2 Groups Pressure Nethercutt Back The Abolition Of Pacs Or They Might Drop Support

Some of U.S. Rep. George Nethercutt’s independent political allies say he is risking their support unless he backs a major change in election spending.

“Campaign finance reform is a big issue,” said Connie Smith, state director of United We Stand America.

That group, which was created by the populist candidacy of Texas billionaire Ross Perot, long has been a foe of political action committees, which lobby Congress to change laws and can contribute up to $10,000 in each election cycle.

In 1994, Perot campaigned for Nethercutt, and members of the group helped the Spokane Republican defeat House Speaker Tom Foley.

Tuesday, Smith joined with Common Cause, another government reform group that wants to abolish PACs, to demand that Nethercutt support a tough campaign bill written by U.S. Rep. Linda Smith, a Republican from Vancouver, Wash.

“We want the system changed or we want somebody new,” said Chuck Sauvage, state director of Common Cause.

Connie Smith stopped short of saying the group would back Nethercutt’s opponent. But she accused the congressman of moving his family to Washington, D.C., “to continue his contacts with those special interest groups.”

Nethercutt said he has not decided if he will support Linda Smith’s bill. But he called the charge that he had moved his family to be closer to lobbyists’ cash both insulting and disappointing.

“That’s the most absurd declaration that I’ve seen since I’ve been in this job,” Nethercutt said. “I moved my family so I could see them at nights.”

During his first seven months in office, Nethercutt’s family stayed in their South Hill home, and he returned to Spokane most weekends.

Linda Smith’s bill is one of many proposals on campaign reform that are circulating in Congress, but it is among the strictest. It would outlaw PACs, and if the Supreme Court were to determine that is unconstitutional, it would cut the groups’ contributions to only $2,000 per election cycle.

It also would set up voluntary limits of $600,000 for a candidate to spend in a House election. In exchange for living within that limit, candidates would get free or low-cost television time and mail privileges.

A candidate who faces a barrage of campaign attacks from independent groups - as Foley did in 1994 from the National Rifle Association and a term limits group - would be allowed to spend more money and still receive the television and mail benefits.

“I don’t think there’s any magic in Linda Smith’s bill,” Nethercutt said.

He said the House should hold hearings on the various proposals, but he wouldn’t consider it a failure if Congress doesn’t pass campaign finance reform this year.

If that happens, Nethercutt said, he will continue his policy of taking no more than one-third of his funds from PACs. According to the latest reports from the Federal Election Commission, Nethercutt has raised $263,662 for his ‘96 campaign, with $76,275 coming from PACs.

“I don’t know who gives me money and I’m not pushing (PAC contributions)” he said.

, DataTimes