Subject: House passes Campaign Funding Reform (Guru)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 070715 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
......"We've gone from a government by the people, for the people,
to a government of lobbyists and special interests...."
Richard Gephardt, (MO), Minority Leader of the U.S. House of
Representatives.
AMEN, brother..... (Readers of this list have been hearing that refrain
for more than five years......)
The Senate will not likely pass this legislation..... To the historic
discredit of the Republicans...... They prefer to preserve the oligarchy
we now have......
It seems to be the position of the Senate Republicans that they can not
win -- stay in office -- without the enormous advantage of $$$$$$
political "influence buying" under the present system..... As a "Main
Street" Republican, I disagree..... It is largely the "Wall Street"
Republicans who consider that they must 'kowtow' to the BIG money......
The Main Street Republicans (some call them "moderates") believe in the
power of the "common man" ... as we know him (or her) on Main Street and
in our local factories and farms.....
BTW, the House bill, itself, is far from what is needed..... It still
preserves a system where the rich will have more influence with the
law-makers than will the other 90% of ordinary citizens....
Cheerio.....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)......
rbeavers@llion.org.......
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
EMF-L web-site can be found at:
EMF-L archives can be found at:
..................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS..................
..........DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST??????..........
_________________________________________________________________
01:59 AM ET 09/15/99
Bill Curbing Campaign Finance Passed
By JIM ABRAMS=
Associated Press Writer=
WASHINGTON (AP) _ The House took a step toward curbing
politicians' insatiable appetite for campaign contributions, but it
was far from clear whether the Senate would go along.
For the second consecutive year, Republican rank-and-file
members defied their House leadership and joined Democrats in a
252-177 vote to ban ``soft money,'' the unlimited and largely
unregulated contributions that corporations, unions and wealthy
donors make to the political parties.
In all, 197 Democrats, 54 Republicans and one independent voted
for the bill, while 164 Republicans and 13 Democrats were opposed.
``We've gone from a government by the people, for the people, to
a government of lobbyists and special interests,'' said House
Democratic leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri, rejecting claims by
opponents that the bill would violate First Amendment rights to
free speech.
Like other supporters, Gephardt argued that passing the bill was
essential to regaining the trust of an electorate turned off by
big-money politics.
But getting the Senate to agree is likely to be difficult. Last
year, after the House bill passed 252-179, Senate backers garnered
a majority but fell well short of the 60 votes needed to break a
filibuster.
Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., who authored the House bill
with Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., said the situation has changed,
with more lawmakers shocked by the way the parties and candidates
are awash in money. But he also acknowledged that ``we're still
going up the hill and we could fall right back down.''
As in the House, the Senate bill has a Republican, Sen. John
McCain of Arizona, bucking the opposition of his leadership and
joining a Democrat, Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, to sponsor the
bill. ``I'm very pleased that a significant majority of the House
is on record in support of meaningful campaign finance reform,''
McCain said. ``I sincerely hope the Senate will do the same.''
``I'm feeling quite good about the way this is shaping up,''
said Feingold, who said he had talked individually with Senate
Republicans and found ``quite a number who don't want to be
associated with the current campaign finance system.''
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., who opposes the
McCain-Feingold bill, has promised a vote on the legislation next
month.
The similar House and Senate bills, the first major changes in
campaign financing laws in a quarter-century, would ban soft money
and place curbs on certain political advertising. Broadcast
commercials within 60 days of an election that made use of the name
or likeness of a candidate would have to be paid for with regulated
``hard money'' contributions.
The same rule would apply to issue ads which ostensibly are
meant to educate voters but actually are thinly veiled attacks on a
candidate's positions.
Hard money refers to direct contributions to candidates, while
soft money goes to the parties _ supposedly for ``party-building''
purposes but, in reality, often for individual campaigns.
``We have had enough talk about reform,'' President Clinton, a
strong backer of the legislation, wrote in a letter to lawmakers.
``The American people know the system needs to be fixed, but many
have come to doubt Congress' will to fix it.''
But opponents contended that Shays-Meehan would violate their
free-speech rights.
``This is the mother of all government regulations,'' said Rep.
Tom DeLay, R-Texas, the third-ranking Republican in the House. ``It
attempts to control the political process and limit freedom just to
protect incumbents.''
``Freedom of speech is worthless if no one can hear it,'' said
Rep. Roger Wicker, R-Miss.
But that notion was challenged by many within the GOP. ``I would
urge my colleagues to beware of 'sunshine patriots' who come to the
defense of the First Amendment only when the speech being defended
comes with a price tag attached,'' said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert,
R-N.Y.
Estimates are that soft money contributions in the next
presidential election cycle could top $500 million, double the 1996
amount, with Republicans generally commanding the edge in raising
donations.
Before winning passage, supporters of Shays-Meehan had to
survive votes on seven amendments and three substitute versions,
all regarded as ``poison pills'' that would have effectively killed
their bill.
Among the amendments defeated were those that would have raised
individual contribution limits from $1,000 to $3,000. Others would
have required candidates to raise 50 percent of their contributions
in-state and exempt the Internet from regulations in the bill.
Two amendments were accepted: one to bar alien residents from
making campaign contributions; and another, offered by Rep. John
Sweeney, R-N.Y., to require a candidate who is not a federal office
holder to reimburse the federal government for the full costs of
using government transportation for campaign purposes.
Sweeney said his only purpose was to make potential candidates
more accountable to taxpayers, and denied it was a partisan swipe
at first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has flown on government
planes and been protected by the Secret Service on trips to New
York, where she is considering a run for the Senate.
___
The bill is H.R. 417.
_________________________________________________________________
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com