Congress Clears Campaign Financing Reform
Final Action—Congress Oct. 10 cleared for the President S 3044, setting political contribution and
spending limits for candidates in federal elections and providing for public financing of presidential
elections.
Almost two and a half years after it passed the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1972 that was a major
factor in breaking open the Watergate scandal, Congress, reacting to presidential campaign abuses, enacted
another landmark campaign reform bill that radically overhauled the existing system of financing election
campaigns.
The Senate approved the House-Senate compromise version of S 3044 Oct. 8 by a 60–16 vote. (Vote 444,
p. 2891) The House approved it Oct. 10 on a 365–24 vote, completing congressional action. (Vote
437, p. 2891)
The new measure, which President Ford was expected to sign into law, established the first spending limits
ever for candidates in presidential primary and general elections and in primary campaigns for the House
and Senate. It set new expenditure ceilings for general election campaigns for Congress to replace the
limits established by the 1925 Federal Corrupt Practices Act that were never effectively enforced and
were repealed in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1972 (PL 92-225).
Public Financing
S 3044 also introduced the first use of public money to pay for political campaign costs by providing
for optional public financing in presidential general election campaigns and establishing federal matching
grants to cover up to 45 per cent of the cost of presidential primary campaigns. In the Senate Oct. 8,
some backers of the campaign finance reform bill hailed it as a major breakthrough in dealing with the
abuse of money in American politics. Howard W. Cannon (D Nev.), chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration
Committee and floor manager for the bill, said the "new law will constitute the most significant
step ever taken in the area of election reform and one of the most important legislative actions taken
by the Congress this year."
But several supporters, including Minority Leader Hugh Scott (R Pa.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D Mass.),
both of whom had pushed for public financing of congressional as well as presidential elections, said
they regretted that the bill’s public financing provisions were not broader. "The regret I have principally,"
said Scott, "is that we did not extend federal financing on a matching basis to congressional elections.
. . ." However, "we will give the presidential financing . . . a good try" in 1976.
Kennedy’s comments were harsher. He called the absence of public financing for congressional races "a
glaring deficiency" in the legislation. "Abuses of campaign spending and private campaign financing
do not stop at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue," he said. "They dominate congressional
elections as well. If the abuses are the same for the presidency and Congress, the reform should also
be the same. If public financing is good enough for presidential elections, it should also be good enough
for Senate and House elections"
Kennedy called the bill a "half-a-loaf approach" but said adoption of the conference report
was the only way that Congress could clear a bill "that the President would be obliged to sign or
veto before election day."
Opposition
The conference compromise also came under sharp attack from two senators who opposed the Senate’s bill
during debate in late March and early April. James B. Allen (D Ala.), one of the conferees, said he could
not sign the conference report "due to a strong conviction on my part that taxpayer financing of
elections is not in the public interest." Public financing of elections does not reform the campaign
laws, he added. "To use the terms ‘public financing’ and ‘campaign reform’ interchangeably or as
synonyms is erroneous." He repeated his call for spending and contribution limitations, full disclosure
and an independent election commission as the only real reforms.
James L. Buckley (Cons.-R N.Y.) labeled the bill an incumbent protection measure because of its low spending
limits. "To offer this bill in the name of reform is an act of cynicism," he said.
Buckley tried to have the bill revised by introducing a motion to recommit it to conference with instructions
to Senate conferees to raise the spending limit for nonincumbent candidates to 130 per cent of the limit
for incumbents. The motion was rejected on a 17–61 vote. (Vote 443, p. 2891)
The campaign finance reform bill was quickly passed by the House Oct. 10 with Minority Leader John J.
Rhodes (R Ariz.), who had opposed the House bill, endorsing the conference compromise.
Andrew Young (D Ga.) also backed the bill, saying that "it would have been a travesty for us to go
through another election without taking with us a bill to remedy" the evils of Watergate.
Opponents, however, warned the bill’s low spending limits would protect incumbents. That was the argument
of David C. Treen (R La.). William A. Steiger (R Wis.) opposed the bill because of the provision permitting
use of left-over campaign funds to pay for office expenses.
Provisions
As cleared by Congress, S 3044:
Established the following contribution limits:
- $1,000 per individual for each primary, runoff and general election, and an aggregate contribution
of $25,000 to all federal candidates annually.
- $5,000 per organization, political committee and national and state party organizations for each election,
but no aggregate limit on the amount organizations could contribute to a campaign nor on the amount organizations
could contribute to party organizations supporting federal candidates.
- $50,000 for President, $35,000 for Senate, and $25,000 for House races for candidates and their families.
- $1,000 for independent expenditures on behalf of a candidate.
- Barred cash contributions of over $100 and foreign contributions.
Established the following spending limits:
- Presidential primaries—$10-million total per candidate for all primaries. In a state presidential
primary, limited a candidate to spending no more than twice what a Senate candidate in that state would
be allowed to spend (see below).
- Presidential general election—$20-million per candidate.
- Presidential nominating conventions—$2-million each major political party, lesser amounts for minor
parties.
- Senate primaries—$100,000 or eight cents per eligible voter, whichever was greater.
|
