- The Washington Times - Tuesday, March 27, 2001

The Senate last night passed an amendment to the campaign finance reform bill that one of its chief sponsors, Sen. Russell D. Feingold, called a "bill killer."
The amendment, which was approved in a surprise vote, also was criticized by the other main sponsor, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, as unconstitutional.
Senators passed on a 51-46 vote an obscure amendment by Sen. Paul Wellstone, Minnesota Democrat, that would forbid advocacy groups like the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club from paying for so-called "issue ads" during the last 60 days of federal campaigns.
Mr. Feingold conceded passage of the amendment makes his legislation "more vulnerable" and could be the "bill killer" for the campaign finance limitations that he and Mr. McCain have pushed.
"This raised the stakes for everyone. It's unfortunate a number of Democrats couldn't see what they were doing," the Wisconsin Democrat said.
Before the vote, Democratic aides had said it was unlikely the Wellstone amendment would get 35 votes. But 24 Republicans and 27 Democrats voted in favor of the measure. Voting against the amendment were 25 Republicans, including Mr. McCain, and 21 Democrats, including Mr. Feingold.
Senators voting for the amendment to the bill included most of the Republican leadership and several of the McCain-Feingold bill's toughest critics, including Sen. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican.
"I want to defeat this bill; I have been very clear about that from the beginning," said Mr. McConnell, who also convinced Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina to switch his vote from "no" to "yes" and thus secure a 51st vote for the amendment.
"I made a persuasive argument," a grinning Mr. McConnell told reporters when asked why Mr. Thurmond had changed his vote.
"This bill had constitutional problems, now it has more constitutional problems," Mr. McConnell said.
His rivals on the bill agreed.
"If I thought it was constitutional, I would have voted for it," Mr. McCain said afterward.
"It's always a downside when you put in a provision you think is unconstitutional. That's just not good business," added Sen. Fred Thompson, Tennessee Republican and a supporter of the McCain-Feingold bill.
Besides Mr. McConnell, top Republicans to vote for the Wellstone amendment included Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, Majority Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma, Policy Committee Chairman Larry E. Craig of Idaho, and such senior senators and McCain-Feingold opponents as Frank H. Murkowski of Alaska, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah.
In addition, independent organizations are now likely to ratchet up their efforts to defeat the bill if it appears their ability to advertise is curtailed.
Mr. Feingold said that last night's vote means that "the ball game" is now a vote expected later this week on non-severability the question of whether courts must strike down the whole bill if any part is found unconstitutional.
Opponents of McCain-Feingold bill are expected to try to attach a non-severability provision.
The Wellstone amendment "will do no harm if the bill is severable," so that the rest will stand even if that part is ruled an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech, Mr. Feingold said.
Mr. Wellstone himself already had argued that his amendment posed no threat to the overall bill.
"Finally, in the event of constitutional problems, the Wellstone amendment is fully severable," said a statement issued from the Minnesotan's office yesterday before the vote.
Before the strategic move by McCain-Feingold opponents, Mr. Wellstone argued that his provision was needed to prevent campaign contributors from creating tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organizations as a way to get around McCain-Feingold's ban on soft money.
Mr. Wellstone, who supports campaign finance restrictions, also said he wanted to "plug one large loophole" in the bill, which had allowed independent groups to pay for late-campaign attack ads while banning unions and corporations from doing so.
Last night's developments came as the Senate moved into a second, critical week of debate over the legislation.
The Senate is expected to vote today on a Republican-backed measure that would cap campaign donations to political parties and that could boost an existing Republican advantage by tripling the amount that individuals can give to candidates.
"This is unquestionably the most important amendment we'll have during the course of the entire debate," Mr. McConnell said.
One measure in the McCain-Feingold bill would ban large, unregulated donations to parties from unions, corporations and individuals, contributions known as "soft money."
The amendment, offered by Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, instead would cap soft-money donations at $60,000 per donor per year and boost the limits on individuals' contributions to candidates, known as "hard money," from $1,000 to $3,000.
Mr. McConnell said Mr. Hagel's proposal "makes sense." He said raising the limits on hard money "will not compensate" for an outright ban on soft money.
"I think that's a reasonable compromise," Mr. McConnell said of capping soft money. "It does have some Democratic support, I think it will have a lot of Republican support. I hope it will pass. No one's quite sure how things are going to come out."
In the past two-year election cycle, Republicans and Democrats were almost even in the amount of soft money raised, $244 million to $243 million. But Republican candidates raised $447.4 million in hard money, compared with the Democrats' $269.9 million.
Mr. McCain hopes to head off Mr. Hagel's amendment. He is fiercely opposed to anything short of a ban on soft money.
"We're not there by a long shot," Mr. McCain said after emerging from one closed-door meeting. He risks losing the votes of Democrats who oppose any increase in hard-money limits.
"I think we have the votes to defeat it, but you never know," Mr. McCain said. "I think we can hold all of ours" against defecting.
The limits on hard-money donations were set in 1974, and many senators believe that adjustments for inflation should be made.
Senators yesterday also rejected a proposed constitutional amendment by Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, South Carolina Democrat, that would have given Congress the authority to limit fund raising and spending.
Mr. Hollings argued that his provision is needed because the First Amendment now does not allow Congress to rein in campaign fund raising. But Mr. McConnell said the measure "reaches in and rips the heart right out of the First Amendment."
The proposal had failed twice previously and didn't even get a majority, losing on a 56-40 vote. It would have required a two-thirds vote to pass.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide