Senators Push for Fund-Raising Amendment

Senators Push for Fund-Raising Amendment

By David D. Kirkpatrick <http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/author/dkirk/>

As the torrent of money flowing into the presidential campaigns is itself turning into an issue in the race, the revival of an unsuccessful attempt at a Constitutional amendment allowing more stringent campaign finance rules may put some of the candidates on the spot.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, have sent their colleagues a letter asking for co-sponsors of a bill that would in effect overturn the 1976 Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo, which ruled that campaign spending was a protected form of free speech. It has bedeviled all subsequent attempts to limit the influence of political money.

A similar proposal received only 40 "yes" votes in the Senate six years ago and it is almost certain to fail again. But its may raise questions for former Senator John Edwards, a candidate for the Democratic presidential primary. He has recently called for "mandatory" public financing and spending limits for all campaigns, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in Buckley v. Valeo, and he has sought to characterize his own decision to accept public financing as a matter of principle rather than necessity, pointedly criticizing his rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, for relying on private donations. But as a senator in 2001 Mr. Edwards voted
against the proposed amendment to allow such mandatory spending limits and Mrs. Clinton voted for it.

Among the Republican primary candidates, the revived proposal also might be delicate for Senator John McCain. He has carried the banner for campaign finance restrictions for decades and voted for the proposed amendment in 2001. But the idea of restricting campaign spending is unpopular among conservative Republican primary voters. Mr. McCain has not talked much lately about that aspect of his career, and the proposal could bring it back up.

The current presidential public campaign finance system was designed to get around the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo. Instead of imposing mandatory limits, the system seeks to induce candidates to accept voluntary spending caps by offering them taxpayer-funded grants if they do. This year, however, the leading candidates in both parties are planning to reject the public grants because they can raise and spend more by relying on private donations.

The Democratic front-runners all support updating the presidential public financing system to keep up with the pace of private fund-raising. But in an interview, Senator Schumer said the widespread rejection of the system this year "vindicates" the view that truly effective campaign finance restrictions will be impossible while Buckley v. Valeo stands.

-peace-