Campaign Finance: The Buyer's Guide to Congress

It was, many say, the biggest industry coup of the year in Congress. How did the airlines manage to scuttle a bill that had had consumers applauding? The Airline Passenger Fairness Act--born in part of a holiday horror show of delayed flights and trapped passengers--called on carriers to be more up front about major annoyances like delays and fare prices. In its place, they were able to substitute a toothless promise to be nicer.

Was it the money? In the weeks preceding a key Senate committee vote on the airlines' substitute, almost $300,000 in soft money went gushing into the accounts of both parties. From January 1997 through June of this year, the airline industry gave Democratic Party committees $1.3 million, the G.O.P. $1.9 million. "Making the charge they bought their way out of trouble--that's kind of a huge charge, but certainly there is the appearance of that," says Holly Bailey of the Center for Responsive Politics.

That kind of unlimited "soft money" contribution would have been outlawed under a bill that died earlier this month in the Senate, the victim of another procedural mugging, by G.O.P. Senator Mitch McConnell and Republican majority leader Trent Lott.

So the perception, if not the reality, of vote buying remains. In this chart, TIME reviews some of the issues of the session that is about to wrap up--and the interests, and the soft money, behind them.

FOR SALE PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS

THE ISSUE Whether patients would have the right to sue their health-maintenance organizations for deficient care or for being denied care

THE PLAYERS --The Insurance Side Health-insurance companies, the American Assn. of Health Plans and Health Insurance Assn. of America

--The Consumer Side Trial lawyers and consumer groups

WHAT THEY GAVE HMOs, insurers: To Dems $811,000 To G.O.P. $1,774,000

Lawyers, doctors: To Dems $6,394,000 To G.O.P. $517,000

WHAT THEY WANTED --INSURERS, fearing lawsuits directed against them, wanted continued legislative protection

--TRIAL LAWYERS sought the reverse, hoping to see a lucrative new area of the mass-tort industry. It would protect consumers as well

WHAT THEY GOT --SPLIT DECISION Insurers got a Senate bill that contains no provision for lawsuits against the companies. Consumers and trial lawyers did better in the House, whose bill does include such a provision

THE UPSHOT Insurance companies and the corporations that buy their services win the battle of the bucks. Any reform bill that would allow them to be held liable will be strangled in Congress before it can get to President Clinton's desk

FOR SALE INTERSTATE WINE SALES

[THE ISSUE] A bill to let states sue in federal court for violations of bans on interstate shipment of alcohol. Post-Prohibition state laws are now loosely enforced

[THE PLAYERS] --Liquor Wholesalers and Distributors They purport to be concerned about Internet liquor sales to minors

--Winemakers in California and elsewhere They want to sell over the Internet and allow tourists to ship wine home

[WHAT THEY GAVE] Vintners and allied trade groups: To Dems $1,339,000 To G.O.P. $1,623,000

The liquor lobby: To Dems $144,000 To G.O.P. $209,000