Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform Clears the House
By Kelly Field
WASHINGTON, Feb. 13–The Shays-Meehan bill-Congressman Marty Meehan’s sweeping overhaul of campaign finance law-survived a series of 11th hour challenges yesterday, clearing the House by a vote of 240 to 189.
Forty-one Republicans, including Congressman Charles F. Bass, R-Peterborough, broke ranks to support the bill. Twelve Democrats opposed it.
Proponents said that the vote, combined with the failure of all of the “poison pill” amendments offered by Republicans, means the bill will most likely pass in the Senate. In revising their bill, Meehan and co-sponsor Congressman Christopher Shays, R-CT, had attempted to bring their bill into line with the McCain-Feingold bill, which passed in the Senate last year. The day before the vote, they made several other last minute changes including delaying implementation until after the election.
If passed, the Shays-Meehan bill would ban the unregulated soft money donations to political parties and prevent interest groups from running so-called “issue ads” in the last months before an election. It would also cap soft money contributions to state and local parties at $10,000, and restrict state and local party spending on Federal elections (see sidebar).
The Republican leadership has strongly opposed the bill, saying it would disadvantage their party in elections.
Rep. Charles Bass, R- N.H., a moderate Republican whose vote was targeted by both sides, said he did not feel pressured to vote the Republican party line.
“Once I make up my mind, I think people realize its not going to be productive to try and make me vote the other way,” said Bass who voted in favor of the Shays-Meehan bill.
Bass was one of 20 Republicans, and one of the last four House members, who signed a discharge petition to force the bill to a vote last month after House Speaker Dennis Hastert refused to schedule the bill for debate.
In floor debate, Meehan repeatedly thanked his Republican colleagues for their support for his “bipartisan, bicameral” bill, calling on Congressman to “look within themselves to show courage, independence and commitment to true reform.”
“There is a cloud over the capital and the White House because of the Enron scandal and the American people are demanding that this cloud be removed,” Meehan said.
“We have a historic opportunity here in this House to fundamentally change the way elections are held in this country,” said Meehan later on the House floor.
At approximately 10:30 p.m. last night, Meehan vowed to continue debate until “4 a.m. if necessary” to defeat amendments being offered to scuttle the bill. The final vote came shortly before 3 a.m.
The Republicans offered two alternative bills and more than a dozen amendments to the Shays-Meehan bill. Four amendments were passed by the House. Among other things, they would increase the limit on individual hard money contributions to House candidates from $1,000 to $2,000 per election; increase fundraising limits for candidates running against wealthy self-financed opponents; and eliminated language from the Shays-Meehan bill that would have given preferential rates to political candidates for buying television advertising time.
During a day of highly contentious debate, Republicans blasted last minute changes to the bill, including delaying implementation until after the November election. Republicans unsuccessfully offered an amendment to have the legislation take effect as soon as it is signed by the president.
“This bill is a sham,” said Bob Ney (R-OH), whose alternative to Shays-Meehan would have totally eliminated soft-money contributions, was rejected 377-53. Ney said there were so many loopholes in the Shays-Meehan bill that “you could drive an Enron limousine” through it.
President Bush also criticized the change in the effective date of the bill, telling the Associated Press it “ought to be in effect immediately.” His spokesman, Ari Fleisher, added that the White House found the change to be “unfair, unwise and unwarranted.”
Bush has indicated to Congressional Republicans that he could not be counted on to veto Shays-Meehan if it passed in the House.
Meehan and other supporters of his legislation said it was impractical to try to implement a major change in election law just a few months before an election, when the bill would likely be ready to be signed by the president.
“By then, we would be three quarters of the way into the election,” said Meehan in an interview.
Republicans also questioned the constitutionality of the bill’s advertising restrictions, saying that they silence free speech.
“People should not be gagged in this country,” said Ney (R-OH).
Supporters argued that the bill would not restrict free speech, since it will still permit ads paid for with limited contributions.
“This bill is balanced and fair to both parties,” said Meehan. “The American people get it. The American people are watching the debate to see who is for real reform.”
Published in The Eagle-Tribune, in Lawrence, Mass.
