|
|
 | |
 |  |
| MONEY POLITICS | |
 February 14, 2002  | |
|
Senators Russ Feingold (D-WIS.) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) discuss the passed House version of the Campaign Finance Reform bill which is headed to the Senate. Background
report: |
|
|
They celebrated with the Senate creators of the legislation: Republican John McCain of Arizona and Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, whom McCain enlisted for help on the issue when Feingold arrived in the Senate nine years ago. SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: There are only two things that I am certain of right now, and that is that I am Feingold, and the other is that we won last night, and what a thrill it was!
KWAME HOLMAN: It was very early this morning when Shays-Meehan supporters in the House of Representatives safely maneuvered through the last of a minefield of so-called "poison pill and spoiler-substitute amendments" to a final victorious vote. In the end, 240 members, 198 Democrats, 41 Republicans, and one independent joined to approve Shays-Meehan. The Shays-Meehan bill would ban soft money, unregulated, unlimited contributions given to national political parties by corporations, unions, and individuals. But limited soft money contributions still could go to state or local parties for voter registration and "get out the vote" efforts.
The legislation now returns to the Senate, where Democrats like those in the House overwhelmingly support the campaign finance bill. This afternoon Majority Leader Tom Daschle praised the House vote.
KWAME HOLMAN: Daschle then requested unanimous consent of his colleagues to bring up the campaign bill. As expected, a Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, objected.
KWAME HOLMAN: In turn, Daschle said he will try again to get Senators to agree to take up Shays-Meehan when Congress returns from the week-long Presidents' Day break that begins Monday. President Bush has indicated he'll sign whatever campaign overhaul bill Congress approves. | ||||||||||
| A passed House version | |||||||||||
|
So Senator Feingold, beginning with you, what are your expectations now? How soon do you think you can get this bill to the floor of the Senate?
MARGARET WARNER: Senator McConnell, are you going to put up any procedural barriers?
This was a bill that is different from the Senate-passed bill. It was produced late at night, previous night. We are today having the best lawyers in town who understand these issues reading the bill carefully, which is not an inappropriate thing to do before agreeing to passage. And I think once we are absolutely certain what's in the bill, that will determine the strategy as to whether or not there would be an effort to force it into conference or to send it on down to the President. Fortunately we're out of session next week, and it gives adequate time for us to make that decision about what the strategy will be once we return. MARGARET WARNER: But it sounds as if you're not ready to agree with Senator McCain, who said today these are virtually…"basically the same bill," is the way he put it.
One of the really good things in this bill is that it increases what an individual can give in hard money, the so-called good money -- to $95,000 over a two-year period; increases the individual contributions to candidates, doubles them from $1,000 to $2,000, also increases significantly the amount of hard dollars that an individual can give to a party. All of that is very good. There are other parts of the bill that are clearly troubling. I don't think anybody believes that the restrictions on outside advertising within 60 days of an election is going to be upheld by a court. This precise language has been struck down before. You shouldn't have to register with the federal government and raise hard money in order to say unpleasant things about people like Russ and myself in proximity to an election. Even though we would like that, that's clearly unconstitutional, and I think that provision will be struck down. And if this comes to law, I will be going to court with others to contest parts of it we think are unconstitutional. |  | ||||||||||
| Senate debate expected | |||||||||||
|
SEN. MITCH McCONNELL: That was for the purpose of getting a conference-- as to whether or not we need a conference, it depends on what's in the bill. As I've said to Russ and John McCain and others, and the press all day today, we are in the process of reading it because this is real bullets. This is a bill that the proponents would like not to be conferenced and to go straight to the President. So before signing off on that, we like to know exactly what it does. And frequently the devil is in the details, so fortunately we have time here to look at it before we decide whether we should try to force it into conference or send it on down to the President. MARGARET WARNER: Senator Feingold, how do you read...
The fact is the two bills are not really different in any significant respect. We didn't choose to decide for the House and Senate that they should raise the hard money limit from $1,000 to $2,000 because we didn't think it was our business; we thought that was the job of the House. And it's really a trivial difference people would have expected to happen. With regard to these ads that Senator McConnell mentions, I guarantee you no bill would have gotten through the Senate or House if we actually banned any ads. Of course we don't. All we do is say that the people who run those sorts of ads, the phony issue ads, in the last 60 days before an election have to follow the same rules that everybody else does who participates in the electoral process. Not a single ad is banned or prohibited by the McCain-Feingold/Shay-Meehan bill. |  | ||||||||||
| Enron scandal influencing votes | |||||||||||
|
SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, I think we're in a position to win this in any event. We carefully built this, brick by brick, over seven years, but I would have to be less than honest if I didn't admit that things like the Chinese money in 1996, the questions about the presidential pardons last year, and now the Enron scandal are the kinds of things that have illustrated what's wrong. When Senators and Congressmen are asking corporations and unions and individuals for $100,000, $500,000 or $1 million, it's inherently corrupt, and I think what Enron did is sort of shine the final light on the House and on the Senate so that no dirty tricks could be played at the last minute and we've got the will of the people. MARGARET WARNER: I guess what I'm asking you is, you could - you got 59 votes last April. Do you think you might get more?
SEN. MITCH McCONNELL: Margaret, if I may? MARGARET WARNER: Yes, Senator McConnell, please.
I agree with him-I think it probably, in the end, didn't have a whole lot of impact on the outcome. They had cleared the Senate, which was their biggest hurdle, last year. This had always, in a similar form, passed the House. So I think the big victory for Russ and for John McCain on this issue is actually last year when it cleared the Senate. Nevertheless, what's different as the Senate takes it up nine days from now is that this is not just a bill; this is something on the way to becoming law if it leaves the Senate. That's why reading the bill, finding out what impact it has on my party, for example, is very important. If we conclude, Margaret, that this is unfairly tilted against the Republican Party, I guarantee you there will be 41 Republicans in the Senate who will insist on a conference. But we're going to wait and see. And that decision will be made sometime over the next week. |  | ||||||||||
| The president's position | |||||||||||
|
SEN. MITCH McCONNELL: Well, it certainly would have been easier if the President had taken a particular position on this. He did have a statement of principles both during the campaign and last year during the Senate debate, and the very future of the President's principles are actually in this bill. But, look, I'm not going to question his strategy. The President is sitting on an 85 percent approval rating. He's obviously doing a lot of things right, and he decided not to engage on this issue until later in the game. And if we decide not to have a conference, he won't be engaged at all. He'll either sign it or veto it. I think it's up to us here in the Senate to analyze the bill thoroughly, figure the impact on our party, what level of unconstitutionality there is, and frankly that can be dealt with in the courts. We'll make that decision in the next week and decide at that point what the strategy is.
MARGARET WARNER: All right, Senators, thank you both, very much. SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: Thank you. SEN. MITCH McCONNELL: Thank you. |  | ||||||||||
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
KWAME
HOLMAN: The authors of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance overhaul bill, Connecticut
Republican Christopher Shays and Massachusetts Democrat Martin Meehan, savored
sweet victory this morning after seeing their bill pass a few hours earlier. 
SEN.
HOYER: We stand here with an amendment that says we ought to have a ban on soft
money tomorrow - today. Today is tomorrow, my friend from Massachusetts tells
me.
Shays-Meehan
also would prohibit advocacy groups from using soft money to broadcast ads that
identify a federal candidate within 60 days of an election. The bill would take
effect November 6th, the day after this year's federal election. 
SEN.
TOM DASCHLE: We are very, very appreciative of the tremendous work done by so
many of our colleagues, I mean, outside and are very pleased now that we are at
a point where hopefully we can take this to - to the Senate floor and then send
it off to the President.
SEN.
MITCH McCONNELL: And we've got people on my side of this issue who did not prevail
in the House yesterday who would like to have an adequate time to read the legislation.
Fortunately, we're not in session next week, which gives everybody on both sides
an opportunity to look at the fine print.
MARGARET
WARNER: So what happens next? For that, we turn to two key Senate players you
just saw in Kwame's report: Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, cosponsor
of the campaign finance bill passed by the Senate last April; and Republican Mitch
McConnell of Kentucky, one of its chief opponents. 
SEN.
RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, we received last night a wonderful valentine, a bipartisan
valentine from the House of Representatives to the American people. Since the
Senate has already passed this almost-identical bill by a vote of 59-41, I'm hoping
that the body will take it up very quickly as soon as it gets here, and it will
pass this ban on these unlimited soft money contributions by corporations and
unions and individuals. There is the possibility of procedural barriers, but I
think the train is clearly moving in the right direction. 
SEN.
MITCH McCONNELL: Well, that really remains to be seen. First I want to congratulate
my friend, Russ Feingold. I think it was a remarkable victory after many years
of work on this over in the House yesterday, but let me say this, Margaret. 
SEN.
MITCH McCONNELL: Well, it's not basically the same, but somehow it is actually
better than the bill that left the Senate. For example, one of the things that
I have advocated over the last 15 years is an increase in hard money limits. Both
the candidates and the parties are operating under a contribution limit set back
in 1974, when a Mustang cost $2,700. 
MARGARET
WARNER: But let me just ask you -- earlier reports had you threatening a filibuster.
Are you --
SEN.
RUSS FEINGOLD: -- graciousness -- In effect, he's not saying he's going to filibuster
it, which I think is very important and very different. He's not saying necessarily
that we have to have a conference committee and I give him credit for that. There's
nothing wrong with reviewing the bill for the next week. 
MARGARET
WARNER: Senator Feingold, supporters in the House said they believed that the
Enron scandal really gave new life to their push there and helped them. Do you
think it's going to have an impact on the vote when the Senate essentially revotes
on this?