Follow the money

By Jim Simon
Seattle Times staff reporter

"With the money I'm spending
I could elect my chauffeur."

-- Joseph Kennedy in 1960, on his son's election as president

Pop quiz: Who would spend $4.7 million to land a job that pays $133,000 a year?

The answer is U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton, whose successful 1994 re-election campaign cost only a couple of million dollars less than the U.S. purchase of Alaska 130 years ago. (His Democratic opponent, Ron Sims, spent $1.2 million to lose.)

But hey -- that race might be considered a bargain by today's standards. The two Senate candidates in California that year spent $56 million between them.

It's hard to overestimate the importance of money in campaigns.

The cost of congressional races in 1994 rose nearly 20 percent from two years earlier -- mostly, one pundit pointed out, thanks to spending by candidates promising to clamp down on government spending.

The candidate who spends the most money doesn't always win. On the other hand, candidates for a major office who can't raise big amounts to pay for television advertising, direct mail, polling, professional consultants or more fund raising almost never do.

Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, for one, argues that we spend too little -- far less than is spent, for example, on cereal advertising -- on something as important as campaigns.

But many people argue persuasively that money taints the political process. Ross Perot, and Washington state Congresswoman Linda Smith, are national leaders who fight for campaign financing reform.

Use it as a guide

With money so central to the process, it does provide voters with a valuable road map.

If, for example, a candidate gets a donation from the National Abortion Rights Action League, it's a safe bet that they won't be sponsoring bills that require teenagers to get permission from their parents before ending a pregnancy. So who are the big spenders?

Consider the Washington State Legislature.

In the early 1990s, nearly one out of five dollars spent on legislative races came from only five sources. The biggest bankrollers of Democratic candidates were the Washington Education Association (the teachers' union), the Washington Federation of State Employees, the Washington State Trial Lawyers Association and the Washington State Labor Council. Republicans got much of their money from a business group called United for Washington, which includes the state's biggest corporations such as Boeing and Weyerhaeuser.

All these groups have an interest in specific government actions. The Legislature sets salaries of teachers and state employees, grants or takes away tax breaks for corporations and sets workplace rules that affects the wallets of business owners and union members.

Lawmakers, for whom fund raising is now a year-round preoccupation, ignore the interests of big contributors at their peril. But the reverse can also be true, with the politicians sending veiled threats to potential contributors.

Lobbyists who gave money to the Democratic opponent of first-term Rep. Randy Tate of Puyallup in 1994, for example, received a letter from a top Republican leader in Congress.

"While I was surprised to see you oppose Randy Tate, you now have the opportunity to work toward a positive future relationship," the letter said. "I want you to know that your immediate support for Randy Tate is personally important to me and the House Republican Leadership team."

In politics, money may not guarantee a politician will always vote your way. But it can assure something nearly as valuable -- attention to your problems and a guarantee that your phone calls will be answered.

It costs $100, for example, to join Tate's monthly breakfast club -- where donors get coffee, lengthy issue briefings and face-to-face discussion. That's not quite the same treatment Mr. or Ms. Anonymous Citzen will get at a town hall meeting. (Tate's coffee club, by the way, could be seen as a local bargain. Business bigwigs recently shelled out $25,000 to have dinner with President Clinton. But that did include tip and wine.)

The Rules

In 1992, Washington voters passed an initiative limiting the amount any contributor can give a candidate for governor or the Legislature. Current federal law prohibits giving more than $10,000 -- $5,000 in the primary election, $5,000 in the general election -- to any candidate for the Senate or House. Despite such limits, campaign spending has soared. The rules are hideously complicated, riddled with loopholes that often have the unintended effect of making it harder to track the money. For example: While a company or union or environmental group can only give $1,100 directly to a candidate running for governor, they can give unlimited amounts to a political party to use on behalf of that candidate. They can also spend as much as they want on their own advertisements attacking their candidate's opponent. (That's a favorite tactic of the National Rifle Association.)

So much for the $1,100 limit.

Check it yourself

There are several sources tracking the money candidates raise. Candidates for governor, state legislature or any local races must file reports with the state Public Disclosure Commission in Olympia, telling where their contributions came from. Candidates for president, U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives file reports with the Federal Election Commission in Washington, D.C. Watchdog groups also follow the money.

In fact, many watchdog groups believe that an emphasis on disclosure -- making records easier to read and more accessible -- would be more effective than the complicated rules now in place.

In other words, rather than try to cut off the cash, make it easier for voters to see where it is coming from.

Copyright © 2000 The Seattle Times Company