Campaign Finance Reform On Deck Gop Leaders Say Contribution Limits Likely, Because Of Mood Of Voters

Lawmakers take a serious look at campaign finance reform this week against the backdrop of pressure for action on the politically touchy question.

Republican leaders think a revamped version of Gov. Phil Batt’s limits on campaign contributions will probably reach his desk just to satisfy the public. Voters seem increasingly unsatisfied with simply knowing who is giving how much to what candidates. They want to see less money spent and more limits placed on how it is spent.

Idaho now places no limits on campaign spending. It is among only eight states allowing candidates to take contributions directly from businesses.

In the Panhandle last year, nearly half a million dollars was spent on legislative campaigns, refueling reform efforts.

Of the $470,000 in campaign funds raised by North Idaho legislative candidates in 1996, only 17 percent came from individual citizens. Sixty-three percent came from businesses, PACs or political party committees, according to an Idaho SpokesmanReview analysis, and more than a quarter of the money was from out of state.

In the past, Democrats have proposed reforms, but Republicans quashed bills without even allowing hearings.

Now, as both parties consider reform, some wonder just what is being fixed.

Figures from past campaigns show that little would change under the legislation awaiting action by the Senate State Affairs Committee on Monday - mainly because it targets the wrong campaigns.

“I believe that the monetary influence of interest groups should be diminished,” Batt declared when he proposed his reforms in the State of the State address seven weeks ago.

Senate President Pro Tem Jerry Twiggs admits that the threat of outgoing state Democratic Chairman Bill Mauk to wage an initiative campaign for contributions limits in 1998 has lawmakers looking for an acceptable legislative approach.

House Speaker Michael Simpson says there is no way to ignore the public perception that some kind of reform should occur.

“It’s driven by what’s going on in Washington,” Simpson said. “They think that the same thing is happening here. People don’t distinguish between the two. But you have to deal with it because in politics, perception is reality.”

Batt proposed capping contributions for statewide campaigns at $5,000 and for legislative campaigns at $1,000. The state party committees could donate twice those amounts.

The revised version, worked out at the direction of Twiggs, essentially doubles those amounts by allowing $1,000 or $5,000 to be contributed for both the primary and the general elections. That’s similar to the federal law covering congressional races.

But for the 1994 campaign - the last involving races for statewide office as well as the Legislature - only a fraction of contributions would have been affected by Batt’s limits and even fewer under the revised bill.

Nearly 11,600 contributions totaling $6.9 million were made to 199 statewide and legislative candidates.

Under Batt’s proposed limits, only 187 contributions to 71 candidates would have been affected. The cap would have stopped $734,000 from being donated.

And with the Senate version, 97 contributions to 47 candidates would have had to be reduced by $434,000.

The bulk of that money would have been in the race for governor, where Batt received more than $1.4 million and Larry EchoHawk got just under $1.4 million.

The governor’s bill would have forced Batt to give back $134,000 to 27 of his nearly 2,000 contributors. EchoHawk would have had to forgo $305,000 from 26 donors.

And the less restrictive revision would have denied Batt just $53,000 from eight contributions and EchoHawk $137,000 from 11 contributors.’ It has some lawmakers talking about the nonexistent solution to a nonexistent problem.

The biggest impact of either set of limits would be on the Idaho Education Association, which poured more than $200,000 into 1994 statewide and legislative races. More than half that would have been prohibited under the most lenient of the limits.

The Batt proposal does prohibit candidates from converting any surplus campaign funds to their own use, although there has been no evidence of that occurring in the state. It also requires people or groups spending money for or against a candidate or ballot issue to report their financial activities prior to elections.

But Batt’s ban on out-of-state contributions was dropped because of its questionable constitutionality. No other state has tried such a ban.

, DataTimes