Gop Likes Reform In Small Doses Nethercutt, Hastings Help Pass Campaign Bills

Inland Northwest Republicans helped their party’s leaders reject a plan for campaign reform this week. But they did support two smaller revisions that passed.

“It’s a step,” Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Wash., said of the changes that passed.

One proposal would require faster reporting of contributions, using the Internet; the other reiterates a ban against foreign citizens contributing to federal campaigns. Both go to the Senate, where their prospects are uncertain.

Nethercutt joined Reps. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., and Helen Chenoweth, R-Idaho, in voting for both proposals.

Hastings and Nethercutt voted for a defeated proposal that would have kept union dues and corporate funds from being used in political activity without written permission from members or stockholders.

But Chenoweth, who originally had co-sponsored that proposal, voted against it.

She said Tuesday she recently became concerned that the definition of political activity was too broad.

“It went too far and violated workers’ First Amendment right to lobby members of Congress,” she said.

The bill, swamped on a vote of 337 to 74, was offered by GOP leaders to curtail political activity by unions and ban so-called soft money, unlimited contributions businesses and unions can make to political parties. It also would increase the amounts individuals and political action committees can contribute to candidates.

The bill required a two-thirds majority and was not subject to amendment or debate.

Nethercutt said he had constitutional questions about the bill, and worried that it would set up a “nightmare of bureaucracy” for reporting and tracking contributions. But he disagreed with the proposal’s harshest critics, who labeled the bill a cynical ploy to kill any campaign reform.

“If you’re an opponent of anything but what you want, that’s what you say,” Nethercutt countered.

The Republican leadership proposal was a substitute for a more popular, bipartisan bill that seeks to ban soft money contributions and control campaign attack ads not covered by current law.

Supporters of that bill, sponsored by Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., are now trying to force a vote by gathering signatures on a petition that would bring the bill to the floor despite leaders’ opposition.

Nethercutt and Chenoweth both said through spokesmen that they would not sign the petition.

Chenoweth supports a different bill, one that requires more reporting of contributions but does not place new restrictions on amounts, press aide Chad Hyslop said.

Nethercutt believes Shays’ bill is unconstitutional, just like the GOP leadership proposal, aide Ken Lisaius said.

Brad Lyons, an Odessa farmer and Nethercutt’s likely Democratic opponent, criticized him for not supporting a full debate on the campaign finance bill. He also challenged the Spokane Republican to refuse money from Tom Stewart, a previous contributor who earlier this month admitted to campaign violations.

Stewart and his Seattle-based company, Services Group of America, agreed to pay a near record fine of $5 million for illegal contributions to two Seattle-area campaigns.

None of the violations involved contributions to Nethercutt’s campaigns. Stewart, his employees and the Services Group PAC gave Nethercutt a total of about $19,000 in the 1994 and 1996 campaigns.

“I’m not accusing George of breaking the law. But maybe he needs to reassure us that (Stewart’s contributions) weren’t tainted,” Lyons said.

Nethercutt replied that he has no reason to believe Stewart’s contributions to him were illegal.

“I don’t assume he did anything wrong,” Nethercutt said. “He never asked me for anything. I think he just wants good government.” , DataTimes MEMO: This sidebar appeared with the story: REFORM BILLS Two campaign finance reform measures passed the House this week. One proposal would require faster reporting of contributions, using the Internet. The other reiterates a ban against foreign citizens contributing to federal campaigns. Both bills go to the Senate, where their prospects are uncertain.