WASHINGTON — The Senate moved to at least double the amount an individual may contribute to a political candidate, providing a counterstroke to the drive to ban the largely uncontrolled "soft money" flowing to political parties.
The Senate voted 54-46 Wednesday to keep alive an amendment by Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., raising the limit on donations an individual can give a candidate during an election from $1,000 to $2,500. It would be the first such increase since 1974.
That opened the way for further amendments to reduce Thompson's numbers, which would also double the aggregate limits on individual donations every year to $50,000. But it made certain that the final campaign finance bill that could pass the Senate later this week will have a "hard money" increase.
Without the increase, said Thompson, "we will continue to have a system made up of nothing but multimillionaires and professional politicians who have Rolodexes big enough to barely fit in the trunk of an automobile."
Opponents argued that the increase, if unavoidable, was too big. "It would be a great tragedy in our view to finally close the door on soft money and then open up the barn door on the other side to a flood of hard money," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.
Hard money is the term for limited contributions to candidates; soft money is the unregulated amounts given to political parties to promote issues rather than candidates.
On Tuesday Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., sponsors of the bill, scored a major victory when the Senate rejected, 60-40, an alternative measure by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. It would have thwarted the main goal of McCain-Feingold by limiting rather than banning soft money contributions from corporations, unions and individuals to political parties.
In the 2000 election cycle the two parties took in nearly $500 million in such soft money donations.
President Bush, who has opposed the soft money ban as drafted, signaled that he was prepared to sign the bill if it clears Congress, said Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., who spoke privately with the president Monday.
On Wednesday, Bush stubbornly refused to answer reporters' questions on the issue. "I'm talking about the budget today. There will be ample time to talk about bills in progress," Bush said.
With the soft money issue largely settled, the Senate's focus turned to hard money, with even the strongest advocates of reducing political spending acknowledging that some increase was inevitable.
"Raising the hard money limits does have to be a part of the final stages of this debate," Feingold said. But "I don't think a significant increase in the limits is warranted."
The Senate on Tuesday rejected, on a 52-47 vote, a Hagel proposal to triple the current contribution limit on hard money donations.
Opponents of the increase argued that less than 1 percent of those contributing to political campaigns give $1,000 or more. But Thompson and others argued that the $1,000 limit set in 1974 is equivalent to more than $3,000 in 2000 dollars. "The increase in hard money is long, long overdue and very, very modest."
Thompson also would double to $40,000 the amount an individual may give a national political party in a year, and also double to $50,000 the total political contribution a person may make in one year. The figures would be indexed to inflation.
The Senate already approved a partial increase in hard money last week when it voted in favor of an amendment allowing contribution limits to rise when a candidate is facing a wealthy, self-financed opponent.
Thompson originally sought to triple each limit. Others were ready to replace parts of the Thompson plan with smaller increases, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who is seeking to make the individual contribution $2,000 a year.
Once the hard money issue is resolved, the last big fight is expected to be over an attempt by critics of the legislation to require an all-or-nothing review by the Supreme Court when the inevitable legal challenge is filed to the bill.
Most supporters prefer that the court review each provision on its own merits, and Democratic leader Tom Daschle said he was working to "persuade every member of my caucus" to come around to that view.
The Senate is now in its second week of debate over the McCain-Feingold bill, which also would put restrictions on broadcast ads run in the final weeks of an election. The aim is to finish by the end of the week, but McCain and his followers say they will not allow the Senate to move on to other legislation until they get a final vote on their bill.