COLUMN ONE : Campaign Cash Takes a Detour : House incumbents spend 65% of their election funds on items that have little direct link to voters, a Times study shows. Money goes toward cars, travel, even Broadway tickets.

Rep. C. W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) recently used money from his campaign war chest to buy a light blue, $30,000 Lincoln. Rep. Bill Green (R-N.Y.) spent $12,500 of his campaign money on Broadway show tickets. And Rep. Carroll Hubbard Jr. (D-Ky.) diverted $3,000 in campaign funds to commission a portrait of his father, which now hangs in his office.

Such spending is not illegal--or even unusual. Indeed, it illustrates what really happens to the millions of dollars that members of the House of Representatives collect from political action committees and other donors before each election: Most of the money is spent by lawmakers who occupy safe seats or have no opposition, and little of it is spent on direct appeals to voters.

House incumbents insist they must have vast sums to cope with well-positioned opponents. But federal records show that more than 60% of the $145.8 million spent by candidates in the 435 U.S. House races so far during this two-year cycle leading to the Nov. 6 election was spent by incumbents whose reelection was never in doubt.

Indeed, a Times computer-assisted study of campaign spending patterns in House elections--based on data that the candidates have filed with the Federal Election Commission--found that:

--Incumbent congressmen have spent $94,894,664--or 65% of all their campaign funds--on items that have little or nothing to do with winning the support of ordinary voters. The figure includes overhead, fund-raising costs and donations to charities and other candidates.

--While most challengers are struggling just to raise enough money to pay for the bare essentials of a congressional campaign, well-heeled incumbents in Congress are using their campaign coffers as giant slush funds--with the money going for lavish entertainment of important constituents and for such personal indulgences as expensive cars, real estate, tuxedos, club memberships and even personal travel.

Also using campaign money, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) spent more than $6,600 on professional football and baseball tickets. And Rep. Edward R. Roybal (D-Los Angeles) used $100,000 from his war chest to endow a chair in his own name at UCLA.

--The enormous size of the campaign war chests maintained by most incumbents has led to an almost-routine opulence in a wide variety of campaign spending--from the elaborate fund-raising parties that the candidates throw to the super-expensive direct-mail campaigns they run and the high-priced consultants they employ, even when they are unopposed.

Rep. Sidney R. Yates (D-Ill.) spent a stunning $556,694 for consultants to defeat his primary opponent this year. And Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove) has invested $945,215 in his fund-raising operations during the current two-year election cycle.

Likewise, Rep. Bud Shuster (R-Pa.) spent nearly $113,000 on staff meetings, dinners, hotels and entertainment; Rep. Steve Bartlett (R-Tex.) spent more than $200,000 to pay for his last two Memorial Day picnics, and Rep. Robert W. Davis (D-Mich.) paid $21,404 to charter airplanes to travel around his district.

Inflated by so much spending on luxuries and items not directly related to voter appeals, the total cost of House races has nearly doubled over the past decade, according to data compiled by the FEC.

Until now, reform groups and the news media have focused almost exclusively on abuses in the current system of gathering campaign contributions, virtually ignoring how the money is being spent. The Times study, which analyzed 229,169 separate expenditures reported to the FEC during the current two-year election cycle by all 798 candidates who are currently seeking House seats, is the first such comprehensive analysis of spending patterns.

The political reality in Senate races is different. Senate candidates run statewide; they seldom get reelected without opposition, and they routinely spend millions of dollars on their campaigns.

But now even uncontested House races are becoming very expensive. Ten incumbents who are unopposed or have only token opposition have already spent more than $500,000, and both Dornan and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) have spent more than $1 million. Nineteen candidates have spent more than $500,000 each in hotly contested races.

As a practical matter, it’s not surprising that most campaign contributions go to the candidates who might seem to need them least. Political action committees and rich contributors give their money primarily to committee chairmen and senior House members--most of them without serious opposition--because that is the best way to influence legislation.

The Times’ study suggests there would be a larger-than-expected impact from legislation--which died in Congress earlier this month--that would have limited campaign spending in the House to $550,000. Although most incumbents still would have been able to wage a winning campaign under such rules, the proposed limitation would have drastically curtailed many of the extra benefits upon which many members of Congress have come to rely.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), himself a former House member, argues that members of Congress are abusing the public trust by spending campaign contributions for purposes unrelated to elections. “Campaign funds should be used for campaign purposes,” McCain said. “I do not go out and ask people to provide me with campaign funds so I might attend a funeral, or send flowers or take a constituent to dinner or any other form of recreation that has sometimes been indulged in with campaign funds.”

While lawmakers usually blame skyrocketing television advertising rates for the burgeoning costs of campaigning, The Times found that the average House candidate spends only 13% of his funds on television ads. Although some candidates invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in television commercials, TV costs seldom exceed 21% even in close races--far short of the often-cited estimates of 50% and more.

The biggest cost for most incumbents is the money they spend to maintain a permanent political apparatus in their home districts--the year-round office with professional staff, regular social events for key supporters and an up-to-date mailing list. Some House members run their permanent campaign organizations with such discipline and entrepreneurial skill that the operations closely resemble highly successful small businesses.

House members have invested $35 million in campaign overhead costs during the current two-year election cycle, compared to only $13 million on traditional last-minute campaign activities such as mailing flyers, getting petitions signed and recruiting poll-watchers.

It is an incumbent’s permanent campaign apparatus that gives him such a big advantage over most potential challengers and often discourages anyone from running against him. On average, unopposed incumbents spend $47,000 on office expenses such as paper clips and copying machines--more than some challengers have available for their entire campaign effort.

Another cost that far exceeds outlays for television is the money House members spend to raise more money. House candidates are spending more than $23.5 million of their campaign contributions on fund raising for this election, and direct-mail fund-raising appeals can cost as much as they raise.

This free-flowing campaign cash has spawned a thriving, aggressive political consulting industry that is on its way to earning more than $36 million in House races this year.

The Times also found that House incumbents are spending nearly four times more than challengers in this election. As a result of this built-in disparity, only 51 of the 405 House incumbents standing for reelection have opponents with enough money to mount a credible campaign. And of 30 races in which there is no incumbent running, only half of them are truly contested, with well-financed candidates representing both parties.

Even so, few contributors realize how little of their money is being spent directly on election activities. Alice S. Hamburg, a retiree from Berkeley, who wrote Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D-Berkeley) a check for $250 last May, was surprised to learn that the congressman is spending $700,000 in this election period even though he has only token opposition. “I’m not happy about the amount of money that Dellums feels he has to raise when he has no opposition,” she says, “but unfortunately that is the way the system works.”

What to do about the problem still is being debated.

While some reformers have advocated limiting the amount that candidates may spend, there are no proposals under consideration for strictly regulating what items can be purchased with the money.

Although the House ethics code prohibits members from spending any campaign funds for personal use, that rule has been interpreted so loosely over the years that it does not prohibit members from spending campaign funds for a variety of expenses that most people would deem to be personal--such as clothing, dry cleaning, baby-sitting, home improvements and automobiles.

“What is a bona fide campaign expense is left largely to the discretion of the member,” says Stanley Brand, former House counsel and an attorney who now represents many members.

Lax rules also enable House members to list their expenditures with vague descriptions such as “political travel” that may obscure the real purpose for which the money was spent. Nearly $4.6 million in expenditures by House candidates went unitemized in reports to the FEC under a rule exempting any cash outlay of $200 or less.

Furthermore, because challengers are bound only by federal elections laws and do not have to adhere to the more stringent House ethics code, they are even permitted to draw a salary and pay all personal expenses out of their campaign coffers.

According to reports filed with the FEC, at least five Republican challengers--Mike Pence and Richard W. Hawks in Indiana; Ted Blanton in North Carolina; Terry Ketchel in Florida and Joe Hoffman in Georgia appear to be supporting themselves, at least in part, on the money they have raised for their campaigns. Blanton has written himself checks for $16,582; Hawks, $11,372; Pence, $9,692; Hoffman, $6,921, and Ketchel, $6,834.

Likewise, Rep. Stephen L. Neal (D-N.C.) is earning personal income by paying himself rent from his campaign coffers for the home he owns on the outskirts of Winston-Salem that is used as his permanent campaign headquarters. Over the past two years, he has collected $57,173 in rent and improvements for the house, which he bought in 1986 for $125,000.

Neal himself may benefit more from this arrangement than his campaign. His monthly rental income of $2,167 far exceeds the going rate for rental homes in the area. None of the homes listed in two recent issues of the Winston-Salem Journal weekly real estate section were renting for more than $1,500 a month.

Cars are the most common luxury items purchased with campaign funds. Ninety-four House members have either bought or leased a car with campaign money over the past two years--although few House members buy as expensive an automobile as Young’s blue Lincoln.

Most House members justify this expense on grounds a car is necessary for campaigning in their home district. But Rep. William D. Ford (D-Mich.) stretches that rationale to its limit by spending $6,577 in campaign funds to lease and insure a car for his personal use while he is working in Washington.

“That’s questionable,” declares William Oldaker, an attorney specializing in campaign law, referring to Ford’s Washington campaign car. But a spokesman for Ford insists the arrangement had been OKd by the House Ethics Committee.

The biggest loophole in campaign spending rules will be closed in January, 1992, when senior members who were elected before 1980 will no longer be permitted to convert their campaign funds to personal use when they retire from the House. But in the meantime, many retiring House veterans such as Rep. Marvin Leath (D-Tex.) will be returning home with hundreds of thousands of dollars in what one expert calls “their own political IRA.”

Leath, 58, who recently bought himself a $23,000 Lincoln Town Car with campaign funds, still has about $500,000 left in his war chest to take back home with him later this year when he retires to Waco, Tex. He says the money will be used to compensate him for the cash he spent from his own pocket during his first campaign for Congress 12 years ago.

Under current law, even death cannot legally separate a veteran House member from his campaign funds. When Rep. John J. Duncan Sr. (R-Tenn.) died in June, 1988, his son, John Jr., not only inherited his father’s House seat but also got a $99,000 share of the leftover campaign funds. FEC records show Duncan’s widow and four children divided the $605,0000 campaign war chest.

House members who get in trouble with the Ethics Committee for allegedly misusing their campaign funds may dip into those same coffers to pay their legal fees.

Over the past year, 105 House members have paid nearly $1.2 million in campaign funds to lawyers who advise them or defend them against a wide variety of allegations. House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) spent $145,270 and Rep. Joseph M. McDade (R-Pa.) spent $135,547 to defend themselves against Ethics Committee investigations.

The Ethics Committee dropped its charges against Gingrich; the case against McDade still is pending.

Even House members who are charged with offenses unrelated to their elected office--such as Rep. Harold E. Ford (D-Tenn.), who is awaiting trial on charges of bank fraud--can use campaign funds to defend themselves. According to FEC reports, Ford’s legal fees amounted to $130,000.

There are several ways members can intentionally mask the real purpose of their campaign expenditures. In addition to submitting vague reports, some members claim large amounts of unitemized expenditures--all supposedly under $200--or attribute many expenditures to “petty cash.” Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) reported nearly $79,000 in unitemized expenditures.

Campaign funds also are often used to pay for the travel of a member of Congress and his staff. And in rare instances, such as the case of Rep. Jerry Huckaby (D-La.), it also pays for family trips. Last year, Huckaby spent $12,225 to fly his wife and children home for holidays.

Although it is illegal to spend private funds on government business, some House members admit they spend campaign funds on travel that probably ought to be on their government expense account. “Use of campaign money gives us greater flexibility,” explains Pat White, administrative assistant to Rep. Davis of Michigan. “Sometimes we pay what could be official travel out of campaign funds.”

House members contend that some seemingly personal expenses such as clothes and country club dues are actually legitimate outlays. Rep. William L. Clay (D-Mo.) insists he wears his $333 tuxedo only to political events; Rep. J. J. Pickle (D-Tex.) says he uses his two campaign-paid club memberships, totaling $1,760, to entertain constituents.

Truly personal expenditures are often the smallest ones--such as $55.47 in dry cleaning bills paid to David Thibodaux, a Democratic challenger from Louisiana; $2,515 for baby-sitting the children of Rep. Bill Lowery (R-San Diego), and $35.64 to send flowers to the mother-in-law of Rep. Albert G. Bustamante (D-Tex.). Indeed, FEC reports are full of small expenditures that have nothing to do with a traditional election campaign.

But surely the most unusual campaign expense was reported by Mike Liu, Republican candidate in Hawaii: He paid the Rev. Laude DuTiel $75 to bless his campaign headquarters.

Researchers Keating Holland, Murielle Gamache and Stephanie Grace contributed to this story.

How the Study Was Conducted

The Los Angeles Times computer-assisted study of campaign spending is based on an analysis of 220,000 separate expenditures reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by the 798 candidates currently seeking seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The data includes all money spent by these candidates from Jan. 1, 1989 through Sept. 30, 1990.

Copies of each report were obtained by The Times, and every expenditure was entered into the database under one of 273 different categories.

For purposes of analysis, candidates were divided into three major groups--incumbents, challengers or candidates for open seats. They also were classified according to the intensity of their races--unopposed, contested or involved in a close race.

Candidates such as John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), who won his primary by less than a 55% majority, were included in the “close race” category. Uncontested races included both those without general election opposition and those where opponents have raised less than $5,000. All other candidates were classified as “other contested.”

By and large, The Times relied upon the candidates’ descriptions of each expenditure in order to classify the outlay. In some cases where the purpose of an expenditure was not clear on the report, candidates were asked for an explanation.

SPENDING CAMPAIGN FUNDS All candidates are incumbents, except where noted.

FOR LEGAL FEES

Election Amount Candidate Party/state status spent William Gray D-Pa. Unopposed $147,296 Newt Gingrich R-Ga. Opposed $145,270 Joseph M. McDade R-Pa. Unopposed $135,547 Harold E. Ford D-Tenn. Unopposed $130,000 Don Young R-Alaska Opposed $85,134 Roy Dyson D-Md. Opposed $58,668 Christopher Cox R-Calif. Opposed $46,845 Richard A. Gephardt D-Mo. Opposed $40,000 John D. Dingell D-Mich. Unopposed $39,452 Jim Bates D-Calif. Opposed $26,821

One hundred five candidates reported spending a total of $1,213,644 on legal fees.

TO PURCHASE/LEASE CARS

Election Amount Candidate Party/state status spent William L. Dickinson R-Ala. Opposed $42,886 C. W. Bill Young R-Fla. Unopposed $40,566 Edward R. Madigan R-Ill. Unopposed $24,100 Richard T. Schulze R-Pa. Opposed $23,142 John T. Myers R-Ind Unopposed $19,361 Raymond J. McGrath R-N.Y. Opposed $18,606 Ralph M. Hall D-Tex. Unopposed $18,226 Bill Grant R-Fla. Opposed $16,966 Marguerite Chandler D-N.J. Open Seat $16,723 Robert A. Roe D-N.J. Unopposed $16,700

Ninety-four candidates reported spending a total of $766,049 to purchase or lease a car.

FOR SPORTS AND THEATER TICKETS

Election Amount Candidate Party/state status spent Bill Green R-N.Y. Opposed $12,500 John Myers R-Ind. Unopposed $9,640 Don Sundquist R-Tenn. Unopposed $9,000 Manny Hoffman R-Ill. Challenger $7,683 Carroll Hubbard D-Ky. Unopposed $6,751 John P. Murtha D-Pa. Opposed $6,658 Floyd H. Flake D-N.Y. Unopposed $4,188 DonJ. Pease D-Ohio Unopposed $4,056 Harris Fawell R-Ill. Unopposed $3,643 David E. Bonior D-Mich. Opposed $3,583

Eighty-two candidates reported spending a total of $124,864 on sports and theater tickets.

FOR CHRISTMAS CARDS

Election Amount Candidate Party/state status spent Bill Alexander D-Ark. Opposed $14,979 Bill Archer R-Tex. Unopposed $13,794 Steve Bartlett R-Tex. Unopposed $7,976 John D. Dingell D-Mich. Unopposed $7,714 Nancy Pelosi D-Calif. Opposed $7,100 Steve Gunderson R-Wis. Opposed $6,900 John Hiler R-Ind. Opposed $6,600 Newt Gingrich R-Ga. Opposed $6,525 Don Sundquist R-Tenn. Unopposed $6,524 Glenn M. Anderson D-Calif. Opposed $6,229

One hundred forty-three candidates reported spending a total of $326,134 on Christmas cards.

FOR FLOWERS

Election Amount Candidate Party/state status spent Joseph Kennedy D-Mass. Unopposed $10,532 Joseph D. Early D-Mass. Unopposed $8,014 John D. Dingell D-Mich. Unopposed $7,378 John P. Murtha D-Pa. Opposed $6,015 BarbaraB. Kennelly D-Conn. Unopposed $5,727 Richard T. Schulze R-Pa. Opposed $4,786 Robert A. Roe D-N.J. Unopposed $4,385 Gary Condit D-Calif. Opposed $3,922 J. Dennis Hastert R-Ill. Unopposed $3,615 Raymond McGrath R-N.Y. Opposed $3,597

Four hundred twenty-seven candidates reported spending a total of $251,225 on flowers.

UNITEMIZED EXPENSES

Election Amount Candidate Party/state status spent Charles BB. Rangel D-N.Y. Unopposed $78,606 Bud Shuster R-Pa. Unopposed $66,048 Doug Walgren D-Pa. Opposed $64,686 Austin J. Murphy D-Pa. Unopposed $63,373 Robert T. Matsui D-Cal. Unopposed $60,286 William D. Ford D-Mich. Opposed $57,020 Robert K. Dornan R-Calif. Unopposed 55,533 Carroll Hubbard D-Ky. Unopposed $46,003 D-Mo. Challenger $45,713 Vic Fazio D-Calif. Opposed $45,487

Four hundred sixty-one candidates reported a total of $4,565,076 in unitemized expenses.

All figures are based on a computer analysis of campaign reports filed by the 798 candidates in U.S. House races.

WHAT CAMPAIGN MONEY BUYS

AVERAGE EXPENDITURES BY:

Incumbents in: Challen Other Contested Hot Races Races Unopposed Hot Races OVERHEAD: Office $13,263 $11,297 $5,364 $11,297 Salaries/ 43,660 31,588 14,160 39,950 taxes Banking/ 776 752 485 379 finance fees Lawyers/ 8,896 5,728 3,650 1,020 accountants Telephone 9,085 5,123 2,336 8,753 Car purchase- 3,241 3,112 2,468 1,687 lease/maintenance Computer/ 7,591 7,132 3,658 5,850 office equipment Travel 10,393 11,441 6,371 4,707 Staff meetings/ 2,010 2,286 1,566 517 dinners Constituent 325 1,037 649 59 entertainment Constituent gifts 3,965 3,743 2,577 210 Food/lodging/ 1,943 2,827 2,102 2,100 entertainment unspecified purpose Miscellaneous 5,400 3,513 2,019 4,687 Total overhead: $110,547 $89,580 $47,404 $81,218 FUND RAISING and DIRECT MAIL: Consultants 14,636 13,308 5,654 9,429 Fund-raising events 29,750 28,957 19,357 10,877 Direct mail 8,586 5,974 4,568 8,178 Total fund raising/ $52,972 $48,239 $29,578 $28,483 direct mail: GENERAL CONSULTANTS: $32,474 $21,193 $8,633 $33,178 POLLING: $18,918 $8,506 $2,372 $9,292 ADVERTISING: Media consultants 64,940 24,168 3,855 36,676 TV commercials 16,212 6,430 1,565 19,338 Radio commercials 3,419 1,515 667 6,951 Other advertising 7,393 6,246 2,383 7,598 Total advertising: $91,965 $38,358 $8,470 $70,564 OTHER CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY: Stamps and printing 28,701 22,864 11,370 23,334 Leaflets, bumper 9,598 6,328 2,892 11,329 stickers, yard signs Filing fees/ 1,247 933 643 1,286 petition drives Voter activity 7,404 4,140 1,865 4,907 Total other $46,949 $34,265 $16,770 $40,856 campaign activity: DONATIONS: To other candidates 2,463 5,605 4,209 289 To local charities 2,497 2,825 2,573 183 and booster clubs To political party 4,161 6,836 4,722 1,095 organizations To PACS and 955 3,506 1,959 204 ideological groups To unions 253 170 100 70 Total donations: $10,329 $18,941 $13,562 $1,841 Loan repayment: $18,966 $6,387 $5,348 $7,610 Contribution refunds: $2,853 $1,265 $558 $470 Unitemized $9,275 $8,230 $6,617 $3,034 expenditures: Total average $395,248 $274,964 $139,312 $276,546 campaign expenditures:

gers in: Other Contested Races OVERHEAD: Office $3,389 Salaries/ 5,718 taxes Banking/ 105 finance fees Lawyers/ 287 accountants Telephone 2,141 Car purchase- 476 lease/maintenance Computer/ 1,132 office equipment Travel 1,188 Staff meetings/ 159 dinners Constituent 6 entertainment Constituent gifts 54 Food/lodging/ 339 entertainment unspecified purpose Miscellaneous 1,030 Total overhead: $16,024 FUND RAISING and DIRECT MAIL: Consultants 1,132 Fund-raising events 2,576 Direct mail 1,378 Total fund raising/ $5,086 direct mail: GENERAL CONSULTANTS: $5,770 POLLING: $1,997 ADVERTISING: Media consultants 3,219 TV commercials 2,530 Radio commercials 1,932 Other advertising 2,893 Total advertising: $10,574 OTHER CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY: Stamps and printing 6,271 Leaflets, bumper 5,305 stickers, yard signs Filing fees/ 649 petition drives Voter activity 1,320 Total other $13,546 campaign activity: DONATIONS: To other candidates 48 To local charities 64 and booster clubs To political party 284 organizations To PACS and 35 ideological groups To unions 3 Total donations: $435 Loan repayment: $846 Contribution refunds: $242 Unitemized $2,054 expenditures: Total average $56,574 campaign expenditures:

Based on an analysis of both their primary and general election opposition, 51 incumbents were classified as having hot races, 153 as having a contested race, and 202 as having no active opposition. Incumbents classified as unopposed included both those who have no opponent and those whose opposition has raised less than $5,000.

Among challengers, 44 were classified as having hot races, with 163 having less contested races. One-hundred-twenty-five challengers who have raised less than $5,000 have been excluded from the analysis.

The 60 candidates who are contesting open seats have also been excluded from this analysis.

Campaign Expenses-U.S. House Average percent of campaign expenses for U.S. House Candidates: Fund-Raising: 16.2% General-Consultants: 10.9% Advertisments: 165 Voter Activity: 13.3% Donations: 5.6% Loans/Refunds: 3.5% Unitemized: 3.1% Overhead: 31.3%