Clinton Calls for ‘Soft Money’ Ban

WASHINGTON â€”  President Clinton, seeking to defuse an ongoing controversy over campaign financing, Tuesday challenged Republicans to join Democrats in banning “soft moneyâ€� contributions that serve as a loophole for affluent donors and repeated a call for sweeping reforms.

“If you will do it, we will do it,� Clinton said. “We have offered our hand again and again. Why not just say yes?�

Clinton’s remarks, made before the Democratic National Committee, were part of an orchestrated bid to seize the high ground on an issue that has haunted the administration since disclosures last year of large, overseas contributions to the Democratic Party. Before Clinton spoke, Democrats unveiled a series of steps designed to stave off such embarrassments in the future, including a unilateral ban on donations from noncitizens.

In his comments, the president also seemed to convey some frustration over the media’s focus on Democratic fund-raising practices.

“On the other side, our friends may not think that they have any interest in campaign-finance reform,� Clinton said. “Why should they? They raise more money. They raise more foreign money. They raise more money in big contributions, and we take all the heat. It’s a free ride.�

Clinton also took advantage of the friendly setting to offer a blunt, if brief, political history of the last few decades. Republicans were aided by their advocacy of a strong defense and free enterprise, he said, but they also used rhetoric to divide the nation and cast government as the problem.

After last year’s unpopular shutdowns of the government, “Our view prevailed and you should be proud,� Clinton said.

Under new procedures announced Tuesday, the Democratic Party no longer will accept donations from U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations, from noncitizens or in amounts above $100,000 per year from anyone at all.

Under current law, U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations can give money provided the funds were generated by the U.S. operation. Noncitizens can make a contribution under the law, provided they hold a green card. And there is no limit on the size of soft-money contributions.

These voluntary Democratic moves come in addition to the president’s appeal for a “soft money� ban, and would be effectively overtaken if Congress were to pass pending campaign finance legislation making such moves mandatory.

Separately, the White House disclosed that it is imposing new procedures to screen guests and prevent a repeat of such embarrassments as the presence of a Chinese arms dealer at a presidential coffee a year ago. “It’s impossible to prevent glitches, however, we want to minimize glitches, and these procedures are designed to accomplish that,� one official said.

In addition, party officials promised to establish screening procedures that would identify questionable donors and keep them off White House invitation lists.

Clinton’s remarks, which came just one day after he appealed for an end to “the politics of petty bickering� in his inaugural address, quickly hit partisan nerves.

The president’s speech “brought to mind the old expression: Physician heal thyself,� Jim Nicholson, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in a prepared statement. “Clearly, before any serious discussion about campaign finance reform can take place, there must be a commitment to abiding by the current law of the land.�

The DNC already has returned nearly $1.5 million in questionable contributions, including some from noncitizens who did not appear to have the financial means to afford the large contributions attributed to them.

Clinton also repeated his support for bipartisan legislation in Congress that, among other things, would ban “soft money� donations well-heeled donors may give to political parties when they have bumped up against the limits on donations to individual races.

That legislation, originally sponsored by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), would impose other restrictions, including donations from corporations or unions to political parties.

But it has repeatedly bogged down in Congress, where members of both parties are wary of cutting off tried-and-true means for raising large amounts when needed. Some also have questioned the president’s enthusiasm for the legislation, although he offered verbal support during and after his presidential campaign.

Alluding to the bill--and its history of stumbles--Clinton said: “So I ask members of Congress in both parties to act now while the public is watching, while the momentum is building. Act now. Don’t delay. . . . It is tough, it is balanced, it is credible. It should become the law of the land.�

For their part, Senate Democrats have gathered behind a bill by Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) that proposes voluntary spending limits in exchange for reduced television and postal rates, “soft money� restrictions, elimination of political action committees and further restrictions on foreign contributions.

Even on a day that White House strategists dedicated to campaign finance reform, questions continued to dog the administration, including the propriety of inviting major contributors to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. Clinton has insisted that no such trade-off existed.

Nonetheless, White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry said Clinton would continue to reserve the right to invite those of his choosing to spend the night in the Lincoln bedroom.

“He has a right as a human being and as president to say, ‘Thank you,’ � McCurry told reporters.

But on the second day of his second term in the White House, Clinton also wished to take the discussion beyond campaign finance and related matters, and referred to elements of the “positive legacy� of his first term.

In part, he said, that legacy was based on replacing supply-side economics--which tolerated large deficits in return for tax cuts--with a different approach that included deficit reduction and investments in science and technology. Those policies, he said, helped create millions of jobs.

Another achievement, he said, was reversing “the expansion of social problems� once deemed irreversible such as rising crime and welfare, both of which have been declining. A focus on crime and welfare reform, he contended, had captured issues for Democrats that Republicans had once used to great effect in presidential elections.