CAMPAIGN JOURNAL : So Many Candidates, So Few Dollars

Tom Campbell schedules 12 “meet-and-greet” sessions in a single day. Mel Levine and Gray Davis spend long hours on the telephone. Dianne Feinstein makes the rounds of receptions and luncheons, and Barbara Boxer looks to direct-mail solicitations.

And so they go, the men and women who would be the next two senators from California.

The early months of this season’s Senate campaign have been dominated by a humbling and hectic dash for cash. Like it or not, candidates are forced to attend fund-raisers and make constant pitches for money earlier and more frequently than ever before.

It is not that elections cost more these days, as expensive as they undeniably are.

The problem in California this season is the sheer number of contests and candidates, all vying for attention, media time--and dollars. That, combined with the recession, has made the competition for money tight.

“If you want to go through all of this jazz of trying to raise money every day, which I’m trying to do, you do it,” said Republican candidate Bruce Herschensohn. “That’s the way you become a nominee. So, I’m doing it. I don’t like it, but I’m doing it.”

For the first time in California history, both Senate seats are open, along with dozens of congressional and state offices, their numbers swelled by reapportionment and newly drawn districts.

California has had some of the most expensive Senate races in the nation. The state record is held by Gov. Pete Wilson, who spent $13 million to be reelected to the Senate in 1988 over Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy.

This year, some political consultants are predicting that the races may not cost quite that much--perhaps a mere $10 million or so.

McCarthy, who is running against Reps. Boxer and Levine for the Democratic nomination to succeed retiring Sen. Alan Cranston, recently asked his opponents to hold spending to a $9.65 million cap proposed in recent federal legislation. Boxer said she would if the others did; Levine, the top fund-raiser of all Senate candidates, declined.

Most candidates use similar techniques to fill their election coffers. Some are just better at it than others.

Levine is especially adept at dialing for dollars, according to associates. By telephoning a long list of past contributors, attorneys, entertainment honchos and others, Levine is able to tap into a wealthy base on Los Angeles’ Westside.

“He actually enjoys getting on the phone,” said one longtime fund-raiser who has worked with Levine.

The congressman from Santa Monica has also staged several fancy dinners; at one event last year in a Beverly Hills hotel he took in $1.1 million, and a similar affair is scheduled for this month at the home of Lew Wasserman.

Campbell, who represents Palo Alto in Congress, has raised a huge sum of money and has more than $2 million on hand, second only to Levine’s $3.7 million. Campbell tends to favor numerous, small gatherings of supporters and potential donors, on occasion scheduling as many as 12 meetings back to back in a day.

“We think it’s a West Coast record,” quipped Campbell’s spokesman, Greg Stohr.

Campbell is running in a tight race for the Republican nomination for Cranston’s seat against Herschensohn, a conservative television commentator, and Palm Springs Mayor Sonny Bono.

Boxer, while she also attends receptions and luncheons and is on the phone a lot, has one fund-raising tool unavailable to her rivals. Emily’s List, a national lobbying organization that supports Democratic women candidates, has adopted Boxer’s campaign and launched a direct-mail effort that already raised $150,000.

“It’s just remarkable that we’ve raised this much money at this point in the campaign--(with) just one mailing,” said Boxer’s spokeswoman, Rose Kapolczynski. “We don’t have to do any of the work (and) the checks just show up in the mail.”

The amount of money is but a fraction of the campaign’s intake, but it is effortless money, costs the campaign nothing and provides a base of supporters from around the country that the campaign can hit up again.

Feinstein, the former mayor of San Francisco, has also benefited from Emily’s List. In addition, through telephoning, luncheons with leading businesswomen and hotel dinner events, she is turning to thousands of Californians who contributed to her unsuccessful race for governor.

“The base is pretty self-evident,” said campaign manager Kam Kuwata. “You look at where you raised it then (in 1990) and go back to those same people. . . . It’s saying: ‘You stood by me then, stand by me again.’ ”

Despite the built-in base, Feinstein says the quest for money is not easy. She prefers personal contact over the telephone, she says, but still finds the task an uncomfortable one.

“I’m not a good arm-twister,” she said. “I don’t like to ask people for money. Fortunately, I have some people around me who are reasonably good at it.”

Feinstein is running for the Democratic nomination to the seat vacated by Wilson when he became governor. Her opponent in the primary is state controller Davis; on the Republican side are Sen. John Seymour, appointed by Wilson to fill the seat until this election, Rep. William E. Dannemeyer, and university professor Bill Allen.

Anne Le Gassick, a Republican fund-raiser, says candidates this year have to be just as aggressive in asking for $100 donations as they used to be in going after the maximum $1,000 contributions. It means a lot more time and effort has to go into fund raising, and the candidates have to be more willing than ever to shake a lot of hands, pose for a lot of pictures and smile through a lot of coffee and tea receptions.

“When you’ve got your hand out, whether for a contribution or a vote, you have to have a certain amount of humility,” she said.

Regardless of the candidate, the spiel is usually similar. While aspiring senators cannot promise specific legislation in exchange for donations, they do try to persuade their targeted potential contributors of the somewhat crass notion that without money, the candidate--and all he or she stands for--will not win.

Near the bottom of the fund-raising barrel are Bono, who so far has been forced to underwrite much of his campaign with his own money, and Allen.

Bono, who money-wise is leagues behind his two opponents (Campbell and Herschensohn), said he scheduled 14 “fund-raising parties” for March. Most of his efforts until now have been limited to small get-togethers in people’s homes, and some wonder whether he has not waited too long to start money-raising.

“It is the biggest challenge in our campaign,” conceded Bono’s manager, Bill Lacy. “Ultimately, it will determine whether we are in the race.”

The most successful candidates when it comes to raking in the cash began early last year, some even rolling over war chests from previous year’s campaigns.

Allen describes his campaign as almost broke. At the last reporting period, he had $3,440 on hand.

Soon, with the filing of official candidate papers having ended March 6, the campaign will enter a new phase. Voters will begin to see how the money that was so diligently wooed is spent. Candidates will be making more frequent appearances around the state, and television and radio will be crowded with advertisements.

Even then, though, the fund raising will continue. It is simply a permanent, never-ending part of the process.

Times staff writer Bill Stall contributed to this report.