Campaign Reform Huddle Yields Few Signals for Action : Politics: Clinton meets with Democratic leaders. But sentiment for delay exists in both parties since money is already being raised for 1994 congressional races.

By DAVID LAUTER and KAREN TUMULTY

Feb. 4, 1993 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITERS

WASHINGTON — President Clinton and Democratic congressional leaders huddled Wednesday over campaign finance reform in a session that produced much mutual praise but little sign of agreement on the difficult issues involved in limiting the role of money in politics.

“I want to pass a bill early this year, as early as we can,” Clinton told reporters as he opened the Oval Office meeting. And afterward, Sen. David L. Boren (D-Okla.), the chief Senate sponsor of campaign reform legislation, said that he expected Senate committee action on a reform bill would begin in March.

But while action might start quickly, neither White House aides nor key members of Congress held out much hope for a fast finish. And any reforms that are approved almost certainly would not take effect until after the next election, congressional leaders said.

House members already have begun raising money for their 1994 races, and if new legislation is written to change their current fund-raising plans, it would be “much more difficult to get members to support the legislation or objectively examine it, in some cases,” said House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.).

Congressional sentiment for a delay appears to cross party lines. In comparison to such broad issues as the economy and health care, “I don’t think campaign finance is on the front, front burner,” said Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Bakersfield), who leads the House Republicans on the subject.

Clinton, by contrast, has somewhat more reason for urgency. His political advisers argue that a strong move to clean up Washington’s money game would help reassure voters that the new President is breaking up “business as usual” in the capital. In particular, a publicly successful reform drive might help Clinton attract the roughly 19% of voters who supported Ross Perot in the last election, political advisers argue.

On the other hand, members of Congress have sent clear signals to the White House in recent weeks that a strong campaign finance reform bill would require sustained pressure from Clinton at exactly the same time that he will be trying to gain the cooperation of Congress on his economic and health care plans. That prospect troubles at least some White House aides.

While the congressional leaders who met with Clinton lavishly praised his commitment to move forward on the issue, they also made clear that even within Democratic ranks, some fundamental questions about reforming the process remain unsettled. And Republicans, who were not invited to Wednesday’s meeting, quickly served notice that they will fight any reform bill that might give the majority Democrats an edge in the political wars.

“If there ever was an issue that will take bipartisan cooperation to be successful, it is this one,” said Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.). “If the Democrats continue to refuse our offer to write a bipartisan reform package, then Americans should watch out for their wallets and get ready for a plan written by incumbents, for the benefit of incumbents,” he said.

Congress passed a campaign reform bill last year but did so in part because members of Congress--forewarned that President Bush would veto the bill--knew they could vote for it without risking that it might become law. This time around, with Clinton promising to sign a bill, the stakes are much higher.

The likelihood that their votes actually will count this time around probably “will cause some sobering up,” said Thomas. “Some of the hypocrisy of previous positions will have to be checked at the door.”

“None of this is easy, because this is an area where every member is an expert,” said Rep. Vic Fazio (D-Sacramento), chairman of the fund-raising Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The campaign reform issue creates several splits in Congress. Republicans would like to see tight limits on certain types of campaign donations, largely unlimited under current law, that primarily help Democrats. Among those donations are the ability of labor unions to contribute time in the form of volunteers to staff telephone banks, door-to-door campaigns and other get-out-the-vote efforts and the so-called soft money contributions made directly to the political parties rather than to individual candidates. Soft-money contributions have been a key fund-raising source for the Democrats in recent elections.

For their part, Democratic leaders would like to limit overall spending in elections. They claim that putting a cap on overall spending would remove the incentive for members of Congress to seek money from special interests. But Republicans counter that a cap would merely protect incumbents because challengers generally have to outspend incumbents to win. Protecting incumbents helps the Democrats, who have majorities in both houses of Congress.

But the Democrats have their own internal problems. While the party leadership has approved campaign spending limits coupled with a limit on contributions that members could take from political action committees, many Democratic members of Congress--particularly in the House--dislike the idea. In the House in particular, where most members do not face difficult reelection campaigns, campaign contributions often are used for other purposes, such as paying salaries for key political advisers or providing personal perquisites, ranging from country club memberships to second cars.

A final problem involves Supreme Court rulings that forbid Congress from limiting the amount an individual can spend in seeking public office. Because of those rulings, the only way to enforce a spending cap would be to provide some benefit in exchange, such as partial public financing of campaign costs--a prospect that has little support among voters.