|
|
|
|
Scholars Enter Constitutional Fray on the Side of Campaign Finance BillBy Helen Dewar and Ceci ConnollyWashington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, September 23, 1997; Page A05 Sponsors of a bipartisan campaign finance bill responded yesterday to critics' charges that key provisions are unconstitutional by releasing a letter disputing the allegations that was signed by 126 legal scholars. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the leading foe of the legislation, fired back, saying, "I could probably find 126 people to swear the Earth is still flat, too." At a news conference called to rebut constitutional objections to their bill, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) also played down the significance of a partisan uproar last Friday over scheduling and said they anticipate that the legislation will be before the Senate in a month. McCain said Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) had assured him that the bill would be debated no later than October. Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) had objected when Lott refused to set a specific date, arguing that Lott could put it off until the last day of the session. McCain dismissed the fracas as "one of those hiccups" that the bill inevitably will cause. But also yesterday, the Federal Election Commission released figures that make clear the enormous political difficulties that the measure faces, especially its proposed ban on unregulated "soft money" contributions to political parties. Both parties have been raising more soft money than ever before, with Republicans taking in substantially more than Democrats. Reports filed for the first six months of this year show Republican Party committees raised $21.7 million in soft money, an increase of $5.1 million at the start of the last election cycle. Democratic committees raised $13.7 million, compared with $10.8 million last time. The disparity was even larger for "hard money" raised directly for candidates. Republicans raised more than $59 million, compared with $35.1 million. Democrats are also deeper in debt – $22.6 million owed, compared with $10.7 million owed by the GOP. The FEC numbers, confirming earlier tabulations made by outside groups, are likely to reinforce GOP opposition to fund-raising curbs of any kind. They are also likely to give Democrats more reason to push for incentives for compliance with voluntary spending limits. While McCain and Feingold have not included spending limits in a stripped-down version of their earlier bill, they will seek an amendment offering television discounts if certain fund-raising constraints are observed. McCain and Feingold attempted at yesterday's news conference to dispel charges by McConnell and other critics of their bill that constitutional scholars agree that it violates free speech rights under the First Amendment. In a series of decisions starting with the Buckley v. Valejo ruling in 1976, the Supreme Court has generally equated political spending with free speech. The letter dealt specifically with the issue of soft money and incentives to limit campaign spending, and its signers concluded that both are constitutional. While the signers disagreed over other elements of the bill, "we all agree . . . that the current debate on the merits of campaign finance reform is being sidetracked by the argument that the Constitution stands in the way of a ban on unlimited contributions to political parties and a voluntary spending limits scheme based on offering inducements such as reduced media time," they said. The group did not address the bill's provision aimed at discouraging outside groups from using issue-advocacy ads to promote candidates in the final days of a campaign, but Burt Neuborne, a New York University law professor and co-author of the letter, said he thought it, too, was constitutional.
© Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company Go to Campaign Finance Report | Go to Politics Section
|
|||||||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
