Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post Newsgroups: americast.wpost From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: Political Reform= Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 04:53:22 EST Message-ID: <5.1992Nov10.045323@AmeriCast.com> Political Reform= THE CLINTON administration will be able to push only so many items through even a willing Congress in its first few months in office, and every major group in America with a bill it wants enacted is trying to make the cut. None is trying harder than the groups seeking reform of the system of congressional campaign fi- nance. The advocates point to some of the closer recent election results as confirmation of the need for reform; in a number of races the disproportionate amount of money they had available helped incumbents survive. But the same results suggest as well how difficult reform may be to achieve, since the incumbent who will vote to reduce his own advantage is rare indeed. The Democrats in control of both houses passed good reform legislation last year when there was no danger of its being enacted; the president had promised to veto it. The president-elect, however, has indicated he supports such a bill. On this as on other such issues, that puts him and the congres- sional Democrats both on the spot. The advocacy group Common Cause has done an early study of last Tuesday's returns. This was supposed to be the year of the wipe- out for Congress, and in fact, in the House particularly, the re- turn rate was lower than in the past. But of members seeking reelection (some of those in trouble having already voluntarily retired), about 88 percent still survived - and nine incumbents had to lose: They were pitted by redistricting against other in- cumbents. Common Cause found that, of 349 incumbents in the general elec- tion, 290 were unopposed or in races that were financially non- competitive (that is, the challenger had less than half the incumbent's campaign treasury). Two-thirds of all challengers were able to raise less than $100,000, and only 14 raised more than $400,000 while 180 incumbents raised that much. There were 48 "close" races in which incumbents defeated challengers but got less than 55 percent of the vote. Money mattered to some extent in all of these; as a group the incumbents had more than three times the campaign resources of their challengers - $34 million to $10 million. So also in the Senate, where all but three incumbents seeking reelection won (a fourth is in a runoff). The eight who won with less than 55 percent of the vote had 2 1/2 times the resources of their challengers - $50 million to $20 million. Republicans argue against the spending limits at the heart of reform on grounds they would work to the disadvantage of challengers. Not always. In three of the closest settled Senate elections Tuesday - in New York, Pennsylvania and Oregon - Republican incumbents won. By Common Cause's reckoning, each of the winners had a funds- available advantage of about $6 million. Campaign finance reform would adopt essentially the same system for congressional candidates as has existed with mostly good ef- fect since 1976 at the presidential level - partial public fi- nance in return for acceptance of voluntary spending limits. In addition it would adjust the mix of campaign funds and plug the larger holes in current law, including the one that allows unlim- ited amounts of so-called soft money to be given to presidential candidates indirectly through state parties. That's excellent medicine that not every Democrat in Congress wants to swallow. Question: How much political capital will the new president be willing to expend to try to make them do so?02:06 11-10C9999----- Copyright 1992, The Washington Post. This story is from the Washington Post's Capitol Edition On-Line and is not to be ar- chived or redistributed. For more information, send-email to American Cybercasting Cor- poration (usa@AmeriCast.COM)