California Alliance’s Cumulative Generosity Is Unmatched in Congress

Between floor votes, committee sessions and meetings with constituents, Reps. Henry A. Waxman, Howard L. Berman and Mel Levine huddled behind closed doors in Waxman’s spacious, high-ceilinged office to engage in a political ritual unique on Capitol Hill.

Working from handwritten sheets, the three Los Angeles-area Democrats discussed how to dispense jointly approximately $50,000 of their own campaign funds to other Democratic congressmen and challengers in competitive races around the country.

Following their meeting, Berman called the lawmakers’ campaign treasurer and told her to dispense $1,000 checks from each of their campaign committees to various candidates, including fellow Reps. George E. Brown Jr. (D-Colton), Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and Jim Jontz (D-Ind.).

The trio’s cumulative generosity is unmatched in Congress, according to a computer-assisted study of congressional campaign spending for 1989-90 conducted by The Times. In addition to congressional contests, Waxman, Berman and Levine provide hefty support in state legislative, gubernatorial and local races as well as to various Democratic campaign organizations.

In the current election cycle, Waxman, Berman and Levine distributed a total of $110,611 from their respective campaign committees to other candidates, through the Oct. 15 reporting period. In addition, Waxman gave $85,000 more from his own political action committee.

Since then, they have given at least another $100,000, including $75,000 to California Democratic gubernatorial nominee Dianne Feinstein, after a federal district judge overturned state contribution limits. They have given to a total of 50 congressional candidates, of which 18 received contributions from all three.

Nationally, Berman ranks sixth among congressmen in giving to other candidates, Waxman, 11th, and Levine, 12th, The Times found. In the full 1987-88 election cycle, the three made 256 contributions totaling $453,320.

Despite its informality, this process is at the heart of one of the most unusual and effective Democratic alliances on Capitol Hill.

It also is controversial. Critics contend that the practice--although perfectly legal--amounts to influence-buying within Congress.

“It buys something--if not votes, then compromises, and bills introduced or bills not introduced, voice votes instead of recorded votes, actions not taken,” says Ellen S. Miller, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. “It has the same kind of corrosive impact on the system as direct contributions from corporate PACs.”

Many other lawmakers make similar contributions. What sets Waxman, Berman and Levine apart is the way they pool at least some of their giving to maximize its electoral impact--as well as to multiply the benefits it generates in an institution where campaign money is often the coin of the realm and members rarely forget who filled their coffers.

“This is the political equivalent of the sum being greater than the parts,” says Rep. Robert G. Torricelli (D-N.J.), a prolific fund-raiser himself. “They are heard out of all proportion to their numbers because they represent real political strengths.”

That is not to say that dispersing campaign dollars is the sole key to the institutional success of Waxman, Berman and Levine. Each is respected for his legislative abilities; Waxman, in fact, has been called the most effective liberal in the House.

The three lawmakers insist there are no strings attached to their contributions. But they acknowledge that the money helps them pursue their legislative agendas.

“It clearly builds relationships with colleagues to help them in their elections, just as it builds relationships with colleagues to help them with their legislative activities,” Waxman says unabashedly. “And those relationships are important because, ultimately, to do anything around here, you have to have coalitions and support.”

Waxman, Berman and Levine are longtime friends and charter members of a progressive political alliance based in Los Angeles’ affluent West Side and southern San Fernando Valley. They like to describe the alliance--which includes state and city officeholders and political consultants--as a coalition of friends who share political goals.

Others call it the Waxman-Berman machine.

The lawmakers have been raising large amounts of money for like-minded candidates since their days in the California Assembly. Their ideological agenda is headed by support for Israel, first and foremost, as well as environmental protection and abortion rights. Personal friends, fellow Californians and allies on specific issues get special consideration.

The threesome and their associates are able to function, in effect, like a self-contained political party because they have a loyal base of donors--particularly among Jewish supporters--and face minimal election threats themselves.

“It’s assumed that they’ll help other people,” says Marc Nathanson, a longtime fund-raiser for the three lawmakers and chief executive of Falcon Holding Group, a cable television company based in Westwood. “It goes beyond their campaign.”

In their efforts to help others as well as themselves, Waxman has raised $413,009 and Berman, $452,919, in the current two-year legislative cycle. Levine, who is eyeing a 1992 U.S. Senate bid and enjoys the demands of fund-raising more than the others, garnered $1,119,669, one of the highest figures for House members nationwide.

Beyond their shared base, Waxman, a congressional leader on health issues, generates 20% of his money from health-related PACs; Berman, a former labor lawyer, is a favorite of organized labor, and Levine, the scion of a wealthy Beverly Hills developer and an old California family, gets significant support from family and personal friends.

Waxman also has his own PAC, which allows him to give another $5,000 to candidates he supports for each primary and general election above the $1,000 maximum from his own campaign committee. Such “leadership PACs” permit congressional leaders to dole out campaign dollars to candidates and, in the process, advance or solidify their own House or Senate leadership aspirations or pay the costs of unannounced presidential bids.

At the same time that Waxman, Berman and Levine are giving to others, they spend relatively little directly on their own campaigns. Berman spent 17% of his campaign committee funds on his own election activities, Waxman 19%, and Levine 35%, The Times survey found.

“I don’t see a line to be drawn between the political process and the legislative process,” Waxman says. “I think they’re all one and part of the same. Those people who are here in Washington voting on bills are elected through the political process. And whether I get my legislation passed depends on who’s here.”

Waxman, in fact, helped pioneer the tactic of steering campaign dollars to House colleagues in 1978. As a two-term member, he decided to challenge Rep. Richardson Preyer, a senior and respected Democrat from South Carolina, for the vacant chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s health and environment subcommittee.

Drawing on lessons learned as a state lawmaker in Sacramento, Waxman dispensed $24,000 in campaign funds to fellow members of the subcommittee. Some colleagues and observers criticized the contributions as a brazen bid to buy votes. Nevertheless, he won the chairmanship in a stunning upset.

Since that time, Waxman has continued giving campaign money to subcommittee allies as part of his effort to win a tougher clean air law, expanded health insurance and more money for AIDS treatment and research. Panel members Gerry Sikorski (D-Minn.), Jim Bates (D-San Diego) and Cardiss Collins (D-Ill.) have been among the beneficiaries of Waxman, Berman and Levine.

Waxman’s assistance goes beyond such contributions, however. When Collins faced a primary challenge, Waxman says he scheduled subcommittee hearings in her Chicago district “to let people back there know what she’s doing.” He also has attended fund-raisers there for her.

On occasion, the lawmakers individually or collectively hold fund-raisers or ask major donors in Los Angeles to help gather money for other candidates. Berman and Levine raised more than $75,000 for their House Foreign Affairs Committee ally Harry Reid (D-Nev.) during Reid’s victorious Senate race in 1986.

Congressional insiders and observers agree that such assistance engenders goodwill.

Berman says that when he waged a yearlong, uphill fight to win a coveted spot on the House Budget Committee in 1989, “the fact that I was the kind of Democrat who helped other Democrats was a help.” He got the appointment.

“It’s part of a total picture,” says Berman, a four-term lawmaker who has played central roles on arms control and immigration issues even though he is not a chairman of any committee or subcommittee, where institutional power tends to reside.

Some of the recipients of the trio’s contributions are in positions to be especially helpful. Two examples are Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of an important Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations, and Rep. Sidney R. Yates (D-Ill.), who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee that plays a major role in determining how much money the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area receives to buy park land.

Critics of this process--including Common Cause and other groups that support campaign law reform--maintain that it increases the temptation to use special-interest money, enables the candidate to circumvent limits on campaign contributions, undermines party discipline and leaves colleagues feeling indebted.

The Los Angeles lawmakers disagree. Recipients of their campaign funds are less beholden to them than they would be to corporate PACs, they maintain. And they portray themselves as filling a partisan vacuum left by a Democratic Party unable to match big Republican donors.