Campaign Finance Reform
& Congress
With Chuck Babington
Post Congressional editor
Friday, Feb. 15 2002; 1p.m. EST

On Wednesday the House passed the Shays-Meehan bill to overhaul current campaign finance laws. What happens to the bill now? How does it effect local and state campaigns? Will the President sign it?

A transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

New York, N.Y.: Chuck,

I've heard enough spin about this bill. Can you explain what the bill bans and what it keeps?

Chuck Babington: The bill, if enacted, would ban the "soft money' that corporations , unions and individuals have given to the Republican and Democratic parties. In the 2000 election, that amounted to about $500 million, so it's considerable. That money supposedly is used for "party-building' efforts, such as get-out-the-vote. But because the parties have been very aggressive -- and they've won a series of court battles -- they often use soft money for hard-hitting attack ads against their opponents.
The bill would allow the continued use of 'hard money.' That's the traditional type of campaign contribution, such as when you write a $1,000 check to Smith for Congress. In fact, the bill would increase the allowable amount of hard-money contributions to $2,000 per candidate per election. Since most candidates have a primary election first, they can receive $4,000 per election from a donor willing to give that much.
The bill has other wrinkles, but we can get to those later in the chat.

Somerville, N.J.: Doesn't CFR hurt Democrats more than Republicans? Democrats have not been as sucessfull at raising hard money, and I have a hard time believing that the black caucus voted for this considering they will probably be hurt most. Without soft money and issue ads, how will anyone compete with Bush for public attention in 2004? From a practical standpoint, I have a feeling the Democrats shot themselves in the foot on this one.

Chuck Babington: Very good question, and some smart people agree w/ your analysis. Yes, Republicans raise more hard money than do the Democrats. But they also raise more soft money than the Dems. So you can argue it either way: Banning soft money helps the Democrats; but putting a greater emphasis on hard money probably hurts them.
As you can see, the bill would place greater importance on raising hard money. That means both parties will make bigger efforts to get $2,000 or $4,000 from people who, previously, maybe gave $500 or so. And they'll try hard to get $1,000 or more from people who have given nothing in the past.
It's unclear whether the Dems or GOP will perform better in this chase. Some folks think the GOP will have an edge because it can tap large organizations with comparatively affluent members who lean Republican. Think small business owners, insurance agents, etc.
On the other hand, Democrats may have success tapping liberal-leaning groups such as environmental organizations, pro-choice groups and labor unions.
Your point about Bush in 2004 is especially apt. Through his 'Pioneers' organization of big gatherers of hard money, he'll have a huge head start in the 2004 race.

Baltimore, Md.: Congress is doing a magnanimous thing by trying to stop the influence of money in Washington. However, DeLay and others have brought up the point of free speech issues especially as it purtains to issue ads 60 days before an election. This is not a frivolous argument and I have a suspicion that if this law is headed to the courts that it will get shot down for violating free speech. Do you think opponents of Shays/Meehan have a valid point on this issue?

Chuck Babington: The issue of free speech --guaranteed in the Constitution's First Amendment -- is the Gordian Knot of campaign finance regulations. Free speech isn't merely talking or writing. It also applies to efforts to help others spread opinions that we share. One way of doing that is helping like-minded candidates get elected. Under this scenario, one can argue there should be no limits of any type on campaign contributions.
Such an unregulated world, however, led to abuses that the courts (and most Americans) couldn't swallow. So the courts began seeking middle grounds -- some limits on campaign giving, but not outright bans. It's an uneasy balancing act, and the dilemma will never go away.
You note a good example of the Shays-Meehan bill seeking yet another way to split the differnce between unfettered expression and chaotic influence-pedaling. The bill would allow interest groups to air campaign-type ads up to 60 days before a general election, but not after. Opponents are certain to challenge this provision in court. And it may indeed prove to be the measure's weakest legal link.

Baltimore, Md.: What are the chances of a Senate filibuster? Is there a chance of one succeeding?

Chuck Babington: There is a chance a Senate filibuster could kill the campaign finance bill. It takes 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to stop a filibuster (which is a delaying tactic meant to prevent a bill from coming to a vote). When the Senate passed its version of the campaign finance bill (McCain-Feingold), it got 59 votes. That's one short of the number needed to stop a filibuster. If all 100 senators vote on the question of a filibuster just as they voted on McCain-Feingold, then the filibuster could succeed. However, Sen. Fritz Hollings (d-S.C.), who voted against McCain-Feingold, now says he would vote to stop a filibuster. On the other hand, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who voted FOR McCain-F, now says he might vote to let a filibuster go forward.
So who knows? Congress is out next week, so the issue can't hit the Senate floor before Feb. 26. By then, most Hill insiders seem to think the anti-McCain-Feingold forces will not have enough clout or willpower to block the bill.

Chuck Babington: Sorry my answers are so long-winded. This is complicated stuff. I'll compensate with a rather long-winded question next.

washingtonpost.com: Campaign Reform Momentum Builds (Post, Feb. 15, 2002)

Chapel Hill, N.C.: Mr Babington,

Thanks for taking my question. I am somewhat disconcerted by the media having taking such an active role (intentionally or not) in pushing CFR. The Washington Post editorial page pushes for it (as do almost all of the major newspapers). The "courageous" reformers are lauded and portrayed positively and lionized, especially in the case of John McCain. And through it all, I can't help wonder if CFR isn't a pet issue for the media BECAUSE it will increase their influence (since they will be the only ones other than the candidates to actually criticize or bring up issues). And I can't help but wonder what reaction the media would have if someone tried to limit what they could say within 60 days of an election. And I can't help but wonder why the PRESS of all people isn't outraged by the assault on free speech and not OPPOSING this bill. Could you imagine any of our founding fathers like Madison being for limits on the ability to criticize an elected official at all much less in the two months preceding an election? What is more democratically fundamental than the ability to criticize what your elected officials are doing? What about the ability that will be removed by this bill to urge your congressman (in a TV ad) to vote for or against a bill facing the Congress in the two months (coincidentally) before an election? I am astounded that free speech proponents like the press aren't up in arms.

Chuck Babington: First of all, remember that newspaper editorial and op-ed pages are separate from the news columns. Editorial pages are supposed to offer opinion and arguments , and if they want to lionize someone, that's fine.
In the news pages, we try to play it down the middle. We try (without 100 percent success, I'll admit) to avoid loaded terms, even if most people use them. Thus we generally write about campaign finance OVERHAUL or REVISIONS rather than 'Reform.'
As for your well-made points on free speech, we addressed some of that above. But there are always balances and limits on 'free' speech. That's why you can be arrested for yelling Fire! in a crowded theater.
Just as panicky stampedes are not in the public's interest, neither are unfettered campaign attack ads, etc., in the public's best interest, several courts have ruled.

Bethesda, Md.: How is Bush trying to coopt this bill for his purposes? He keeps saying he'll wait 'till it's on his desk but what is he really doing in the interim?

Chuck Babington: The Post's White House reporters (Mike Allen and Dana Milbank) have a good front-page story today explaining Bush's role in all this. In short, he has never liked the bill, but almost no one thinks he will veto it. Meanwhile, the president's spokesman says Bush should get credit for campaign finance overhaul -- a suggestion sure to raise eyebrows in many quarters.

washingtonpost.com: President's Politics of Pragmatism Helped Undermine GOP Opposition (Post, Feb. 15, 2002)

Albany, N.Y.: As a Democratic strategy, why not let a filibuster play out. Let Mitch McConnell speak for a few weeks straight, blocking a vote on this bill and everything else. Wouldn't this Republican tactic to prevent a sure majority from voting be damaging to the Republicans as obstructionist?

Chuck Babington: If Tom Daschle is reading this online chat, perhaps he'll adopt your idea.

Klamath Falls, Ore.: Who wins? Who loses? Do the American PEOPLE really care?

Chuck Babington: Poll after poll shows that American people put campaign finance matters near the bottom of their list of priorities. Many see politics as dirty, unpleasant business, and they don't much care about details and nuances of the dirtiness.
That's too bad, I think, because few things go more to the heart of our democracy -- and therefore our freedom as a people - -than the process of electing our leaders and lawmakers. Do some people care? Of course. John McCain's surprisingly strong challenge to George W. Bush in 1999-2000 was built largely around his call for campaign finance changes.

Chapel Hill, N.C.: Mr Babington,

Thanks for making yourself available. A question or two.

This bill is choked full of so many different ways to protect incumbents (cheap ads for TV, no independent TV ads criticizing them, limits on free speech, etc). What do you view as some of the potential unintended consequences of this law? What is going to happen to the state and national parties? How much more influence will the media have (since they are exempted from the 60 day limit on criticizing or editorializing)?

Chuck Babington: The legislation may help incumbents in another way that you don't mention. Interest groups on the left, right and center generally give money to incumbents (to curry favor with the powerful). So the parties mainly use their soft money to finance unknown but possibly strong challengers. With soft money out of the picture, it will be harder than before to finance those willing to challenge incumbent House and Senate members.
As for unintended consequences, we'll provide a link to Post columnist David Broder's excellent column on that very subject today.

washingtonpost.com: Now, the Unintended Consequences (Post, Feb. 15, 2002)

Chuck Babington: That's all for today. Thanks for joining.

   |      |