October 23, 1997 - U.S. Representative Adam Smith will sign a bipartisan discharge petition tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. on the House floor to ensure that the House consider major campaign finance reform measures this year.

"Since the House Leadership has been so resistant to an open debate on campaign finance reform, Members concerned about campaign finance reform — both Republicans and Democrats — are joining together to force a debate on this important issue," Smith explained.

Under the Rules of the House, any measure that has languished in the committee for more than seven legislative days can be discharged from further committee consideration and brought to a vote by a majority of the House. If the discharge petition garners the 218 signatures necessary, it is eligible for floor consideration seven legislative days later. Any Member who signed the petition can bring the measure up for floor consideration on the second and fourth Mondays of the month.

The rule, introduced by House Democrats, will make in order seven major campaign finance reform bills and any germane amendments. Specifically, it makes in order the "Blue Dog" bill, the Farr bill, the Doolittle bill, a Democratic substitute to be offered by Democratic Leader Gephardt, a Republican substitute to be offered by Majority Leader Armey, the Freshman bill, and any bill passed by the Senate. If discharged, the rule would be immediately amended to specifically make in order the Shays-Meehan bill. Members would vote on each bill without amendment, and whichever of those garners the most votes would by the underlying bill open for all germane amendments for up to 10 hours of debate.

"If Congress is to earn any of the American people's trust back, we must do something about campaign finance reform," Smith said. "We saw in the 1996 Presidential election — and we are seeing it now in the special New York Congressional race and gubernatorial races — how wealthy contributors can avoid contribution limit law by giving huge sums of money to the parties to then be used to help a certain candidate. Congress must close this loophole and make the contribution limits mean something again."

Following is a brief summary of each of the bills made in order by the rule:

Blue Dog bill (H.R. 1366) — Caps spending for each House campaign at $700,000, bans soft money. The measure also ensures that money spent on political campaign ads is fully disclosed and is accountable under federal campaign limits, and tightens limits on independent expenditures to $25,000. 32 cosponsors.

Farr bill (H.R. 600) — Establishes a system of voluntary spending limits on House campaigns, permitting reduced-cost media and postage to candidates that abide by the new spending limits. It would also limit total PAC contributions to each candidate, ban soft money, and require full disclosure by groups who run independent expenditures. 107 cosponsors.

Doolittle bill (H.R. 965) — Permits individuals and PACs to congressional candidates to give unlimited amounts of campaign money to congressional candidates. Under current law, they are limited to $1,000 and $5,000 per election respectively. It also repeals the public financing system put in place after Watergate that limits spending in presidential elections and improves disclosure of contributions to candidates. 64 cosponsors.

Gephardt bill — A bill to be introduced by the Democratic Leadership.

Armey bill — A bill to be introduced by the Republican Leadership.

Freshman bill — Bans soft money, increases candidate disclosure, and requires reporting by groups that run extensive issue ads in political campaigns. 55 cosponsors

Shays-Meehan bill (H.R. 493 or H.R. 1776) — Shays has introduced two bills: one which would establish a system a voluntary spending limits on House campaigns, permitting reduced-cost media and postage to candidates that abide by the new spending limits. It would also limit PAC contributions, ban soft money, and require full disclosure by groups who run negative ads (known as independent expenditures). The second bill (H.R. 1776) would ban soft money and include provision to improve campaign disclosure and enforcement of federal election law. H.R. 493: 45 cosponsors; H.R. 1776: 24 cosponsors.

Rep. Smith is a co-sponsor of H.R. 1776. "The bill's most important provision is a total ban on soft money," Smith explained. "Soft money contributions are the unlimited and unregulated amounts of money that are given to political parties and then funneled to candidates. It's a loophole that allows big contributors to avoid federal election law and public scrutiny."