California Campaign Cash May Stay Home Next Year : Politics: State’s own races are likely to take priority with donors. Survey compares exporters of donations.

In modern political folklore, California is known as money Mecca--a place where aspiring politicians from all over the country can go to obtain the funds they need to run for office.

Or, as State Treasurer Kathleen Brown puts it: “California has traditionally been the ATM machine for national candidates.”

But as often happens in politics, the state’s reputation for generosity has been somewhat exaggerated. New York state--not California--is actually the nation’s leading exporter of political cash.

In 1990, individuals living in only two ZIP codes in Manhattan accounted for well over $3 million of the big contributions made to congressional candidates, according to a computer analysis conducted by The Times of Federal Election Commission records. By comparison, the most generous West Coast ZIP code--90210 in Beverly Hills--came in at under $1 million.

Still, California--like New York, the District of Columbia and 11 other states--does export more political contributions from individuals than it imports. In 1990, Californians gave more than $7.9 million to candidates outside of the state while indigenous candidates brought in a mere $1.8 million from contributors elsewhere in the country.

But California’s largess may soon be only a distant memory to the thousands of money-hungry politicians in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere around the nation who usually make fund-raising stops in Los Angeles, San Francisco and other wealthy areas in the state.

Experts estimate that two simultaneous races for the U.S. Senate, combined with races for seven new House seats created by reapportionment, could require as much as $100 million, leaving little or nothing for out-of-state candidates. In fact, outsiders are being told to “butt out” of California this year while the political contributions are being spread around.

“I am respectful and very fond of many national Democratic candidates, but I would say this is the time to stay home,” says State Treasurer Brown. “We have our candidates and we’re talking about putting California first.”

Political reformers strongly endorse Brown’s sentiments and wish they would catch on elsewhere. In recent years, they have often decried how candidates turn to big donors in New York, California and Washington, D.C., instead of seeking contributions from their own constituents.

When politicians depend too heavily on out-of-state money, the reformers reason, they lose touch with the concerns of their own constituency and begin to serve interests that are often contrary to those of the people who elected them.

“There is a perception--even among the politicians themselves--that in-state money is cleaner than out-of-state money,” says Ellen Miller, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a bipartisan group that advocates campaign finance reform.

The Times found that 500 congressional candidates--most of them incumbents--financed their campaigns last year primarily with large contributions from beyond the borders of their own states. The Times’ survey included all contributions of $200 or more to congressional candidates between Jan. 1, 1989, and Dec. 31, 1990.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), for example, raised nearly $3 million in out-of-state money--half from political action committees, half from individual donors--while collecting less than $300,000 in contributions of $200 or more from Iowans.

Almost by definition, candidates who depend heavily upon PAC contributions receive most of their money from out of state, since most PACs are headquartered in Washington. But many candidates also go to the big cities seeking contributions of up to $2,000 each from rich individuals--another fast-growing source of special-interest money.

While Washington is the biggest source of PAC funds for candidates all over the United States, the ZIP codes in Midtown and the Upper East Side of Manhattan--10021 and 10022--are the first place that politicians go to find big individual donors.

These two New York City ZIP codes are home to many top corporate headquarters, big, prestigious law firms and fabulously wealthy individual contributors such as John W. Klug, owner of Metromedia and the richest man in America; fashion designer Liz Claiborne and her husband, Arthur Ortenberg; real estate developer Donald J. Trump, and leveraged buyout specialists Henry R. Kravis of Kohlberg, Kravis & Roberts and Ronald O. Perelman, owner of Revlon cosmetics.

Members of Congress typically get acquainted with New York business leaders by visiting their offices in Manhattan, usually for a breakfast, a luncheon or a so-called “issues forum” in which they can discuss the matters pending in Washington. Not until the end of the meeting are the participants asked to contribute to the campaign or to solicit money from their friends and business associates. Those who agree to raise money often do so by holding cocktail parties where the candidate promises to make an appearance.

“Most of the senators and congressmen just love to come to New York, not only because they can raise a lot of money here but also because they usually learn something by talking to the people here,” observes one veteran Democratic fund-raiser who regularly ushers senators around Manhattan.

All told, New York state exported more than $10.7 million in PAC contributions to candidates in other states in the two years prior to the last election, and another $10.7 million in individual contributions. Meanwhile, New York candidates received $1.4 million from in-state PACs and $5.4 million from individuals within the state.

In California, likewise, the richest ZIP code for political contributions--90210--encompasses the homes of such notable donors and fund-raisers as MCA Chairman Lew Wasserman and Disney executives Frank Wells and Jeffrey Katzenberg. Two other Los Angeles ZIP codes that together provided more than $1 million in individual contributions--90049 and 90067--are home to the likes of such frequent givers as Creative Artists Agency chairman Michael Ovitz.

In Washington, three ZIP codes encompassing Georgetown and K Street--the corridor where most lobbying offices are located--accounted for $2.2 million in contributions from individuals last year, proving that many lobbyists now write personal checks to the candidates as well as giving through PACs.

The District of Columbia exported nearly $69 million in PAC contributions and more than $5 million in individual contributions prior to the last election. States that export more campaign cash than they import include Virginia and Maryland--especially those communities in the greater Washington metropolitan area--and Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington state.

In all these prime fund-raising areas, Democrats fare better than Republicans, apparently because there are more Democrats in Congress and because they chair all the committees that draft laws governing business interests. In

the two top ZIP codes in Manhattan, for example, Democrats reaped $2.2 million, compared to the Republicans’ $929,618.

Republicans tend to dominate fund raising in wealthy suburbs and smaller cities, such as Midland, Mich., home of Dow Chemical Co., where Republican candidates reaped $396,000 compared to only $8,000 for Democrats.

Prominent senators and House committee chairmen are the chief beneficiaries of this trend toward out-of-state fund raising. All others still must depend primarily on the generosity of their own constituents.

Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), who narrowly defeated a little-known challenger, received nearly $5 million in out-of-state individual and PAC contributions for his 1990 race--more than $900,000 from California and nearly $1.8 million from New York. And Democrat Harvey Gantt, who unsuccessfully challenged Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) in a race that was a grudge match for liberals and conservatives from around the country, raised more than $3 million beyond the boundaries of North Carolina--$653,668 from California and another $666,501 from New York.

Asked to explain their dependence on out-of-state fund raising, Democrats such as Bradley and Harkin contend that it would have been impossible for them to raise enough money from their supporters, who are are primarily working class people.

“Iowa traditionally is not a state where you can raise money,” says Lorraine Voles, Harkin’s spokeswoman. “To compete there, there’s not enough money. Democrats are working people and farmers. Our fund-raisers in Iowa are $5 a head. Republicans have more money in Iowa.”

Indeed, Harkin’s opponent, Republican Tom Tauke, raised more than four times as much money as Harkin from Iowa contributors.

Other candidates offer differing explanations. Members of Congress from less populous states, particularly in the West, contend that they could raise more from their own constituents if federal law did not limit to $2,000 the amount they can accept from each individual.

Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who faces reelection in 1992, says he did most of his early fund raising outside of Florida during the past two years because he did not want to take any money away from the candidacy of Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles, who was elected last November. Since then, according to Ken Klein, Graham’s spokesman, the senator has resumed active fund raising in his home state.

Surprisingly, some candidates raised virtually all of their money outside their home states last year. One of them was Rep. Dick Swett (D-N.H.), a challenger who defeated Republican Rep. Chuck Douglas. Swett got 96% of his large individual contributions and 100% of his PAC contributions from out of state.

Republicans complain that Swett’s fund raising was done primarily by his father-in-law, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-San Mateo). The FEC currently is reviewing a complaint filed against Swett and Lantos, accusing the California congressman of contributing $30,000 to the Democratic National Committee with the understanding that it would be spent by the party in New Hampshire on his son-in-law’s behalf.

Of course, members of Congress who represent the big-money states of California and New York have a built-in advantage over their colleagues from smaller, less populous states. Sens. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) and Alfonse M. D’Amato (R-N.Y.)--neither of whom stood for reelection last year--have been raising most of their contributions from within their constituency. Cranston stopped raising money after he decided to retire in 1992.

Still, some Californians rely heavily on out-of-state sources. Reps. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove), Pete Stark (D-Oakland), Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) and Lantos received more money from out-of-state donors than they did in California.

Although out-of-state contributions are easy to come by, they do carry one potential political liability. In several races last year, candidates who depended heavily on out-of-state money were accused by their opponents of failing to represent the interests of their state.

Former Sen. Rudy Boschwitz (R-Minn.) was criticized by his successful opponent, Democrat Paul Wellstone, for raising too much money from rich people in other states, and Gantt was excoriated by Helms for receiving too much from gay activists in other states.

Voters are clearly suspicious of out-of-state fund raising. A poll conducted last year by Greenberg-Lake, a well-known Washington polling firm, shows a majority of Americans would support legislation requiring that congressional candidates raise the bulk of their money from within their own districts or states.

The 10 Big Money Exporters

Amount contributed directly to Contributions from candidates in individuals in: other states New York $10,711,875 California $7,908,439 Washington, D.C. $5,179,137 Florida $2,860,932 Illinois $2,683,685 Virginia $2,579,287 Maryland $2,398,945 Texas $2,306,611 New Jersey $1,870,977 Massachusetts $1,744,501

The 10 Big Money Importers

Contributions Amount collected by collected from candidates in: other states New Jersey $4,943,239 North Carolina $4,225,982 Michigan $2,884,165 Illinois $2,735,939 Massachusetts $2,602,035 Minnesota $2,080,669 Texas $1,914,805 Iowa $1,858,109 California $1,817,343 New York $1,403,153

Source: Computer-aided study by The Times

The Big ZIP Codes

Amount donated by individuals directly to Zip Code City federal candidates 10021 New York $1,936,120 10022 New York $1,205,581 90210 Beverly Hills $962,147 20007 Washington, D.C. $778,228 20036 Washington, D.C. $754,707 20006 Washington, D.C. $625,622 60611 Chicago $625,596 77002 Houston $616,085 10028 New York $582,555 10128 New York $542,820

Source: Computer-assisted study by The Times

California’s Exported Campaign Cash

Donations from California to Senate candidates from other states:

Individuals PACS Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) $851,849 $ 53,000 Harvey Gantt (D-N.C.) $624,729 $ 28,939 Paul Simon (D-Ill.) $374,025 $101,283 Carl Levin (D-Mich.) $338,620 $ 79,500 Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $276,075 $110,409 John Kerry (D-Mass) $380,365 $ 1,005 Rudy Boschwitz (R-Minn.) $274,005 $102,056 J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.) $129,800 $171,300 Howell Heflin (D-Ala.) $178,189 $104,171 Phil Gramm (R-Tex.) $141,525 $100,691

Source: Computer-assisted study by The Times