House Members Spend Freely to Bolster Roles

On a warm Sunday afternoon last September, more than 400 Democrats gathered on a small Brooklyn beach for a party to celebrate the 50th birthday of a well-known local celebrity: Rep. Stephen J. Solarz (D-N.Y.).

The party cost thousands of dollars, but neither the congressman nor his well-wishers were asked to contribute a dime. All the catering and entertainment bills were paid out of Solarz’s $1.6-million campaign treasury. While Solarz, like most of his colleagues in the House, faces only token opposition Nov. 6, he considered the party a good investment anyway.

Social events such as this are the glue that holds together Solarz’s local political organization, the grass-roots machinery that maintains his influence in his district and discourages others from running against him.

“It generates the kind of goodwill that can be helpful at election time,” Solarz says.

Solarz is by no means unusual. A comprehensive computer-assisted study by The Times of campaign spending patterns among members of the U.S. House of Representatives found that incumbent congressmen routinely spend tens of thousands of dollars on things that have little to do with direct appeals for votes but much to do with sustaining personal political machines and for bolstering lawmakers’ own influence inside Congress itself.

The Times found that more than 20% of the more than $145 million spent by incumbents in the current two-year election cycle has gone for such purposes.

To accomplish these objectives, House members use a wide variety of techniques--throwing big parties, mounting expensive direct-mail campaigns that not only raise money but polish the congressman’s image among crucial constituencies and making sizable contributions from their campaign coffers to charities and other candidates.

Not surprisingly, the congressmen who spend the most money on these activities are very senior members who have little or no opposition in the Nov. 6 election but do have access to large volumes of money from political action committees.

The Times’ findings tend to dispel a common myth in congressional politics: That incumbents like to sit on large campaign war chests simply to frighten potential challengers from running against them.

Instead, it appears that even many politically secure House members do not allow their money to sit idly in bank accounts. They invest it--in making their seats even safer.

Their efforts reflect an evolution in American politics.

In earlier days, local political parties provided ready-made political organizations for incumbent members of Congress, such as Solarz. But with the demise of strong local parties, politicians now must build and maintain their own networks.

“The Democratic Party in Brooklyn is a pale shadow of its former self,” Solarz laments. “Nobody I know of relies on the party structure in their home district to get them elected or reelected.”

According to political scientist Norman Ornstein, once House members have built their organizations, they tend to treat them like vintage Rolls-Royce automobiles--polished, well-oiled and full of high-test gasoline--even if they are seldom taken out on the road.

“If you are a politician, you can’t say that you’ve worked and slaved and got your Rolls-Royce and now you’re just going to let it rust away,” Ornstein explains. “You’re going to have to invest the resources to make sure it stays alive.”

Indeed, some House incumbents are so attentive to local politics that they have organized their supporters into “congressional clubs”--with newsletters and regular meetings, much like the party precinct organizations of a bygone era.

Solarz’s supporters, for example, receive membership cards with the congressman’s picture on them. Members of a club operated by Rep. George (Buddy) Darden (D-Ga.) are invited to an annual Christmas party.

And members of Rep. Steve Bartlett’s “Lone Star Council”--all of whom have given the Texas Republican $2,000 in campaign contributions--receive regular briefings from top Bush Administration officials, which Bartlett arranges for them.

Parties and picnics are by far the easiest way to build a local political machine. The Times found that House members have spent $14.3 million on food, gifts and entertainment for constituents during the current two-year election cycle--much of it for picnics.

When it comes to throwing picnics, Bartlett is clearly the P. T. Barnum of the House. His annual Memorial Day picnic this year, which drew 7,000 people, was an extravagant affair with catered food, beverages, entertainment, balloons and pony rides. It cost him more than $88,000, not including salaries and the cost of flying his Washington staff to Dallas for the day.

Like Bartlett, Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.) has spent $24,453 from his campaign funds on constituent picnics.

Rep. Hamilton Fish Jr. (R-N.Y.) spent at least $10,423 to sponsor a circus for his supporters.

And Rep. Charles Wilson (D-Tex.) doled out nearly $19,000 to host a dominoes tournament in his district--$12,000 of it just for the dominoes.

Even big fund-raising parties sponsored by House members are often intended primarily for organization-building more than for raising money. Indeed, this may explain why so many House members spend almost as much as they raise in some of their fund-raising parties.

According to Ornstein, it is not unusual to see a candidate spend nearly $2,000 to curry favor with a prominent citizen who, under law, cannot contribute more than $2,000 to the campaign.

Rep. Dean A. Gallo (R-N.J.) has held a series of fund-raisers over the last two years. They netted him only a few thousand dollars for his campaign coffers, but they generated considerable goodwill among his supporters.

Among Gallo’s featured events were a golf outing, a night at the Meadowlands racetrack and a trip to a New York Jets-New York Giants football game. Total cost of his fund-raisers: $182,797, including $52,064 in fees to fund-raising consultant Lynn Shapiro.

“The old adage that you don’t confuse fund-raising with political events doesn’t apply here,” explains Peter McDonough Jr., a longtime Gallo aide. “In off-years people don’t come out to vote as much. Events are a way to compete for their attention. That’s why we spend so much on fund-raising events.”

Although such parties can be expensive, they do not compare to the high costs of direct-mail fund-raising. House members have spent about $5 million on direct mail in the current election cycle--a large percentage of it simply to develop a network of supporters loyal to them.

In many cases, the networks that House members build up from their direct-mail appeals are confined to their own districts. But a few House members, such as Solarz, Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D-Berkeley) and Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove), have used direct mail to create a national following. Dellums, for example, has many direct-mail contributors in New York City.

Direct-mail costs are likely to amount to half of the $700,000 Dellums spends in this election period. He acknowledges that he seldom raises more than 40 cents for every dollar he spends. A few years ago, in fact, he lost $45,000 on a single mailing.

Still, Dellums sees his frequent mailings to 8,000 regular donors across the nation as a way to call attention to his liberal views on civil rights, foreign policy and defense. A recent newsletter sent to his direct-mail contributors features a picture of him standing between Nelson and Winnie Mandela, their hands clasped overhead.

A Dellums aide, Lee Halterman, says the congressman does regular mailings primarily to keep the list up to date, just in case he ever needs to defeat a strong challenger. “If somebody came after Ron right now, we could raise a million dollars just like that,” Halterman says.

Most members of Congress who have successful nationwide direct-mail operations are on the extremes of the political spectrum--Dellums on the left, Dornan on the right. Experts say it’s difficult to persuade potential donors outside a congressman’s district to contribute without an extreme political message.

One rare exception to that rule is Solarz, who as chairman of the House subcommittee on Asian affairs, has built a nationwide list of 18,000 Asian-American contributors who give money to him because he pays attention to developments in their homelands.

Solarz, who has spent $183,794 on direct-mail fund-raising in the two years preceding this election, acknowledges that his attention to this outside constituency does more for him than just raise money.

“It’s helpful in the sense that there are people out there that I can mobilize on behalf of legislation,” Solarz says. “When I’m trying to muster support for a particular legislative initiative, I call on them to contact their own congressmen or senators.”

Recently, Solarz sent a direct-mail letter to supporters across the country calling on them to lobby for legislation he had authored that would make it easier for foreign-educated physicians to obtain licenses in the United States.

Roger M. Craver, a prominent direct-mail consultant, says that House members who spend large amounts of campaign funds on direct mail almost always have a hidden agenda: They either want to start their own political movement or they are planning to run for the Senate.

For those House members who do not have such ambitions, he says, direct mail is too expensive. “It simply takes the donor’s money and wastes it, not out of any malice or wrongdoing--it’s simply that the economics don’t work,” he says.

Another way many House members have discovered to elevate their political stature--both at home and in Washington--is by contributing large sums of money from their campaign coffers to other members of their party.

Recipients of such donations can be called upon to repay the generosity later by helping the donor pass a favored bill, win a tough election or obtain a coveted committee chairmanship.

No less than $2.4 million of the money raised by members and spent in this year’s House elections was simply given away to other candidates.

In fact, this system was popularized largely by Los Angeles Democrats Henry A. Waxman and Howard L. Berman--the so-called Waxman-Berman machine--each of whom has given more than 10% of his campaign funds to other Democrats in advance of this election for a total of $78,000.

Rep. William H. Gray III (D-Pa.), the third-ranking House Democrat, has given $38,293 to other Democratic candidates, both in the House and in his hometown of Philadelphia. In addition, he has made loans of $62,000 to local Democrats.

Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.) recently gave $22,000 to the Republican candidate for governor in his home state--the biggest single political gift from a House member so far. Likewise, Democratic House members from California have given at least $125,000 to the Democratic gubernatorial campaign of Dianne Feinstein.

As a group, the Californians seem to be the most generous with their campaign funds. Twenty-one members of California’s House Democratic delegation have given $523,325 to IMPAC 2000, a group organized to help Democrats prevail in the 1990 reapportionment process. Reps. Berman and Vic Fazio (D-Sacramento) lead the list, having given $60,000 and $50,000, respectively.

But none of these contributions can match the gift of $100,000--or 23% of his total campaign fund--that Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton) has given to two AIDS-related groups, Paul Gann Stop AIDS Campaign and California Physicians for a Logical AIDS Response. Both groups support Dannemeyer’s stand for confidential reporting of AIDS testing results.

But there are still some House members who rely on homespun techniques to build a personal following. In Georgia, Darden sees the members of his church as the core of his supporters. “His method is church,” explains an aide. “He’s a Sunday schoolteacher, and a lot of the members of his church are contributors or volunteers.”

In Michigan, Democratic Rep. William D. Ford has created a more traditional-style organization that serves both himself and other Democratic office-seekers in his district. Ford rents space in his campaign headquarters to other Democratic candidates; posters for other candidates cover the headquarters’ walls, and Ford’s rallies feature other candidates as well.

“The congressman is an old-fashioned Democrat who feels you have to support other Democrats,” says David Gray, Ford’s campaign manager.

In exchange, Ford asks other Democrats to help supply the volunteers he needs to mail the thousands of campaign leaflets he sends to his supporters.

Many House members send flowers, gifts, cards or even Bibles to their supporters on the occasion of a birth, death or wedding in the family. Some 143 House members sent out more than $326,000 worth of Christmas cards last year--led by Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), who spent almost $15,000 on holiday greetings.

The Times found that House members spent more than $2 million on gifts and meals for constituents.

Nancy Parish, Darden’s campaign manager, explains that her boss spent $1,125 on flowers during the current election cycle because, “in the South, it would be ill-mannered not to respond to the death of a community leader or a volunteer by sending a funeral arrangement or flowers to the family. That’s the way we do business down here.”

Likewise, Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) dispenses plastic firemen’s hats--$6,269 worth of them--from the back of his own fire truck. An aide to Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) boasts that his supporters are “jogging all over the district” in his T-shirts. Other constituent gifts include Little League trophies, flags, ceremonial rifles, Virginia hams and even underpants.

Rep. Albert G. Bustamante (D-Tex.) told the FEC that he bought $228 of “men’s and ladies’ briefs” for constituents at Rivera’s Chili Shop.

A typical technique for a rural congressman is to buy the prize-winning hog or other livestock at the county fair and give it to a local homeless shelter. Total amount spent on livestock: $18,128.

House members also report that they are constantly being solicited for contributions from local charities and must dip into their campaign funds to satisfy all of these requests. Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), for one, gave $35,648 to a variety of charities.

If Congress succeeds in strictly limiting the amount of money that can be spent in House races, as some reformers have proposed, incumbents almost certainly would be forced to eliminate many of these costly organization-building activities.

Experts have warned, however, that such reforms could have unintended consequences.

Herbert E. Alexander, political scientist at the University of Southern California, says that under such new campaign spending limits, House members would have to rely more on television advertising and less on personal contact with their supporters.

Likewise, Solarz argues that campaign spending limits would prompt House members to discontinue their costly direct-mail campaigns and force them to rely more heavily on rich individuals and PACS.

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 229,169 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 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.

STEVE BARTLETT’S MEMORIAL DAY PICNIC

Every year, Rep. Steve Bartlett invites citizens of his fast-growing North Dallas district to a Memorial Day picnic, and he pays for it from campaign contributions. This year, 7,000 people attended the unusually lavish affair, which cost Bartlett more than $88,000. Below is an itemized list of his picnic costs.

TYPE OF EXPENSE AMOUNT Food $36,807.52 Printing 19,412.12 Postage for invitations 6,029.00 Commemorative T-shirts 4,793.26 Shuttle bus rental 3,632.50 Sound system and stage rental 3,500.00 Tent rental 2,658.80 Entertainment 2,300.00 Table/chair rental 1,855.66 Decorations 978.26 Balloons 765.99 Walkie-talkies $729.00 Pony rides 621.00 Restrooms and trash disposal 600.00 Booths for games 529.65 Photography 528.22 Supplies 491.60 City Park Service 482.00 Security 450.00 Flooring for tents 355.92 Flags and banners 341.42 Stand-by ambulance 225.00 TOTAL $88,086.94

CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATS PREPARE FOR REAPPORTIONMENT

Below are the amounts donated by Democrats in the California delegation to Congress during 1990 to IMPAC 2000, a political action committee targeting reapportionment efforts.

Amount Donated Name (district) To IMPAC 2000 Howard L. Berman (Panorama City) $60,000 Vic Fazio (West Sacramento) $50,000 Nancy Pelosi (San Francisco) $47,750 Don Edwards (San Jose) $46,000 George Miller (Martinez) $37,500 Norman Y. Mineta (San Jose) $35,000 Richard H. Lehman (Sanger) $30,000 Esteban Edward Torres (La Puente) $26,000 Mel Levine (Santa Monica) $25,000 Robert T. Matsui (Sacramento) $25,000 Matthew G. Martinez (Monterey Park) $24,000 Julian C. Dixon (Los Angeles) $22,000 Glenn M. Anderson (San Pedro) $20,000 Henry A. Waxman (Los Angeles) $20,000 Ronald V. Dellums (Berkeley) $12,500 Pete Stark (Oakland) $11,575 Edward R. Roybal (Los Angeles) $10,000 Leon E. Panetta (Carmel Valley) $6,000 Douglas H. Bosco (Occidental) $5,000 Anthony C. Beilenson (Los Angeles) $5,000 Mervin M. Dymally (Compton) $5,000 TOTAL $523,325

USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR CONSTITUENT GIFTS

Election Amount Candidate Party/state status spent Curt Weldon R-Pa. Opposed $42,249 John P. Murtha D-Pa. Opposed $38,437 Charles Wilson D-Tex. Opposed $23,979 Bill Alexander D-Ark. Opposed $20,832 Hamilton Fish Jr. R-N.Y. Unopposed $19,163 Beverly B. Byron D-Md. Unopposed $17,925 Michael Bilirakis R-Fla. Opposed $17,794 Edolphus (Ed) Towns D-N.Y. Unopposed $17,646 Cardiss Collins D-Ill. Unopposed $17,493 Robert A. Roe D-N.J. Unopposed $16,909

Three hundred seventy-six candidates reported spending a total of $1,182,463 on gifts for their constituents.

ON DONATIONS TO CHARITY, OTHER CANDIDATES AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS

Election Amount Candidate Party/state status spent Howard L. Berman D-Cal. Opposed $153,036 Nancy Pelosi D-Cal. Opposed $152,424 Vic Fazio D-Cal. Opposed $146,191 Charles B. Rangel D-N.Y. Unopposed $123,107 Edward R. Roybal D-Cal. Unopposed $121,466 William E. Dannemeyer R-Cal. Unopposed $121,158 John P. Murtha D-Pa. Opposed $117,188 George Miller D-Cal. Opposed $112,671 Thomas J. Manton D-N.Y. Unopposed $111,945 Beryl Anthony Jr. D-Ark. Unopposed $104,879

Six hundred twelve candidates reported donating a total of $8,529,678 to charities, other candidates and political organizations.