
          Talking Down Reform: Filibustering Campaign Reform
          By McBride, AnnAnn McBride
          Vol. 10, No. 2, 1988, pp. 4-5
          
          During February, the cots were back in the United_States
Capitol. For the first time in years, the Senate was involved in an
extended round-the-clock filibuster-endless debate to thwart the will
of the majority.
          The bill under discussion was S.2-the Senatorial Election Campaign
Act. This measure, introduced in 1987 on the first day of the 100th
Congress, is a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill, designed to
fundamentally transform congressional campaign financing. And while
S.2 has fifty-two Senate co-sponsors and broad support in the country,
a minority of Senators has blocked the bill.
          There can be little debate that the present campaign financing
system is in desperate need of reform. Unlimited campaign spending, in
the words of Majority Leader Robert Byrd (D-W.V.), threatens to make
Congress "a part-time legislature because we must be full-time
fund-raisers." Congressional campaign costs have increased
fivefold since 1974, totaling $373 million in the 1986 elections. An
average Senate seat now costs $3 million, requiring candidates to
raise the equivalent of about $10,000 every week during a six-year
term. The average cost of a House seat has also soared-from $87,000 in
1976 to $329,000 in 1986.
          With these costs, only those who are personally wealthy, or those
willing and able to raise large sums from special interests, can even
consider seeking congressional office. This system of unlimited
spending creates an arms race mentality in Congress-candidates faced
with an unlimited spending system seek huge and ever-growing sums of
money to run their campaigns.
          Freshman Senator John Breaux (D-La.), elected in 1986, says:
"MY first task in considering whether I would have the opportunity
one day to serve in the U.S. Senate was not whether I was old enough,
constitutionally, or whether I was smart enough to handle the job
... whether I had any ability to legislate, which is the duty of this
very august body. The first question I had to decide was how I was
going to raise enough money.... How much of my life and family life
was I going to have to commit to raising enough money before I would
be able to have the opportunity to exercise any talent or ability or
education to be a good member of the U.S. Senate."
          And retiring Senate President Pro Tem John Stennis (D-Miss.), first
elected in 1947, said, "The amount and sources of money spent in
Senate campaigns is an embarrassment to our country and it is a blot
on the integrity of the Senate because of the appearance of
impropriety."
          With the increase in campaign costs, congressional candidates have
increasingly gone hat-in-hand to the special interest political action
committees (PACs). In 1974, PACs gave $12.5 million to congressional
candidates. By 1986, PAC giving exceeded $130 million. As a result,
the 100th Congress came into office more indebted to special interest
PACs than any other in history.
          PAC money, far from being even-handed, heavily favors incumbents
over challengers. In the 1986 election cycle, PACs gave $90.7 million
to Senate and House incumbents and only $19.4 million to
challengers. In the same election, according to a Common Cause study,
one-third of all PACs gave 80 percent or more of their contributions
to Senate and House incumbents.
          PAC money is money given for a legislative purpose-it is
contributed to provide special access and special influence for
special interest groups on Capitol Hill. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
put it most bluntly: "We are the only human beings in the world who
are expected to take thousands of dollars from perfect strangers on
important matters and not be affected by it."
          To be sure, PAC contributions do not necessarily guarantee votes or
support; PACs do not always win. But the influx of special interest
money is eroding public confidence in our elected_officials and
creating the image-if not always the reality-that PACs are buying
access, influence and results in the United_States Congress. Sen. Jim
Sasser (D-Tenn.) has said, "The average citizen feels that public
officials are beholden to special interests. This sense of alienation,
this feeling that the electoral system is no longer their system, is
responsible for much of the cynicism and lack of participation by
citizens in politics today."
          S.2 squarely addressed the fundamental problems of the current
system-unlimited spending and ever-increasing dependence on PAC
dollars.
          First, S.2 would establish a system of spending limits for Senate
elections; the individual limits would be based on the population of
each state. In return for agreeing to 

spending limits, Senate
candidates would receive public benefits, such as reduced mailing
costs for their campaigns. No direct public financing is provided as
long as both candidates agree to abide by spending limits. If one
candidate decides not to participate, and raises funds or makes
campaign expenditures in excess of the spending limit, then public
money would be provided to his or her opponent.
          Second, S.2 would limit the growing dependence on PAC dollars by
establishing an overall limit on the amount of PAC contributions a
candidate may accept. For House candidates, the limit is $100,000; the
Senate limits are based on the population of each state. If the S.2
limits had been in effect in 1986, PAC contributions to Senate
candidates would have been cut by two-thirds-from $45 million to $16
million.
          S.2 received strong support within Congress. Fifty-two Senators
co-sponsored the bill-the first time since Watergate that a Senate
majority has gone on record in support of a comprehensive reform
bill. But Senate action on S.2 was blocked during the 1987
filibuster.
          S.2 moved to the Senate floor in June 1987, and Majority Leader
Byrd tried a record seven times to limit debate. While fifty-five
Senators were willing, invoking cloture requires the support of sixty
Senators-and the debate droned on.
          The Senate returned to S.2 in February 1988 and again the
obstructionist minority turned to a filibuster. Sen. Byrd scheduled
round-the-clock sessions in an effort to break the filibuster and took
an eighth cloture vote. But the minority prevailed once again. And S.2
was set aside.
          During debate on S.2, opponents raised a number of false
claims. "It will cost hundreds of millions," they argued. In
reality, if both candidates in a Senate race agreed to spending
limits, no direct public funds would be provided.
          "S.2 doesn't do anything about PACs," opponents claimed,
ignoring the fact that the aggregate PAC limits established by the
bill, had they been in effect during the 1986 campaign, would have cut
PAC contributions to Senate candidates by two-thirds.
          "S.2 will protect incumbents," they argued, ignoring the
tremendous advantages enjoyed by incumbents under the present campaign
financing system.
          "S.2 will prevent Republicans from winning in the South,"
they argued. Yet this claim ignored the recent experience in the
South. In 1980, for instance, four Southern Republican Senate
candidates-all non-incumbents-won election while spending less than
the limits in S.2. In 1986, three of these four candidates sought
re-election as incumbents. Each Senator spent more than the S.2
limits, and each Senator lost.
          This issue will not go away. Efforts to reform the system will
continue.
          Millions of citizens will be involved in the fight. More than
seventy national organizations have joined the coalition in support of
S.2. Included are traditional allies within the public interest
community, but also joining the coalition are such diverse
organizations as the American Association of School Administrators,
the American Jewish Committee, the American Public Health Association,
the American Public Power Association, the International Association
of Chiefs of Police, the National Farmers Organization, and the
National Farmers Union.
          In addition, more than 270 newspapers nationwide have supported the
bill. The Washington Post, for instance, has
called the current campaign financing system "fundamentally
corrupt. Every citizen knows it. So does every legislator."
          As former Watergate Special Prosecutor and Common Cause Chairman
Archibald Cox has noted, most scandals involve broken laws. In the
case of the campaign financing scandal, the laws themselves are the
scandal and they must be changed.
          
            Ann McBride is the Senior Vice President of Common Cause.
          
        
