O.C. Delegation Seeks Purses Great and Small : Fund raising: One congressman uses a mass-mail pitch, while the rest court big spenders and PACs.

The Congressional district served by Rep. Robert K. Dornan, centered in Garden Grove, is a collection of largely working class neighborhoods inhabited by people of modest means.

But in Dornan’s last campaign for Congress, in which he was virtually unopposed, the conservative Republican raised $1.53 million--more than any other member of the House of Representatives but one. The single exception was Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.).

The lion’s share of Dornan’s money--59%--came from outside his district, according to the Congressman. And nearly all of his contributions, a total of $1.26 million, came from small contributors across the country, who gave less than $200 apiece in reply to Dornan’s mass mailings. The pugnacious conservative received virtually no backing from political action committees.

In marked contrast, Rep. Ron Packard, another local Republican who faced little opposition, raised only $142,080. Packard, whose district includes southern Orange and northern San Diego counties, received less than $43,000 from individual contributors. More than two-thirds of his money came from PACs, the organized industry and labor groups that generally promote specific legislative agendas.

The dramatic counterpoint between Dornan and Packard reflects the profoundly different approaches that members of the Orange County Congressional delegation take in raising political money.

It also highlights the central issues in an often bitter debate that has raged in Washington in recent years over the propriety of differing styles of fund raising. Those issues include the relative merits of raising money in large or small chunks, of relying on individual contributors or political action committees, or of local supporters or those from other states and regions.

Using computer analysis and data provided by the Federal Election Commission, The Times examined the fund-raising techniques of the county’s five Congressional representatives during the 1989-1990 campaign. Among the findings:

* Dornan (R-Garden Grove) received 82% of his money from small contributors and only $35,234--about 2%--from political action committees. Contributions of $200 or more accounted for about 15% of his money. Dornan said 59% of his campaign funds come from outside California.

* Packard (R-Oceanside) received 70% of his campaign funds from PACs. He got only $26,409 in small contributions, less than 19% of his total.

* Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton), who raised $586,253 in the last election campaign, received about 52% of his money from small donors, 22% from political action committees, and the rest from large contributors.

* Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach), whose district includes the most generous Republican neighborhood in California, relied almost exclusively on large donors and political action committees to raise $679,846. Donations of $200 or more accounted for 69% of Cox’s total, while PACs contributed about 26%. Only $29,258 came from small donors.

* Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Long Beach), who represents northwestern Orange County, raised $412,630, mainly from large donors and political action committees. More than 62% of Rohrabacher’s money came from big contributors, 29% from PACs, and slightly more than 8% from small donors.

Campaign finance reform groups based in Washington in recent years have harshly criticized members of Congress for relying too heavily on political action committees, especially those based in the capital, to finance their campaigns.

“What that says to me is that a member of Congress can raise $50,000” at a PAC fund-raiser, said David Eppler, a staff attorney with Congress Watch, a consumer advocacy group founded by Ralph Nader. “That means it’s not necessary to return to your district at all to raise funds.”

“It gets to the question of ‘who is the member representing, the fat cats here in Washington, or the folks back home?’ ”

Others have been equally critical of congressmen who depend on large contributions from a relatively small number of wealthy supporters to fill campaign war chests. Still others, including some prominent Republicans, have suggested abolishing political action committees, or requiring members of Congress to raise a fixed percentage of their funds from within their districts.

For example, both Congress Watch and Common Cause, a self-described citizens’ lobby, have called for full public financing of congressional campaigns.

“Our view is that you have to provide some sort of substitute for interested money,” Eppler said.

But not everyone agrees.

“Theoretically, people in Congress don’t just represent their own constituents, they represent the entire country,” said Andrew J. Cowin, a research associate at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“The question is whether a candidate should be able to get his or her point across to the people they represent,” Cowin said. “The more money they have, the easier it is to communicate with the voters.”

For that reason, many campaign finance reform proposals would tend to benefit incumbents, and hurt the chances of challengers, Cowin said.

“There are critics of any kind of fund-raising system,” said Prof. Herbert E. Alexander, director of the Citizens’ Research Foundation at the University of Southern California. The foundation studies campaign finance issues.

“You just can’t satisfy most reformers about the (proper) sources of funding,” Alexander said. “The question is, ‘Where are they going to get the money?’ ”

Each of Orange County’s representatives has answered that question in his own way, as follows.

Dornan: King of Direct Mail

Dornan said his preference for sophisticated--and expensive--direct-mail fund raising frees him from the appearance of being beholden to special interest groups or wealthy individual contributors.

“Lee Atwater (the late chairman of the Republican National Committee) said, more than once, Bob Dornan is the only Congressman I know . . . who has a constituency in all 50 states,” said Dornan, who was first elected to Congress from his Orange County district in 1984. He previously served three terms in the old 27th Congressional District in Los Angeles County.

The drawback of direct mail is its great cost, Dornan acknowledged. In the last election cycle, Dornan spent more money per vote--$23.87--than any other member of Congress.

Dornan said he relies on a national direct-mail base in part because of the relatively modest means of most of those who live in his district. “I represent the least affluent district in Orange County,” he said. Only 14% of Dornan’s contributions of $200 or more come from Orange County donors.

Direct mail also suits his temperament, Dornan said. Despite his reputation as a bombastic orator, Dornan said he finds it difficult to ask people for money.

He said, “I’ve been at affairs with Don Bren,” one of the nation’s wealthiest men and chairman of the Irvine Co., Orange County’s largest landholder. “I sat right next to him. I don’t know, maybe I’m a jerk for not asking him to help me. But . . . I didn’t ask, so he’s off the hook.”

For the same reason, Dornan said, he has not actively solicited support from political action committees. “I feel very comfortable defending programs based on my beliefs, not special interest support. So I just let them come where they may.”

Dornan said he would support legislation that would abolish political action committees, and at the same time lift the $1,000-an-election limit now placed on individual contributions to federal candidates.

Packard: PAC Man

Packard said he sees no problem with the strong support he receives from political action committees.

“I don’t have any apologies to make,” said the former Carlsbad mayor, who was first elected to Congress in 1982. “I would say that better than half of the PAC contributions have a district orientation.”

As an example, he cited contributions from the United Parcel Service employees PAC. The company maintains a major facility in Packard’s district.

Also supporting Packard are political action committees representing medical, dental and transportation interests. A former dentist, Packard serves on the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation.

Taking a substantial share of his campaign money from special interest groups, Packard said, allows him to charge constituents relatively little for the two local fund-raisers he sponsors each year. A third event, which targets political action committees, is held in Washington.

Packard reported contributions from individuals of only $15,955 in amounts of $200 or more. Of those large contributions, 45% came from Orange County contributors.

“If I had to choose between 10 people attending a $1,000 (per person) event or 100 people attending a $10 event, I’ll take the 100 people every time, because it reflects a bigger support base,” Packard said. “A $10 giver will support me at the polls as much as a $1,000 giver.”

“I think it reflects my whole attitude on fund raising,” he said. “Don’t raise the money if you don’t need it, and don’t spend the money in campaigns if you don’t have to. . . . I hate to ask people for lots of money, (but) I don’t mind asking them for $10 and their vote.”

Despite the support they give him, Packard said he could live with the abolition of PACs, because every other politician would be forced to play under the same rules.

Dannemeyer: Local Support

Dannemeyer, the senior member of the Orange County delegation, said his large local base reflects the structure of his political organization.

The Committee of 100, Dannemeyer’s basic support group, actually boasts about 300 members who agree to contribute $250 to his campaign each election cycle. For their money, members receive invitations to two breakfasts each year, during which Dannemeyer gives them a report on his work for the conservative cause in Washington.

About 72% of the $149,390 that Dannemeyer raised in donations of $200 or more came from Orange County givers.

Dannemeyer’s relatively large share of small contributors reflects his brief flirtation with national, direct-mail fund raising. He said he gave up that effort in his House races, but will use it again during his campaign for U.S. Senate. First elected to Congress in 1978, Dannemeyer has said he will give up his House seat to challenge Sen. John Seymour in the 1992 Republican Senate primary.

“The broader your base of support in campaign financing, the more independence I think you’re able to exhibit here,” said Dannemeyer, generally regarded as one of the most conservative members of Congress. “You’re not dependent on any one source.”

At the same time, Dannemeyer said he would support changes in the law that would require members to raise perhaps half of their campaign money in their own districts or counties. He also said he favors the abolition of political action committees, even though he receives support from PACs that represent oil companies and other energy concerns.

“I wish the rules were such that all PAC contributions were eliminated.” he said. “That would force the fund-raising efforts elsewhere.” The problem with PACs, Dannemeyer said, is that they tend to support incumbents of both parties, insulating members of Congress from political challenges.

“There is little ideological difference in the campaign funds that are invested in incumbents anymore,” he said.

Cox: Big Givers

Cox said his dependence on large contributors reflects his habit of soliciting money from people that he knows, a practice that he said was born of necessity during his initial primary campaign in 1988.

“I was not the Republican establishment candidate,” said the former White House lawyer, “so I, instead, prevailed upon people who were college classmates, my former students at Harvard, my clients, my personal friends and neighbors.

“You’re much more likely to support generously someone with whom you’ve been personally acquainted over a long period of time. That is why I have continued to do fund raising as I have, so that I really do know people on a personal basis.”

And that accounts for the large portion of his contributions that come from Orange County donors, Cox said. Of the $471,072 that Cox received in large contributions, 74% came from Orange County.

“I want to know personally the people with whom I’m dealing,” he said. “It’s just impossible to do that if you’re conducting your fund raising in Tennessee.”

Cox said he sponsors a series of fund-raisers for small groups of 15 or 20 people, some for as little as $25 or $50 a person. On the other hand, he asked for $500 a person for an Oct. 24 event featuring former White House speech writer Peggy Noonan and conservative humorist P.J. O’Rourke. That was his only large-scale fund-raiser of the year, Cox said. He said he also sponsors one or two fund-raisers each year in Washington, targeted at PACs.

Cox said he is ambivalent about the criticism leveled at PACs.

“It would not be the end of the world if we simply eliminated them,” he said. On the other hand, he added, “Any small company, any organization of people, however loosely affiliated, in America, can form a PAC. So a wholesale indictment of PACs misses the mark somewhat. You have to look at each PAC and evaluate it independently.”

Rohrabacher: Big Guns For Big Bucks

Rohrabacher, who also relies heavily on donations from large contributors and political action committees, said, “I try to think about fund raising as little as possible.”

The major sources of his funds, Rohrabacher said, are $250-a-plate dinners held in his district, which stretches from Huntington Beach to the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Speakers at past events, usually held in Long Beach, have included Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Jack Kemp and Vice President Dan Quayle.

In addition, Rohrabacher said his supporters have staged smaller, back-yard-type events with price tags of $150 a head.

“The reason why there are not many smaller contributors on the list is because it actually costs you a great deal of money in order to get any money from small contributors,” Rohrabacher said.

“To organize large groups, or to contact people who would give you small contributions through the mail . . . you end up spending much more of the money on raising the money than you do on getting your message out to the voters,” he said.

A former reporter, editorial writer and White House speech writer, Rohrabacher, like Cox, was first elected to Congress in 1988 after a tough primary fight.

Rohrabacher said he would support legislation that would eliminate PAC, despite the support they offer him, and require members of Congress to finance their campaigns largely with financial support from their districts. About 25% of Rohrabacher’s large contributions came from Orange County. His district also includes southwestern Los Angeles County.

Even though most of his money comes from large contributors and PACs, Rohrabacher said he believes his base of support is broader than that of many members of Congress.

“Sammy Hagar (of the band Van Halen) gave me some money,” Rohrabacher said. “Jeff Baxter, who was the lead guitar player from the Doobie Brothers and for Steely Dan, is now one of my contributors.”

“So I think I have a wider cross-section of people supporting me than many, many other congressmen who get enormous support from just one or two specific interest groups.”

Times staff writer Dwight Morris contributed to this story

Sources of Cash for Orange County Congressmen

Just one congressman from Orange County received most of his larger individual contributions from county residents, a study by The Times shows. The Federal Election Commission requires members of Congress to identify individuals who contribute $200 or more; those giving less need not be named. The computer-assisted study also analyzed money received from political action committees for 1989 and 1990, when each incumbent was reelected without substantial opposition. Districts represented by Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Long Beach) and Ron Packard (R-Oceanside) include parts of both Los Angeles and San Diego counties.

Rep. Robert K. Dornan

Total contributions: $1,534,889

Contributions from PACs: $35,234

Contributions of less than $200 from individuals: $1,263,345

Contributions of more than $200 from individuals outside Orange County: $203,748

Contributions of more than $200 from individuals inside Orange County: $32,562

From Outside O.C.: 86.3%

From O.C.: 13.7%

Expenditure per vote for Dornan: $23.87

Rep. William E. Dannemeyer

Total contributions: $586,253

Contributions from PACs: $129,250

Contributions of less than $200 from individuals: $307,613

Contributions of more than $200 from individuals outside Orange County: $41,150

Contributions of more than $200 from individuals inside Orange County: $108,240

From Outside O.C.: 27.6%

From O.C.: 72.4%

Expenditure per vote for Dannemeyer: $5.51

Rep. Christopher Cox

Total contributions: $679,846

Contributions from PACs: $179,516

Contributions of less than $200 from individuals: $29,258

Contributions of more than $200 from individuals outside Orange County: $123,599

Contributions of more than $200 from individuals inside Orange County: $347,473

From Outside O.C.: 26.3%

From O.C.: 73.7%

Expenditure per vote for Cox: $4.80

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher

Total contributions: $412,630

Contributions from PACs: $119,075

Contributions of less than $200 from individuals: $35,364

Contributions of more than $200 from individuals outside Orange County: $192,363

Contributions of more than $200 from individuals inside Orange County: $65,828

From Outside O.C.: 74.5%

From O.C.: 25.5%

Expenditure per vote for Rohrabacher: $3.65

Rep. Ron Packard

Total contributions: $142,080

Contributions from PACs: $99,716

Contributions of less than $200 from individuals: $26,409

Contributions of more than $200 from individuals outside Orange County: $8,760

Contributions of more than $200 from individuals inside Orange County: $7,195

From Outside O.C.: 54.9%

From O.C.: 45.1%

Expenditure per vote for Packard: $0.97

Source: Los Angeles Times analysis of Federal Election Commission records