Bush OKs Senate Campaign Bill; NRA Files Suit
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
After a seven-year battle, the Senate on March 20 passed and sent to President Bush the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that is designed to change the way political campaigns are paid for. The vote was 60-40. The House passed similar legislation earlier this year by a 240-189 margin.
On March 27, President Bush signed the bill into law with no fanfare before leaving the White House to begin an aggressive two-state, multi-million-dollar fund-raising swing. White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said Bush planned to issue a statement later in the day (after Gun Week went to press) saying that the bill “reforms the system in significant ways but also has flaws,” according to Associated Press.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) immediately announced that it was filing a court challenge to the Shays-Meehan/McCain-Feingold bill. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Second Amendment Foundation also were expected to file suits immediately, since they and other civil liberties organizations had already questioned the constitutionality of some of the measure’s provisions—notably its prohibitions on campaign ads that they claim violate the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Even before the President signed the bill, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who led the opposition to the bill, said a legal fight was certain. He said a legal team was ready to fight the bill through the court system. He also said he is prepared to be the lead plaintiff.
“I am consoled by the obvious fact that the courts do not defer to the Congress on matters of the Constitution. We have allowed a few powerful editorial pages to prod us into infringing the First Amendment rights of everyone but them,” said McConnell.
McConnell was referring to restrictions contained in the bill on the use of federal candidates’ names for certain periods prior to elections—the same provisions which concern the firearms and civil liberties organizations and grassroots activists across the country. Media organizations are exempted from those restrictions.
“It (the bill) is a blackout period on political speech by everyone other than the media,” said Chuck Cunningham, chairman of the NRA’s Political Victory Fund.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control Inc.) and its satellite “Million” Mom March were among the most jubilant supporters of the campaign measure. The anti-gunners seemed more concerned with the fact that the NRA had opposed the measure and lost—including on an amendment that would have exempted Second Amendment issues in the ad ban provision. The Brady Campaign seemed to take comfort in the prospect of mining the 219 votes against that amendment for votes on future gun control bills, but the key reason they supported McCain-Feingold is that they see the measure as a muzzle on the political voices of the movement to safeguard the right to keep and bear arms and the means to
The League of Women Voters also hailed the Senate vote.
The measure would bar both the Republican and Democratic Parties from receiving soft money and would impose strict curbs on how even state parties may use soft money related to federal elections.
It would also prohibit special interest groups from broadcasting ads that refer to a specific candidate—including his or her voting record or positions—within 60 days of a general election, and 30 days of a primary.
Beginning January 1, 2003, individuals would be able to give $2,000 per candidate for each primary and general election, compared with $1,000 today.
Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said the bill will protect incumbent politicians.
Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) voted against the bill.
“I am profoundly opposed to this bill, because it is clearly unconstitutional,” said Gramm during Senate floor debate.
Separate from the Senate vote, the House Ways and Means Committee on March 20 approved a measure exempting independent political groups that concentrate on state and local political campaigns from reporting their financial activities to the IRS.
Supporters of the legislation affecting what are called Section 527 groups said it would ease unnecessary reporting duties. Opponents warned it would open a new loophole for groups to operate in secret.
“No one should have any illusion that if we pass this legislation we get the big money out of politics,” said Sen. Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN), a backer of the bill during the debate. “This legislation is the first step, not the last.”
A basic compromise lies at the heart of the bill: While taking soft money donations away from the national parties, effective after this year’s congressional elections, it would raise the limits on the contributions known as hard money.
Since 1974, hard money contributions from individual donors have been limited to $1,000 per candidate per election and a total of $50,000 over two years. The bill would raise those limits to $2,000 and $95,000, respectively, and allow those amounts to increase over time with inflation.
As a result, while soft money to national parties would be banned, a politically active married couple could still give $190,000 in an election cycle to parties and candidates.
Many analysts say provisions of the bill that affect soft and hard money appear likely to withstand legal challenges because the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of campaign contribution limits. Also, direct contributions to federal candidates by corporations and unions have long been illegal.
More vulnerable are the provisions imposing the regulations on political advertising by corporations, labor unions and interest groups. The bill’s proponents say these “issue ads” amount to another soft money loophole that should be regulated.
While the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meahan measure is billed as the “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002” the final Senate vote was largely along party lines, with 10 Republicans voting with 49 Democrats in favor, and 2 Democrats joining 38 Republicans in opposition. The one independent—Jeffords—voted with the Democrats with whom he is organized. The final Senate roll call was:
YEAs (60): Akaka (D-HI); Baucus (D-MT); Bayh (D-IN); Biden (D-DE); Bingaman (D-NM); Boxer (D-CA); Byrd (D-WV); Cantwell (D-WA); Carnahan (D-MO); Carper (D-DE); Chafee (R-RI); Cleland (D-GA); Clinton (D-NY); Cochran (R-MS); Collins (R-ME); Conrad (D-ND); Corzine (D-NJ); Daschle (D-SD); Dayton (D-MN); Dodd (D-CT); Domenici (R-NM); Dorgan (D-ND); Durbin (D-IL); Edwards (D-NC); Feingold (D-WI); Feinstein (D-CA); Fitzgerald (R-IL); Graham (D-FL); Harkin (D-IA); Hollings (D-SC); Inouye (D-HI); Jeffords (I-VT); Johnson (D-SD); Kennedy (D-MA); Kerry (D-MA); Kohl (D-WI); Landrieu (D-LA); Leahy (D-VT); Levin (D-MI); Lieberman (D-CT); Lincoln (D-AR); Lugar (R-IN); McCain (R-AZ); Mikulski (D-MD); Miller (D-GA); Murray (D-WA); Nelson (D-FL); Reed (D-RI); Reid (D-NV); Rockefeller (D-WV); Sarbanes (D-MD); Schumer (D-NY); Snowe (R-ME); Specter (R-PA); Stabenow (D-MI); Thompson (R-TN); Torricelli (D-NJ); Warner (R-VA); Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).
NAYs (40): Allard (R-CO); Allen (R-VA); Bennett (R-UT); Bond (R-MO); Breaux (D-LA); Brownback (R-KS); Bunning (R-KY); Burns (R-MT); Campbell (R-CO); Craig (R-ID); Crapo (R-ID); DeWine (R-OH); Ensign (R-NV); Enzi (R-WY); Frist (R-TN); Gramm (R-TX); Grassley (R-IA); Gregg (R-NH); Hagel (R-NE); Hatch (R-UT); Helms (R-NC); Hutchinson (R-AR); Hutchison (R-TX); Inhofe (R-OK); Kyl (R-AZ); Lott (R-MS); McConnell (R-KY); Murkowski (R-AK); Nelson (D-NE); Nickles (R-OK); Roberts (R-KS); Santorum (R-PA); Sessions (R-AL); Shelby (R-AL); Smith (R-NH); Smith (R-OR); Stevens (R-AK); Thomas (R-WY); Thurmond (R-SC), and Voinovich (R-OH).
The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported before the Senate vote that in a little-noticed speech last October, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said that nowhere in the Constitution did the nation’s Founding Fathers directly address the notion of campaign contributions.
Nonetheless, Breyer went on to say that campaign finance laws do help the democratic process and “further the kind of open public political discussion that the First Amendment also seeks to encourage, not simply as an end but also as a means to achieve a workable democracy.”
Breyer’s remarks received scant attention at the time he made them at New York University’s Law School in the aftermath of Sept. 11, but some observers think Breyer’s comments bode well for supporters of campaign finance reform.