[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Introduction Part 1: Big Money The Cost of Winning Part 2: The Issues What's For Sale? Part 3: Past Reforms A Look at the Laws Part 4: Soft Money A Look at the Loopholes Part 5: The Allegations The Excesses of '96 Part 6: Where It Stands Today's Reform Proposals Part 6: Where It Stands - Today's Reform Proposals The public and party leaders agree that once again something needs to be done about campaign finance. But the consensus disintegrates whenever it comes to specific proposals. That's because the major parties take starkly different views on the specifics of the various "reform" proposals, largely depending on what the likely effect is on their bottom lines. Even bipartisan efforts by individual members of Congress to overhaul campaign finance fail dismally, over and over again, as party leaders crush proposals that contain elements that aren't to their liking. From The Post In Campaign Finance, One Party's 'Level Playing Field' Is Another's Shaky Ground, April 7, 1997 Campaign Finance Bills Pile Up, Votes Don't, July 4, 1997 Road Testing Campaign Finance Bill, March 31, 1997 Congress Can Reform -- Honest, opinion piece, Aug. 4, 1997 Democrats generally support limits in soft money and spending because of the GOP's traditional ability to raise funds from the wealthy. And while there is dissension in the ranks, Republicans generally argue against limits -- particularly if unions remain unfettered in their spending of dues. The only "reform" some Republican leaders support would raise the current limits for individual contributions, which they say would reduce the time and energy spent on fund-raising. Promises are made, deadlines are set, but still nothing gets done. In June 1995, Clinton and House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) shook hands before a group of senior citizens in Claremont, N.H., and pledged to create a bipartisan commission to reform campaign finance. Nothing came of it. President Clinton, in his 1997 State of the Union address, called the overhaul of campaign finance a top priority and set a July 4 deadline. But Independence Day came and went without any congressional action. There are two proposals that, while stalled out, remain the focus of the reform effort. The McCain-Feingold proposal, named for sponsors Russell D. Feingold (D-Wisc.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), would: Ban soft money. Instead, all contributions would be subject to limits that now apply to hard money. While state parties could still raise soft money, they could not spend it on federal races. Prevent soft money from being rechanneled into independent expenditures by drawing a line between issue advocacy and outright advocacy of a particular candidate, including a ban on using a candidate's name or likeness within 60 days of an election. Require expanded and speedier disclosure of contributions and expenditures, including electronic filing, and impose stronger penalties for violations. Codify an earlier Supreme Court decision requiring labor unions with contracts covering nonmembers that they can request and receive a refund for any portion of their fees that is used for political purposes. Make it more difficult for wealthy candidates to give or loan more than $50,000 to their own campaigns. From Legi-Slate An overview of the McCain-Feingold bill. The full text of the most recent version. The full text of the freshman bipartisan task force's bill. Another proposal, put together by a bipartisan task force of House freshmen, calls for banning soft money while gradually increasing limits on regulated campaign donations. It also calls for full disclosure of the occupation and address of campaign donors, and more disclosure by supporters of issue advertising. Top Democrats support both proposals, but Republican leaders have vowed to block them. Any attempt to establish mandatory spending limits would likely run afoul of the Supreme Court's Buckley v. Valeo ruling. In March 1997, Sens. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) proposed a constitutional amendment to allow Congress to set such limits, but it was overwhelmingly voted down. In the meantime, fund-raising proceeds at a record pace: The two national political party committees raised more than $34 million in soft money during the first six months of 1997 -- more than twice the amount they raised during the comparable period four years earlier. Ultimately, supporters of campaign finance reform face a paradox: Expecting people who live and die by money to actually regulate it. Nothing could be more political. © Copyright 1997 Digital Ink Company Back to the top Go to Campaign Finance Report | Go to National Section

			[an error occurred while processing this directive]