Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, July 10, 1994 TAG: 9407290008
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: E-2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Reform packages have been passed by both the House and Senate, but Democratic leaders say they're at a standoff, unable to resolve differences in the bills.
Of course. Like one of those toy clowns repeatedly popping up with an idiotic grin on its face no matter how hard you try to punch it down, gridlock returns. And this is gridlock not merely for its own sake, but to preserve a corrupt status quo.
The main sticking point between the House and Senate is political-action-committee contributions. The Senate wants to outlaw them. House members would set a limit of $10,000 per PAC per candidate, and won't accept a penny less.
They're all for reform, in other words, as long as it doesn't stop the money from rolling in.
But we're sure they'll be able to explain this nicely to voters in the fall.
Voters? What do they know about the intricacies of campaign financing anyway? What do they care about "soft money," "bundling" and special-interest groups that pour big amounts into federal candidates' campaigns to ensure "access" to lawmakers?
Maybe voters don't understand that Congress' Golden Rule is whoever has the gold makes the rules, and never mind whether PACs and special interests rule the agenda.
Maybe voters have forgotten that just two years ago, most congressional candidates ran on a platform of "change" in Washington, with many prominently stressing their commitment to campaign-finance reform.
Perhaps they won't recall President Clinton's pledge to elevate campaign-finance reform to the top of his action list. They may not notice that, albeit while when he's preoccupied with other matters, he isn't pressing for an end to the congressional deadlock now.
Then again, a big part of Congress' problem is that Clinton is sure to sign the legislation if it is passed.
A couple years ago, grandstanding Democrats approved a campaign-finance reform bill not so different from what's now on the table. They could afford to take high-minded action then because it was a given that President Bush would veto the measure, which he did.
They can't get by with that cynical ploy today. With Clinton in the White House, Congress members would have to live with the consequences, including voluntary campaign-spending limits in both the House and Senate packages.
So instead they may declare irreconcilable differences, return to money-chasing business as usual - and hope the public won't notice.
by CNB