Campaign Finance Bill Gets Boost From Enron Scandal
By John Lancaster and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 14, 2002; Page A06
A landmark campaign finance bill that was nearing passage in the House last night grew out of a coordinated, years-long lobbying effort – by grass-roots organizers, environmental groups, senior citizens and even some high-powered Wall Street talent – that received a critical and, perhaps, decisive boost from the Enron scandal.
The marathon debate was not without its fraught moments, as Republican opponents introduced a series of "poison pill" amendments aimed at scuttling the legislation. One such proposal might have passed if not for a frantic last-ditch lobbying blitz by House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.).
As the House considered an array of additional amendments last night, the possibility that opponents might yet find a way to sink the bill could not be ruled out.
But in many respects, supporters of the Shays-Meehan bill, which would ban the unrestricted donations to political parties known as soft money, had established the groundwork for a possible victory well in advance of yesterday's emotional and high-stakes proceedings.
Driven in part by the Clinton fundraising scandals, to say nothing of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) – who made the idea the cornerstone of his unsuccessful presidential campaign – the soft-money ban had already passed the House twice before. A parallel version, sponsored by McCain and Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), cleared the Senate last spring. That history gave the legislation – in the words of a senior GOP aide – a "brand name" cachet that made the going especially rough for Republican leaders seeking to rally wavering members to their side.
GOP moderates may also have been emboldened to defy their leaders by President Bush, who has passed up multiple opportunities to threaten a veto despite his opposition to a ban on soft money. The White House, in fact, stayed out of yesterday's debate, declining even to indicate its position on individual votes.
By many accounts, however, it was the Enron scandal – with its overtones of access- and influence-buying in Washington – that was tipping the balance last night. If the bill passes without fatal amendments, it would bring the country closer than it has come in more than two decades to a thorough overhaul of its system for funding political campaigns – and deal a rare defeat to the House GOP leadership, which deployed all its muscle to try to defeat the legislation.
"Enron gets a whole lot of credit," said Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.), who is sponsoring the bill with Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) "The public knows that any past action with regard to Enron – or any future government action with regard to Enron – is tainted, and that government actions have less credibility because of that money."
The lobbying campaign behind the bill involved an unlikely coalition – led by Common Cause – that has spent six years rallying support for the legislation at the grass-roots level and in Washington. Other coalition members include the Sierra Club, AARP, the Campaign for America – a business group whose roster includes Wall Street financier Jerome Kohlberg and investment wizard Warren Buffet – and the Committee for Economic Development, which consists of 250 corporate chief executives, said Matt Keller, the legislative director for Common Cause.
Arrayed against them were groups such as the National Rifle Association, the National Right to Life Committee, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. More often than not, these powerful lobbies have carried the day on previous high-profile votes in the Republican-controlled House.
Indeed, for all the momentum behind the legislation, the outcome of yesterday's debate was not preordained. Relatively early in the day, it looked like Republicans might have a shot at defeating the measure after they discovered a drafting change that they said would have left Democrats with a massive spending advantage. "I thought, 'There is a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel,' " House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said.
But the sponsors of the bill managed to stem the damage by early evening, circulating language for a procedural motion that would clarify the provision.
One of the most critical votes came shortly after 6 p.m., when Republicans offered an NRA-backed amendment that would have exempted communications on gun rights from the bill's restrictions on so-called issue ads. If the amendment had been approved, opponents of the legislation could have insisted that the measure go back to a House-Senate conference committee from which it might never emerge.
Gephardt enlisted the aid of key gun-rights advocates, such as Reps. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) and John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). He also worked the phones to keep other conservative Democrats from jumping ship, calling almost 40 members, according to spokesman Erik Smith. In the end, several key Democrats yielded to Gephardt's pleas, helping defeat the measure by a vote of 219 to 209.
After the gun vote, several Republicans sounded ready to give up. "This last amendment was our best shot," said Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).
Later though, another opportunity to scuttle the bill arose in the form of an amendment that would make it effective starting today, a move that would force both parties to give their cache of soft money back to donors immediately. First-term Rep. Mark S. Kirk (R-Ill.), who was tempted to vote for the measure, found himself caught between two of his political patrons.
"I'm in the unenviable position of the two people who helped me most to win my election were Denny Hastert and John McCain," said Kirk, who spoke with both men yesterday.
Time and again during yesterday's debate, supporters of the Shays-Meehan bill cited the collapse of Enron Corp. – which gave $2 million to both parties in the most recent election cycle – as Exhibit A in the case for purging the political system of soft money.
"I reject the cynical and false notion that contributions and policy decisions are inevitably linked," Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said in a floor speech near the start of yesterday's debate. "But none of us can be so naive as to reject the infrequent reality and too frequent appearance of such a relationship. Every one of us recognizes that in public life, appearances are as important as reality. One five-letter word ought to crystallize this point: E-N-R-O-N."
Opponents of the bill questioned the relevance of the Enron scandal to the campaign finance debate. They noted that for all the company's largess to Republicans, Bush administration officials last fall turned a deaf ear when then-Enron Chairman Kenneth L. Lay appealed for help in staving off the company's collapse. "It's silliness," Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.) said of the attempts by Shays-Meehan supporters to draw a connection between Enron's campaign contributions and favors granted in Washington. "If there's any evidence, bring it forth. And if there isn't, then don't keep implying that there might be. They got turned down every step of the way."
The nation's campaign finance laws have not been thoroughly overhauled for more than two decades, and would-be reformers have been talking about the pernicious influence of soft money at least since the 1988 presidential election. McCain, who made campaign finance reform a mantra of his 2000 political campaign, likes to say that victory is inevitable because, as long as the current system remains in place, there will always be influence-buying scandals to fuel the public pressure for change.
washingtonpost.com |
