White House Is Backing Foes of Finance Bill
The New York Times
February 12, 2002
By RICHARD L. BERKE and ALISON MITCHELL
W ASHINGTON, Feb. 11 -
The White House is
working through the Republican
Party to scuttle campaign finance
legislation before the House this
week while protecting President
Bush from any political fallout,
advisers to Mr. Bush said today.
With White House consent, the
Republican National Committee
is lobbying to defeat the
Shays-Meehan bill, the campaign
finance overhaul measure that
would ban the large unlimited
political donations known as soft money.
An internal "target list" compiled by the Republican Party
identifies 33 Republicans who had previously voted for the
bill when it was unlikely to become law. These members
are seen as undecided about how to vote this time - and
potentially available to back amendments that would
ultimately weaken the legislation or kill it outright.
"We need to ask them what they need for cover," the
internal document states, "and try to support our
amendments." The party's effort came as the House
Republican leadership mounted a similar drive to amend
the bill.
Republican Party officials sent the target list to lobbyists,
hoping that they could try to persuade wavering
lawmakers to oppose the legislation.
The White House's deliberations were just part of the
intense maneuverings today by all sides as the House
prepared for the campaign finance debate that is set to
start on Tuesday and end Wednesday or Thursday.
Legislation to ban soft-money contributions passed the
Senate last year in a 59-to-41 vote, prodded by Senator
John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who put the bill at
the center of his losing presidential primary run against
Mr. Bush in 2000.
Now its supporters are trying to pass the same legislation
in the House, where it is sponsored by Representatives
Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut, and
Martin T. Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts. The two
should have an advantage because an earlier version of
the bill passed the House by comfortable margins in 1998
and 1999.
As part of the lobbying against it, Marc Racicot, the
Republican national chairman, today sent a memorandum
to Republican members of Congress, declaring that the
"various reform proposals are of vital concern to
Republican candidates."
Mr. Racicot included a list of principles that Mr. Bush
outlined last year of what he would like a campaign
finance bill to contain.
Mr. Racicot did not specifically tell members how to vote,
but in the memorandum he wrote, "As you consider each
amendment, I recommend that you ask yourself whether
what is being proposed reflects President Bush's
principles and makes our campaign finance system more
fair, even-handed and balanced."
Advisers to Mr. Bush said the White House was working
through the Republican Party to protect the president.
After the Enron Corporation debacle, particularly, aides
said they did not want Mr. Bush to take a visible role lest
it appear as though he was interfering with efforts to
tighten campaign finance laws.
Party officials involved in the move said that they had the
strong support of Karl Rove, the president's chief political
adviser, but that Mr. Rove hardly needed to convince
them. "I'm not sure Karl's had to encourage them much,"
a Bush adviser said. "At the R.N.C., they're like drug
addicts. The party thinks it would be a great idea to kick
the habit, but not right now."
Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director,
said he was aware of Mr. Racicot's memorandum but
insisted it was "absolutely not true" that the White House
was working through the party, even though the White
House effectively controls it.
"There are no phone banks, no calls being made to
members from the president," Mr. Bartlett said. "We've
told people consistently that opponents of campaign
finance legislation should not count on a veto from the
president."
Mr. Bush has told Republican lawmakers who want him to
work against the bill that he has no intention to inject
himself in the fight, and his advisers said it was likely that
he would sign campaign finance legislation should it
reach his desk.
Still, at the White House, Mr. Bush's advisers said, the
hope is that the bill does not get that far.
Beyond Enron, Mr. Bush's advisers said, the president
was reluctant to speak out because White House officials
were split concerning whether the bill would truly hurt
Republicans. "It's not clear that everyone at the White
House thinks this bill will be awful for the Republican
Party," one adviser said.
Another adviser said there was also a sense in the White
House that if the legislation was going to pass anyway,
there was no political advantage for Mr. Bush to get
involved in a losing cause.
Former Representative Bill Paxon, a New York Republican
who is close to the White House, said officials there were
not bluffing when they told House members not to count
on Mr. Bush's vetoing a campaign finance bill.
Asked if the Enron concern it even more politically
disadvantageous for Mr. Bush to take part in the
campaign finance battle, Mr. Paxon said, "There's no
doubt it does."
Mr. Shays and Mr. Meehan said the collapse of Enron,
and how the company had showered contributions on
politicians, should help them.
"I believe the Enron scandal has galvanized public
support," Mr. Meehan said today.
The measure would also rein in some issue advertising by
outside groups in the periods just before elections.
Republican leaders in the House fiercely oppose the
measure and are planning strategy to kill it or
substantially change it.
J. Dennis Hastert, the Republican of Illinois who as the
House speaker commands great loyalty from Republicans,
told his party's House members last week in a closed-door
meeting that the end of soft money could cause
Republicans to lose control of the House.
Republicans said that Representative Dick Armey of
Texas, the majority leader, would put forward a new
Republican campaign finance bill on Tuesday.
Republicans were also devising amendments to the
Shays-Meehan bill to make it different from the Senate
version. That would send the bill to a House-Senate
conference, where there would be another chance to
weaken or kill it.
No one was sure what would happen in the next two days,
but Mr. Shays said, "I'd rather be us than them. We
should win it. I think our cause is just."
Under the rules for debate, the Shays-Meehan bill will be
pitted against two rival bills; whichever bill emerges will
then be subject to amendment.
One competing measure sponsored by Representatives
Robert Ney, Republican of Ohio, and Albert Wynn,
Democrat of Maryland, would cap soft-money donations to
each of the national political committees at $75,000 a
year.
It would also allow unlimited soft- money contributions to
continue to state political parties. But Republican
vote-counters said that they did not expect the measure to
get enough votes and that they were looking for other
ways to defeat the Shays-Meehan bill.
Mr. Armey, aides said, planned to take advantage of his
right under the rules to submit a bill of his own.
Mr. Bush has backed banning soft- money contributions
from unions and corporations but not individuals.
Advocates of a wider ban argue that would be a hard
position to endorse in the face of the Enron debacle.
One strategist working with Mr. Shays and Mr. Meehan
called the idea the "Kenny Boy exception" - using Mr.
Bush's nickname for Kenneth L. Lay, the former Enron
chairman - because it would still allow figures like Mr.
Lay to make six- figure contributions to the parties.
nytimes.com |
