AT 9:30 P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 20, Newt Gingrich met with Republican Reps. David Mcintosh, Ernest Istook, and Robert Ehrlich to discuss their fear that Gingrich might compromise away their measure to curb political advocacy by groups that receive federal money. The issue, dubbed “welfare for lobbyists,” is a big one for conservatives, and House freshmen like Mcintosh and Ehrlich have made it a test of their clout. Prior to the meeting, Gingrich had sounded squishy.
So Mcintosh brought a letter, signed by 60 House Republicans, pledging to vote against he bill that will fund the Treasury Department and the” U.S. Postal Service unless the measure contains the curb on lobbying by federally- funded organizations. The letter wasn’t needed. Gingrich had been persuaded over the previous few days that Mcintosh and his colleagues were right. “I’m behind this 100 percent,” Gingrich assured them. ”
The measure faces a fight in the Senate and a possible veto by President Clinton, but Gingrich’s commitment means it has a reasonable chance of becoming law. And getting Gingrich was major victory for Mcintosh, who has tirelessly proselytized his colleagues on the issue. McIntosh’s energy and smarts (Yale B.A., University of Chicago law chool) have impressed Gingrich. ” David has shown etraordinary aggressiveness in getting government off our backs and protecting the middle class from Clinton administration red tape,” Gingrich has said. He hose Mcintosh as one of three freshmen to chair subcommittees, even as the freshman class made Mcintosh one of its two liaisons to the leadership. Mcintosh was also a main organizer of the Conservative Action Team, a group of House Republican activists who push ” conservative issues.
Mcintosh is lucky to be in Congress. He ran in an Indiana district he’d lived in only briefly, having spent much of his adult life in Washington at the Reagan Justice Department and Bush White House. The favored candidate in the primary failed to file for the seat in time and was disqualified. Mcintosh took the primary by 473 votes and easily won the general election. ”
Mcintosh, Is took, and Ehrlich are appalled by the fact that as much as $ 200 billion in federal money is going each year to non-profit and tax-exempt groups, who then use some of those billions to lobby Congress for more. But the Republicans have purposely refused to frame the issue in terms of “defunding the left,” a favored phrase in conservative circles, for fear that would appear too partisan. But cutting off liberal activist groups may be the ultimate effect.
GOP freshman James Longley from Maine felt the power of those groups on Sept. 19, when his Portland office was picketed by the National Council of Senior Citizens.
The Council is a Washington-based interest group that receives 96 percent of its $ 76 million budget from federal grants and has a political action committee that contributed $ 171,000 to Congressional candidates last year, all Democrats. “What I take exception to,” says Longley, “is the fact that the federal taxpayer is paying for these protests.”
If Mcintosh, Istook, and Ehrlich succeed, recipients of federal grants would be allowed to use no more than 5 percent of their non-federal funds for political activity. Interest groups claim this would violate the First Amendment and impose an enormous regulatory burden. They also argue that using federal money to lobby for more federal money is already illegal under a 1984 federal regulation. That’s true, but the regulation doesn’t address the key point: Money is fungible. If a group has $ 1,000 and the federal government gives it an additional $ 5,000, this frees the original thou’ for activities that would otherwise have been impossible. Activities like political advocacy.
If federal grantees, ranging from the AFL-CIO ($ 1.3 million last year) to the League of Women Voters ($ 1 million), succeed in defeating the ban, they will owe thanks to two moderate Senate Republicans on the Appropriations Committee: James Jeffords and Mark Hatfield. Jeffords won’t let Republicans attach a rider incorporating Mcintosh’s bill to the Treasury-Postal appropriation. It’s “too restrictive,” Jeffords says. Appropriations Chairman Hatfield is even less enthusiastic about the defunding.
At the end of August, Gingrich was shaken by an Al Hunt column in the Wall Street Journal that called the Mcintosh bill “recklessly drafted” and “a fraud.” The bill had cleared the House 232 to 187, but Gingrich was hesitant about insisting the Senate go along. Later, however, he read a copy of congressional testimony given back in July by his confidante Arianna Huffington, who described in detail how charities are corrupted by political advocacy, and he got back with the program.
Meanwhile, Mcintosh and Co. had been maneuvering to stiffen Gingrich’s resolve. They got Gingrich’s three key deputies — Majority Leader Dick Armey, Whip Tom DeLay, and Republican Conference Chairman John Boehner — to offer a strong endorsement of the bill at a meeting of House leaders on Sept. 19. During that session, Mcintosh noted that some federally-funded groups are opposing Medicare reform, Gingrich’s pet issue. Gingrich’s desire to compromise evaporated. The next night, he gave Mcintosh his firm commitment.
The battle over “welfare for lobbyists” is creating a major domestic problem for Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole — pun intended. His wife Elizabeth, president of the American Red Cross, wrote GOP Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama to say the Mcintosh measure would hamper Red Cross disaster relief efforts. That’s a farfetched interpretation, but so far Dole has been unable to change his wife’s mind. Maybe Mcintosh should lobby her, too.
by Matthew Rees
