Online NewsHour: One More Go --March 31, 1998

ONE MORE GO

March 31, 1998

The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript

Kwame Holman tells the story of one more go at campaign finance reform.

KWAME HOLMAN: Last night House Speaker Newt Gingrich kept a promise he made last fall to bring campaign finance reform legislation to the floor by the end of March. However, few members on either side of the aisle were satisfied with the rules set to debate the issue.
REP. ASA HUTCHINSON, (R) Arkansas: I'm pleased to express my support of this bill, but I'm deeply disappointed that in the last moments the people's home for reform was crushed when majority rule became defeat by design.
REP. SAM FARR, (D) California: Well, we're here in the night to discuss campaign finance reform. Where's everybody else? Half the nation is watching basketball games. Half the Congress is attending a funeral. What kind of business are we in?
KWAME HOLMAN: The debate was held late in the day, and many members were just returning from New Mexico, where they attended the funeral of their colleague, Steve Schiff, who died last week. But members' primary complaint was that Speaker Gingrich decided late Friday to bring campaign finance reform to the floor under a procedure known as Suspension of Rules. It limits the debate to 40 minutes, allows no amendment, and requires a 2/3 majority for approval. Suspending the rules normally is reserved for approving non-controversial legislation in an expedited manner. Last night, most members believed campaign finance reform didn't meet that standard. Connecticut Democrat Sam Gejdenson even compared the process to the practices of Mao Tse Tung and Josef Stalin.
REP. SAM GEJDENSON, (D) Connecticut: Think about what we're doing here today. We're taking up campaign finance reform after the Senate has definitively shown they can filibuster the bill to death: strike one. We have made sure that no alternative from the opposition can be heard here today: strike two! And just in case by some faint stretch of the imagination the Republican bill might pass, we have come to the floor with a process where you don't need 51 percent of the vote to win today; you've got to have 2/3 of the votes because they know they can't get 'em!
KWAME HOLMAN: The so-called Republican bill brought to the floor last night was sponsored by California Republican Bill Thomas, chairman of the House Oversight Committee. It would ban unregulated soft money contributions to the political parties, increase the amount individuals can donate to candidates, impose strict contribution disclosure requirements on candidates, and prohibit labor unions from using members' dues for political activities without their consent.
REP. STEVE HORN, (R) California: So, let's not hear all this rhetoric on the floor, the screaming, arm waving, and shouting. Let's get down to cases. You want to make progress? This is the bill that has progress.
KWAME HOLMAN: But under the rules of the House members were not allowed to vote on a reform bill sponsored by Connecticut Republican Chris Shays and Massachusetts Democrat Marty Meehan, even though it has bipartisan support. A frustrated Meehan, nevertheless, tried to push for a vote, but he was turned away by Republican Jo Ann Emerson, who presided over the debate in the speaker's chair.
REP. JO ANN EMERSON: The gentleman may speak on his bill but not ask for it to be discussed within the--
REP. MARTY MEEHAN: Mr. Chairman, but I can't ask for unanimous consent to suspend the rules and ask for consideration of the bipartisan campaign finance--
REP. JO ANN EMERSON: There's already one motion to suspend on the table as we speak right now.
REP. MARTY MEEHAN: So this amendment couldn't be amended.
REP. JO ANN EMERSON: No. You may--this issue is not amendable. You may speak on your bill in general.
KWAME HOLMAN: On the other hand, Delaware Republican Mike Castle was resigned to accepting that it was going to be the Thomas Republican bill or nothing.
REP. MIKE CASTLE, (R) Delaware: And let me just start by saying I agree with virtually everybody who spoke here tonight, that this process is not what we would have wanted, those of us who are trying to reform campaign finance. And let me just also say that both parties have had problems. I'm not saying whether it's equal or not. Who knows what the circumstances are with respect to campaign finance, and I think the whole country knows that. I also am a supporter of Shays-Meehan. I like the freshman bill. I think there's a lot of good things that have happened over in the Senate as well. And, unfortunately, we're not going to be able to get to all those. But this is what we have before us. And we have to make a decision tonight on whether or not we're going to vote for this because this may be the only vote we're going to get. And so I did something unusual. I read the bill. And I decided to make up a list of reasons as to why we should support it. And after David Letterman, I did this as the top ten reasons to support it. And let me start with number 10. HR3485 removes soft money from the federal election process. That is extraordinarily important. We've already heard about all the soft money problems. It removes it from the federal election process. Number 9, the bill contains the core elements of campaign finance reform that Republican and Democratic reformers have agreed upon. Number 8, it keeps foreign money outside of the United States' elections. Number 7, it helps states maintain accurate voter registration roles. Number 6, it adjusts hard money contributions for inflation. Number 5, it strengthens FEC reporting requirements. Number 4, it levels the playing field for candidates running against millionaires. Number 3, it ensures voluntary contributions to members of corporations and unions. And Number 2, it strengthens disclosure requirements for interest groups to prevent them from anonymously financing expensive advertising campaigns. And Number 1, first, a bill that offends Republicans, Democrats, and interest groups alike is worth considering. This bill will cause everyone in the election process some pain, but it is the first step to achieve real campaign finance reform.
SPOKESMAN: All time having expired, the question is: Will the House suspend the rules--
KWAME HOLMAN: At the end of the evening Delaware's Castle did vote for the Thomas bill, but he was one of only seventy-four Republicans to do so. One hundred forty Republicans and all one hundred ninety-six Democrats in the chamber last night voted against it. The Thomas bill failed badly. However, small pieces of the bill were broken off and voted on separately. A measure prohibiting non-U.S. citizens from contributing to candidates was approved overwhelmingly, as was a bill requiring greater disclosure of campaign contributions.
REP. RICK WHITE, (R) Washington: This is a good government bill. It's bipartisan, doesn't have anything to do really with either party. It just increases disclosure and lets the American people see what's going on.
KWAME HOLMAN: But a bill restricting the political activities of labor unions was turned back.
REP. DAVID BONIOR, Minority Whip: This bill says if there's a debate over Social Security or minimum wage or Medicare, democratically-elected unions can't even talk about it with their own members. That's what this bill says.
KWAME HOLMAN: This afternoon, a group of House Democrats and other campaign finance reform supporters said they would push ahead in their attempt to get the Shays-Meehan bipartisan bill to the House floor. One hundred ninety members already have signed a discharge petition, which would force Speaker Gingrich to schedule a vote. Twenty-eight more signatures are needed.
REP. DICK GEPHARDT, Minority Leader: While nearly 90 percent of Democrats have signed the petition, only six Republicans have done so. That's an appallingly low number. It will take a bipartisan majority in the House to force this issue on to the schedule and to give members of both parties a chance to vote on all the bills.
KWAME HOLMAN: However, any campaign finance reform legislation that passes the House would have to get approval in the Senate, where similar legislation was blocked last month.

Program
Support
From: