Entertainment Industry, S&Ls; Boost Berman : Congress: A research group also says that Waxman and Moorhead received over half of their campaign funds from political action committees.

Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City) ranked third among House members in collecting campaign funds from the entertainment industry and savings and loans, while Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) was second in receiving health-care industry contributions in 1989-90, a new national study says.

The survey also found that both Waxman and Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Glendale) raised more than half of their funds from political action committees and Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Los Angeles) garnered nearly one-fifth of his money from lobbyists and lawyers.

These findings are part of an exhaustive analysis of campaign fund raising compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a bipartisan research group in Washington that advocates campaign financing reform. The center compiled a detailed profile of contributions for all 535 members of Congress in its 1,500-page analysis entitled “Open Secrets.”

The study, which was released this week, demonstrates for the first time the extent to which special interests rely on coordinated personal contributions from corporate executives--in addition to PAC money--to influence members of Congress. By “bundling” together donations to a candidate, interest groups or individual companies can add to their clout.

The survey also provided insight into the financial supporters who bankroll the four San Fernando Valley-area lawmakers.

Among the findings regarding the Valley legislators:

* Berman, who represents various film studios and is active on entertainment issues as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, received $46,150 from the television and movie industry. He also got $17,100 from savings and loans and their executives.

* Waxman, chairman of the influential House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health and environment, received $172,000 from the health-care industry--including $95,500 from health professionals and $31,000 from hospitals and nursing homes. The American Medical Assn. and the American Health Care Assn. each gave his campaign $10,000.

* Waxman garnered $319,650, or 64% of his total, from PACs. Moorhead raised $229,580, or 52% of his total, from such groups. Berman, meanwhile, raised $177,900, or 35%, of his campaign funds from PACs while Beilenson accepted no such special-interest money.

* Beilenson received $39,550 from individual lawyers and lobbyists. At the same time, Berman got $78,450 from organized labor PACs. Moorhead, who is the ranking minority member of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on energy and power, raised more than $50,000 from PACs representing energy and natural resources interests.

All of the lawmakers received the lion’s share of their funds from big givers--those who gave $200 or more. The names of individuals who contributed less than $200 are not required to be disclosed on campaign spending reports.

Berman raised 88% of his funds from PACs and individuals who gave $200 or more, Waxman raised 86%, Moorhead 60% and Beilenson 77% from those giving more than $200.

Under federal campaign law, individuals are limited to contributions of $2,000 to a candidate for each election cycle; PACs can give no more than $10,000.

The survey also divided PAC receipts along business, labor and ideological or single-issue lines. Moorhead received 100% of his

special-interest money from business, Waxman 79% from business and 17% from labor, and Berman 51% from business and 44% from labor.

In an interview, Berman said that he knew of only one contributor engaged in “bundling.” This was the Walt Disney Co., which is headquartered in Burbank. The firm’s PAC and executives--who are very active campaign contributors--gave Berman a total of $6,750.

Disney ranked fourth nationally in contributions to federal lawmakers with a total of $277,034, the study found. Individual Disney employees gave $190,515 and the company’s PAC contributed $86,519.

Berman said that some entertainment executives supported him financially because they were longtime personal friends or because they agreed with his positions supporting abortion rights, Israel and strong environmental protection.

In addition, he said, “It is a very important local industry employing lots of people and I spend time on issues affecting that industry much as a congressman from Detroit might be spending time working on issues affecting the automobile industry.”

Regarding the scandal-plagued savings and loan industry, Berman said that some of those supporters were also personal friends or backed him because of issues unrelated to the industry. At the same time, Berman said that he opposed the savings and loans industry on four high-profile issues during his decade in Congress.

This included his support for a 1987 Reagan Administration proposal of $15 billion in new borrowing authority for the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp. to bail out failing S & Ls. The industry, which would have been required to pay interest on the borrowed funds, sought a substantially lower amount. The final figure was $10 billion.

“This could be the case study in the fact that contributions . . . had no influence on my decisions,” Berman said.

Waxman, one of the national leaders on health issues, has long maintained that there was no relationship between his contributions and his position on issues or access to him. In some instances, he said, PACs have approached him to offer unsolicited contributions.

“A lot of PACs follow and support what I’ve been doing on national health legislation,” Waxman said in an interview late last year.

Overall, Berman, Waxman and Moorhead raised a combined total of nearly $1.5 million in the two-year election cycle. Their three opponents, in contrast, together spent less than $125,000.

Beilenson, however, was one of the few incumbents nationwide who was outspent by his challenger. He spent $201,404; Republican Jim Salomon’s campaign cost was $361,461.