-
dent Clinton, on the other hand, had promised to sign a
age. (Related House vote, p. 3449)
bill.
The leading Democratic opponent was David L. Boren
Democrats have long argued that the way to reform the
of Oklahoma, who initially had praised the Clinton plan
campaign finance system is to limit spending, which they
but later became a vocal critic. In the weeks leading up to
say would keep incumbents from winning on the strength
the Senate vote, Clinton had to rewrite key elements of his
of their fundraising advantages. The only way limits can
plan. But every attempt to produce a formula satisfactory
be imposed within the confines of the Supreme Court's
to the conservatives caused problems with other party fac-
1976 decision in Buckley U. Valeo is to make them volun-
tions.
tary and encourage compliance by offering partial public
Deeper spending cuts drew protests from liberal sena-
financing.
tors, who wanted to defend programs for the poor and
Republicans, on the other hand, object to spending
elderly. Pro-business moderates were upset that costly
caps, which they say would prevent challengers from being
business tax breaks were to be scaled back to pay for a
as visible as incumbents. They also object to asking tax-
smaller energy tax.
payers to foot even part of the bill for congressional cam-
Each group was able to exercise a sort of veto power
paigns.
over the deal because of Clinton's strategy to rely entirely
After two cloture votes failed on largely party lines to
on Democratic votes to pass his program. It was a strategy
end the 1993 filibuster, Democrats agreed to a demand by
borne partly out of necessity, partly out of choice. Republi-
five key Republicans that public funding be eliminated and
can leaders worked hard to keep their rank and file unified
replaced with a new 34 percent tax on contributions to
in opposition to Clinton's plan. The White House had
candidates who reject spending limits.
almost no opportunity to seek a bipartisan coalition in
The tax amendment, offered by Sen. Dave Durenberger,
support of its economic program.
R-Minn., passed on a 52-47 vote June 16, with 47 Demo-
At the same time, the White House and Democratic
crats in support.
leaders in the Senate made little effort to attract moderate
Though many say the tax will not pass constitutional
Republicans, some of whom said they would have supported
muster - they argue that it is a tax on speech - the
tax increases if the administration had been willing to make a
absence of public funding paved the way for a 62-37 vote to
more serious attempt at cutting spending in entitlement
shut off debate hours later.
programs, such as Social Security and Medicare.
The bill as passed by the Senate sets spending limits
The upshot was that Clinton's plan had to rise or fall
ranging from $8.25 million for a candidate in California to
with the Democrats alone.
$2 million for those in small states. It bans political action
Democrats escaped this quagmire with a laboriously
committee contributions, prohibits groups that lobby Con-
crafted compromise that junked Clinton's energy tax and
gress from bundling individual contributions to a candidate
replaced it with an increase in federal excise taxes on
and restricts the use of money raised outside federal guide-
gasoline and other transportation fuels. Liberals had to
lines in federal elections.
accept deeper cuts in Medicare, but they managed to limit
With the exception that it lacks public funding, the bill
the damage. And the moderates won a commitment from
3452 - DECEMBER 18, 1993
CQ
SPECIAL REPORT
free flow down the highway of everything you put on a truck."
at George Washington University. "The Great Society pro-
grams were larger in number and broader in scope and
Looking to Johnson and the Future
really did mark a sea change."
Despite those defeats, Democratic leaders hailed this as
And while the bills passed this year addressed important
the most productive session of Congress in a generation. House
issues, they did not touch such problems as poor schools and
Speaker Thomas S. Foley of Washington said the session
the homeless. "I don't know if [constituents] look at what
produced a "virtually unprecedented series of legislative
we've accomplished this year and relate to how it is going to
actions" that rivaled and even surpassed that of Lyndon B.
make their lives better," said Sen. David H. Pryor, D-Ark.
Johnson's first year in office.
That may change next year if Congress makes big changes
Nonpartisan observers say that comparison is overstated,
in the health-care system - something members say is a
noting that none of the laws passed this year had the para-
serious concern to their constituents. "The big one is health
digm-busting impact of Johnson's Great Society programs.
care," said Simpson. "If we could get that done in a sensible
"Family leave is important, but it's not the civil rights
way, they could trumpet that from the housetops."
bill; the Brady bill is of some consequence, but it's not
Following is a summary of major legislation acted upon
Medicare," said Christopher J. Deering, a political scientist
or awaiting action in the 103rd Congress:
INSIDE: CONGRESS
Senate members of the Joint Committee deferred ac-
Issue: Congressional reform.
tion on ethics and congressional compliance because sepa-
rate task forces in the Senate were studying those issues.
Synopsis: Faced with continuing public disillusionment
The compliance task force, headed by Sen. Harry Reid, D-
with the political process in Washington, lawmakers con-
Nev., sent its recommendations to Majority Leader George
sidered a variety of proposals to improve congressional
J. Mitchell, D-Maine, the week of Dec. 6, but they were not
operations. After a yearlong study, the Joint Committee on
made public. Before adjourning, the Senate passed a reso-
the Organization of Congress recommended a series of
lution (S Res 173) extending the deadline for the ethics
changes, including proposals to streamline the committee
task force to March 1, 1994.
system, revamp the ethics process and require Congress to
Senate members of the Joint Committee approved their
live under the laws it passes. Neither the House nor the
recommendations unanimously; the House recommenda-
Senate acted on those recommendations before the end of
tions were approved 8-4, over loud GOP complaints that
the year.
they did not go far enough.
Status: Long before the Joint Committee acted, the House
What to watch for: Many of the Joint Committee's pro-
took a step toward streamlining its committee system: On
posals are expected to face stiff opposition from members
March 30, the House voted to disband four special and
reluctant to change the status quo. Before going to the House
select committees that had no authority to write legisla-
and Senate floor, the recommendations will have to be consid-
tion.
ered by party caucuses and several committees; most of the
During the summer, House Democratic leaders were
issues will be handled by the House Rules and Senate Rules
engulfed by a fast-rising tide of resentment over the tradi-
and Administration committees. If the House and Senate
tional veil of secrecy that hid signatures on the discharge
approve different versions of recommendations that affect
petitions that members could use to try to force floor votes
both chambers - such as the two-year budget process or a
on measures bottled up in committees. The leaders lost a
proposal to abolish joint committees then the differences
public relations war, and on Sept. 28, the House voted 384-
will have to be worked out in conference. Members of the
40 for a measure (H Res 134) to make the signatures public.
Joint Committee said they expected floor action in the Senate
The Joint Committee's recommendations were issued
by February and in the House in March.
far later in the year than had been expected. Although the
Related stories: Senate proposals, Weekly Report, p.
panel had planned to draft its report in September or
3094; House proposals, p. 3249; House select committees, p.
October, action was postponed until the last weeks of the
session in November. Tensions between the House and
816; discharge petitions, p. 2618.
Senate ran high, and the two chambers ended up reporting
separate recommendations, although their proposals had
Issue: Campaign finance.
much in common. Both recommended a two-year budget
cycle, tighter restrictions on the number of committees
Synopsis: Campaign fi-
members can sit on and cuts in congressional staff.
nance legislation passed in
House members of the Joint Committee also included
both the House and Senate
proposals on:
this year, but the two bills
Ethics. The panel called for allowing other outside
differ substantially. Rec-
citizens to be used in conducting ethics investigations of
onciling them in conference
members of Congress.
will be difficult.
Congressional compliance. A new Office of Compli-
The public debate over
ance would be set up to propose regulations to bring con-
the way campaigns raise and
gressional employees under protections of federal work-
spend money has been heated
place laws and to investigate and resolve complaints.
for more than a decade, but
Congressional staff could seek judicial review of the office's
partisan divisions blocked ac-
decisions.
tion culminating in Presi-
CQ
DECEMBER 11, 1993 - 3357
SPECIAL REPORT
dent George Bush's 1992 veto of a Democratic-written bill.
gally convert taxpayer-financed stamps and stamp vouch-
This year, Clinton and Democratic congressional lead-
ers to cash.
ers pledged to overhaul the campaign finance system. On
Court documents implicated Rostenkowski and former
May 7, they unveiled a plan similar to the 1992 bill -
Rep. Joe Kolter, D-Pa., in the scheme. The two men were
that would provide substantial public funding to candi-
identified as Congressman A and Congressman B, rèspec-
dates who agree to abide by campaign spending limits.
tively, but details in court papers about their allegedly
As in the past, the Senate was the first to take up the
sham stamp purchases matched stamp purchases attrib-
proposal, but by the time the chamber was done with it, the
uted to them in public House spending reports. Several
bill bore little resemblance to the original.
members allegedly took part in the scam, which prosecu-
After three weeks of dilatory debate and two unsuccess-
tors said began in 1978, but no one else was explicitly
ful cloture votes, Democratic leaders wrenched the bill out
implicated in court papers.
of the chamber by abandoning nearly all the public fund-
Kolter and Rostenkowski have denied wrongdoing.
ing. They replaced it with a new tax on campaigns that do
They have been under scrutiny by a grand jury since mid-
not comply with spending limits.
1992. The panel's term expired on Oct. 29, but the probe is
Saying they too lacked the votes for public funding, House
continuing. About a week earlier, prosecutors put out word
Democratic leaders delayed consideration of the bill for
that their investigation of Rostenkowski "is ongoing and
months. Then after they finally honed a plan to provide
has been expanded" to counter any impression that their
candidates with benefits without hitting the taxpayer with
case had faltered. That action followed reports that Ros-
the tab, the Ways and Means Committee balked at waiving its
tenkowski's payroll records had been subpoenaed from the
right to review and write tax provisions. The funding mecha-
House Finance Office but that some turned up missing.
nism was dropped and will have to be considered separately.
It took heavy leadership lobbying in the final days of
House status: Some House Republicans called for an
immediate ethics committee inquiry of the allegations in
the session to approve the rule bringing the bill to the
House floor and prohibiting most amendments. But once
Rota's plea, rather than waiting for the Justice Department
to finish its case, but they did not press the issue.
that was done, passage was simple.
The House bill also differs from the Senate on the issue
Meanwhile, House Administration Committee leaders
of political action committees. The Senate bill bans PACs;
on Oct. 20 called for an ethics probe of the Finance Office
the House bill sets a $200,000 aggregate cap on PAC con-
after hearing employees admit that the office violated its
tributions and leaves room for leadership PACs.
own rules in doing favors for Rostenkowski while oversee-
The House exempts EMILY's List, an organization that
ing his payroll.
raises money for female Democratic candidates, from anti-
What to watch for: An indictment of Rostenkowski is
bundling provisions. The Senate bill does not.
widely expected because prosecutors essentially accused
him of embezzlement in documents related to Rota's plea.
Bills: S 3 - S Rept 103-41;
HR 3 - H Rept 103-375, Part 1.
The government is investigating other aspects of Rosten-
kowski's finances, including car leases financed with House
House status: HR 3 passed the House on Nov. 22, 255-
funds and rental deals financed with campaign funds.
175, a day after members voted 220-207 for the rule bring-
Rostenkowski has hired one of Washington's most aggres-
ing the bill to the floor.
sive lawyers, Robert S. Bennett.
Senate status: S 3 passed on June 17, 60-38, after sena-
Related stories: Probe status, Weekly Report, p. 2862;
tors voted 62-37 to shut off debate.
Rostenkowski's lifestyle, p. 1403; Rota's plea, p. 1923; Ros-
tenkowski's cash-outs, p. 2019; ethics probe, p. 2146.
What to watch for: House and Senate conferees are not
expected to begin work until the spring. The only route to
quick conference action is to let each chamber have its own
Issue: Sexual misconduct allegations/Packwood.
rules to govern its own campaigns - but Senate Republi-
cans vowed to filibuster such a solution. Though House
Democratic leaders will push for faster action, Ways and
Synopsis: The Senate Ethics Committee began investigat-
Means Committee members say they will not consider sep-
ing charges of sexual misconduct against Bob Packwood,
arate funding legislation until a conference report is ap-
R-Ore., on Dec. 1, 1992, but its investigation stalled in a
proved. Public interest groups will push to solidify and
dispute over a subpoena for Pack-
lower spending limits and preserve public funding.
wood's personal diaries. The Senate
spent two days of wrenching debate
Related stories: House passage, Weekly Report, p. 3246;
Nov. 1-2 before deciding to enforce a
House bill highlights, p. 3092; Senate passage, p. 1533;
subpoena for the diaries. The senator
Senate provisions, p. 2239; constitutional questions, p.
came to the brink of resignation in the
2215; Clinton plan, p. 1121.
closing days of the session as the Eth-
ics Committee expanded its investiga-
tion into unrelated matters and the
Issue: House Post Office investigation.
Justice Department began a criminal
probe, but he changed attorneys and
Synopsis: A federal investigation into the House Post
prepared to fight.
Packwood
Office continued to hang over Ways and Means Committee
The committee initially acted after The Washington
Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill.
Post printed allegations on Nov. 22, 1992, that Packwood
Former House Postmaster Robert V. Rota on July 19
had made unwanted sexual advances toward several female
pleaded guilty in federal court to conspiracy and embezzle-
aides and lobbyists. The Post followed up on Feb. 7 with a
ment charges and admitted helping certain members ille-
story detailing additional allegations. All told, the Post said
3358 - DECEMBER 11, 1993
CQ
INSIDE CONGRESS
Inside Congress
Campaign Finance
pressed reservations about their panel's recommendations.
In the final report filed in December by Senate members of
Look for a long, difficult conference on campaign fi-
the panel, Budget Committee Chairman Jim Sasser, D-
nance this year. The House and Senate passed vastly dif-
Tenn., raised questions about proposed changes in the
ferent bills in 1993. Reconciling them will be no easy task,
budget process. Four Republican senators called for strict-
and almost certainly will be done in private by House and
er controls on entitlement spending and for a new leader-
Senate leaders.
ship committee to set budget priorities.
The House bill (HR 3) would encourage candidates to
The Senate
comply with optional spending limits by providing them
chairman and vice
with federally funded communications vouchers - vouch-
chairman of the
ers that House Democrats still must figure out how to pay
panel - David L.
for in separate legislation.
Boren, D-Okla.,
The Senate bill (S 3) would impose a steep new tax on
and Pete V. Do-
campaigns that reject spending limits - a tax even Demo-
menici, R-N.M.
cratic leaders suggest may be unconstitutional.
- endorsed the
The Senate bill would ban PACs and extend the prohi-
idea of using out-
bition to the House. The House bill would permit PACs to
side citizens to
give members' campaigns up to $5,000 and allow members
conduct Senate
to retain so-called leadership PACs, which enable them to
ethics investiga-
Boren
Domenici
give to one another.
tions. But that proposal has been opposed by Senate Ma-
Negotiating compro-
jority Leader George J. Mitchell of Maine. (1993 Weekly
mises will be particularly
difficult because virtually
Report, p. 3357)
every line in both measures
was written to gain the sup-
Lobbying Disclosure
port of specific members,
Early this year, the House is expected to take up legisla-
and because both bills
tion (HR 823) that would close loopholes in lobbying dis-
passed narrowly without sig-
closure laws and restrict gifts lobbyists can give members.
nificant GOP support. Any
A push to pass the bill in 1993 fell short, but in the
change, anywhere, could
closing days of the session, a bipartisan group of members
jeopardize final passage.
came up with a sweeping agreement that would ban virtu-
As big as the challenge,
ally all meals, entertainment, gifts and travel-related ex-
however, the impetus to suc-
penses from lobbyists and lobbying firms to members and
ceed may prove greater:
their staffs. That may generate opposition from members
Many members believe the voters are insisting on change.
who like the rules the way they are. From the other side,
Optimists foresee a conference report ready by late
the citizens' lobbying group Common Cause wants the
spring. Pessimists say it will take a scandal or a string of
proposed gift rules "substantially strengthened," but it
incumbent primary defeats to jump-start the process.
calls the legislation "an important step in the right direc-
(1993 Weekly Report, p. 3357)
tion."
The Senate has already passed its version of the bill (S
Congressional Reform
349). It includes a strict gift disclosure rule and a nonbind-
The recommendations of the Joint Committee on the
ing resolution in favor of tighter gift acceptance rules, but
Organization of Congress are supposed to move early this
it is not clear how the House gift provisions would fare in
conference or on final approval. (1993 Weekly Report, p.
year - February in the Senate and March in the House.
3252)
But the proposals face stiff opposition from members re-
luctant to change the status quo. Unless the Joint Commit-
Packwood Ethics Probe
tee does a very aggressive job of selling its recommenda-
tions, the timetable is likely to slip.
A federal court ruling is likely any
Before going to the House and Senate floors, the recom-
day on whether Sen. Bob Packwood,
mendations will have to be considered by several commit-
R-Ore., will be required to turn over
tees and probably by party caucuses.
his diaries to the Senate Ethics Com-
Expect a lot of resistance to the proposal to institute a
mittee. Packwood has argued that
two-year budget, an idea strongly opposed by members of
forcing him to give up the diaries
the Appropriations committees.
would violate his Fifth Amendment
The Senate's proposal to abolish all joint committees
right against self-incrimination and his
will probably go nowhere because the House recommenda-
Fourth Amendment right of privacy.
tions didn't include that proposal.
The Ethics Committee was investi-
New limits on subcommittee and committee member-
Packwood
gating charges of sexual misconduct
ships have a chance to survive, but their ultimate success
against Packwood when it came across
depends on a tough mechanism for enforcing them. Con-
entries in the diary that raised questions about whether he
gress has tried to limit committee assignments-before, only
had exchanged official favors for job offers for his es-
to see the efforts undermined by waivers.
tranged wife. The Justice Department also is investigating.
Even some members of the Joint Committee have ex-
(Story, p. 17)
6 - JANUARY 8, 1994
CQ