House passes campaign finance reform bill

by Kiesha Jenkins
Senior State Writer

Congress’ campaign finance reform bill is one step closer to becoming reality.

The Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives 240-189 early yesterday morning. Rep. Christopher Shay, R-Conn., and Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., the sponsors of the bill, successfully defeated attempts to kill or sidetrack the bill with damaging amendments during the 16-hour debate on Capitol Hill.

The Shays-Meehan bill would ban soft money campaign contributions — unregulated money that individuals and groups donate to political organizations and parties in an effort to buy influence.

It also would require ads supporting or against a state, district or local candidate to follow the same contribution limits as federal candidates. Groups who buy these ads can contribute only $2,000 to a candidate each election year.

Additionally, the bill would require the Federal Elections Commission to file reports electronically and post them on the Internet. The Commission estimated that more than $250 million in soft money was spent on political campaigns in 2000.

Rep. Ted Strickland, D­Lucasville, supports the bill.

“I’m glad the will of the people won out over the special interest lobby,” Strickland said. “Soft money is giving the appearance that big money controls the actions of Congress.”

In July 2001, House leadership tried to push a campaign finance bill, but it failed on the House floor. A discharge petition forced Speaker Dennis Hastert, R­Ill., to bring the bill up for a vote, despite his personal objection to it this summer.

Under normal rules, no legislation can go to the House floor without the Speaker’s approval, but a discharge petition can force a bill to the floor over the Speaker’s objections. The House obtained the necessary 218 signatures to force consideration of the Shays-Meehan bill Jan. 24.

Although the bill had bipartisan support, Strickland said he believes Republican leadership did not want the bill to pass.

“(Republican leaders) depend upon soft money to keep them empowered,” Strickland said. “They have an unwillingness to allow ordinary Americans to have a voice as strong as special interest groups.”

Rep. Robert Ney, R­St. Clairsville, co-sponsored an alternative proposal with Rep. Albert Wynn, D­Md. The Ney-Wynn proposal would have reformed the campaign finance system, but it would have allowed groups to use soft money to voice their opinions through television, radio and newspaper ads up to 60 days before an election.

“The Shays-Meehan bill would allow groups to use soft money only for newspaper ads,” Ney said.

Ney also said supporters of Shays-Meehan said their bill would ban all soft money contributions, but it doesn’t.

“A company like Enron could still contribute $60 million nationwide for local elections,” Ney said. “They just can’t contribute to national political parties.”

The Ney-Wynn proposal was defeated on the floor of the House yesterday during the debate.

Strickland said he thought the Shays-Meehan bill stood a good chance of passing because a similar bill passed the Senate last year. But this year the Senate would need 60 votes to stop a likely filibuster — prolonged speech-making to delay legislative action — and pass the bill.

But Scott Milburn, spokesman for Sen. George Voinovich, D-Ohio, said it was uncertain when the bill would come up for a vote in the Senate.

“It’s up to the discretion of the Senate majority leader,” Milburn said.

Milburn also said Voinovich had not yet expressed his feelings on the campaign finance reform bill.

“The bill was changing up until its passage,” Milburn said. “The senator was waiting for it to pass before taking a look at it and deciding how he felt.”

President Bush indicated in July that he would not veto a campaign finance bill, Strickland said.

“But he didn’t say he would sign it either,” Strickland said. “He may allow it to become law without his signature.”