ELECTIONS : Congressional Wins Did Not Come Cheaply : Five winners together spent $2.4 million--more than four times the sum expended by their five major-party opponents as of mid-October.

Reacting to intensified competition in their races and around the country, San Fernando Valley-area congressmen sharply increased their campaign spending this year.

Longtime Reps. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Los Angeles) and Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Glendale) did so to retain their seats after reapportionment dealt them less favorable districts.

Beilenson ultimately spent well over $500,000, decisively winning a hard-fought contest. Moorhead probably topped $600,000 to hold his seat--which was thought to be safe--with just 49% of the vote.

Liberal Reps. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City) and Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles)--running in securely Democratic domains--vastly stepped up their donations to other Democratic candidates and causes while modestly upping their own direct campaign outlays.

And former Santa Clarita Mayor Howard P. (Buck) McKeon, the Republican winner of a new 25th District seat representing the Antelope and Santa Clarita valleys, spent somewhat less than the four incumbents but devoted a higher percentage to courting voters. He dispatched his most intense opposition in a hotly contested GOP primary.

Together, the five victors in last Tuesday’s elections had spent $2.4 million--more than four times the sum expended by their five major-party opponents as of Oct. 14, the last day for which campaign reports filed with the Federal Election Commission are available. The disparity was likely to have increased in the final 2 1/2 weeks of the campaign.

Each of the candidates other than Beilenson raised substantial sums from political action committees as well as individual contributors. Beilenson did not accept any PAC money although he was aided by groups representing environmentalists, teachers and abortion-rights proponents who steered members to his campaign.

For Beilenson and Moorhead, significantly outspending their challengers on voter persuasion mail and other campaign efforts apparently made a difference at the ballot box.

“Obviously, we spent a lot more than we ever spent in past elections,” said Robert A. Cochran, Moorhead’s executive assistant. “We recognized that the anti-incumbent feeling was present, the top of our ticket was weak and our district dropped 11 points in Republican registration. That adds up to a much tougher race.”

Registration in the new 27th District, drawn around Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena, dropped from a heavy Republican advantage to a 44%-43% edge. In addition, President Bush ran well behind Democratic nominee Bill Clinton throughout California.

Moorhead had spent $522,258 as of Oct. 14, including $207,833 against a tepid primary field. Cochran said when the final figures are tabulated, Moorhead will have spent about $400,000 during the general election. He had a hefty $666,684 campaign treasury going into the race and raised another $302,492--70% of it from PACs.

In contrast, Altadena Democrat Doug Kahn, who had hoped to raise as much as $250,000, had spent only $71,496 as of Oct. 14. He said he ended up spending around $100,000.

Moorhead outspent Kahn $205,767 to $35,851 in the critical category of voter persuasion mail. The conservative lawmaker also bought $37,000 in newspaper ads and did considerable radio and cable television advertising.

“It certainly could have been more serious,” Cochran said of Kahn’s challenge. “He turned out to be much weaker than we anticipated.”

Moorhead won 49% to 40%; minor party candidates accounted for the remainder. This was a 10% drop for Moorhead from 1990--the first time since the 1974 Watergate election that he even dipped below 60%. Undaunted, Kahn vowed to run again in 1994--beginning immediately.

Beilenson nearly tripled the $201,401 that he spent two years ago in his race against Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) in the new 24th District that extends from Sherman Oaks to Malibu and up to Thousand Oaks. By Oct. 14, Beilenson had spent $389,731 and had another $229,234 available for the homestretch. Beilenson’s campaign manager, Craig Miller, said the final spending tab was as high as $600,000.

McClintock, who was forced to invest $200,000 in a spirited primary campaign, had spent only $85,000 on the general election battle and had another $95,448 on hand as of Oct. 14. He later received additional contributions but not nearly enough to bridge the gap.

Beilenson had a double advantage: He used his deeper resources to hammer McClintock for taking PAC money, which Beilenson refused to accept. Beilenson had spent $140,000 on direct voter contact by mid-October, including $90,000 on persuasion mail.

Beilenson won 56% of the vote; McClintock, 39%, in a district thought to lean Republican.

“The reason we had more resources is that we worked harder than he did at fund-raising and we had real supporters in this district who thought this race was important,” Miller said. And, “the message of Tony’s campaign hit a far more receptive chord with the voters.”

Beilenson also expended sums on two other tried-and-true political weapons: potholders and his wife, Dolores. He shelled out $15,094 for the campaign potholders, which are intended to be a long-lasting reminder to vote for Beilenson. And the campaign reimbursed Dolores, a trusted political confidant, for $6,932 in travel costs.

“She’s an extremely hard-working campaigner, she is a valued adviser and strategist and she’s a very effective fund-raiser,” Miller said.

McKeon, co-owner of a chain of Western clothing stores, restrained his campaign outlays after spending $358,320 to win the GOP primary in the solidly Republican 25th District. He devoted an efficient 64% of his resources to directly reach out to voters.

McKeon had spent only $69,015 more between the June 2 primary and Oct. 14. His Democratic opponent, Santa Clarita attorney James H. Gilmartin, had spent a total of $58,540.

“We’re in a pretty safe Republican district,” McKeon’s campaign manager, Armando E. Azarloza, said in explaining the decision to cut back on satellite offices and other expenses.

McKeon won 52% of the tally, Gilmartin, 33%; four other candidates took the rest.

Berman, running for a sixth term in a comfortably Democratic 26th District in the east and central Valley, had spent $574,954 as of Oct. 14 but only $29,448 of it on direct voter contact. He said he invested another $30,000 in direct mail in the campaign’s last weeks.

Berman’s Republican opponent, Gary Forsch of Sun Valley, had spent only $48,445. Berman won 61% of the vote, Forsch, 30%. Two minor party candidates took the other 9%.

Berman’s campaign expended $127,560 on fund-raising, including a September, 1991, $400-a-person event at the Beverly Hills Hilton. In addition, he donated $305,371 to fellow Democrats, party organizations, charities and ideological groups. This included $65,688 to pursue Democratic reapportionment interests in California through IMPAC 2000, a national party committee.

“I have always had a philosophy of helping elect people who share my views and I’ve always let it be known to my contributors,” Berman said. “Secondly, I think it strengthens my influence in the political process and the congressional process.”

Berman’s most unusual expenditure was a banquet he sponsored for about 70 former members of “The Project Boys” street gang and their dates following the riots. The group, now renamed “The Wednesday Night Regulars,” meets weekly with Rose Castaneda, Berman’s chief district aide, to discuss problems they face and to work on community projects.

Berman said the youths had painted Pacoima Elementary School, cleaned up Whiteman Airport and Hansen Dam, transported items to homeless shelters, visited veterans and monitored elementary school students. Berman called the banquet a “thank you.”

Waxman, who cruised to victory in a heavily Democratic Westside district that extends into the south Valley, had spent $498,396 as of Oct. 14--only 7.2% directly courting voters. He said last week that he later invested $150,000 in persuasion mail to tout his environmental, health and abortion rights record to the many voters in the 29th District that he had not previously represented.

Waxman’s Republican opponent, attorney Mark A. Robbins, spent $97,524 as of Oct. 14. Waxman won 62% of the vote, Robbins only 25%. Three candidates from other parties took the rest.

Waxman gave away more than half his funds to other Democratic candidates and causes. He also spent $89,242 on fund-raising and $87,584 on overhead, including $34,791 on travel. The campaign paid $3,699 for air fare to Israel and $753 for lodging at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem for Waxman and his wife to attend a conference of Jewish parliamentarians in 1991.

“I have constituents who are interested in what’s going in Israel and it gives me an opportunity to talk about current political activities in Israel, to see first-hand the rescue of Ethiopian Jews and to be involved with Jewish parliamentarians, not only from the United States but from around the world,” Waxman said.

“Both of us have been involved in issues of Soviet Jewry, Ethiopian Jewry and Israel. We both have gone back to Los Angeles and given speeches on the subject.”

Staff researchers Murielle Gamache, Charlotte Huff and Michael Cheek contributed to this story.

Campaign Costs

Spending by the five victorious San Fernando Valley-area congressional candidates covers the period between Jan. 1, 1991, and Oct. 14, 1992.

SPENDING BY CONTESTED INCUMBENTS

Beilenson % of Total Moorhead % of Total Overhead $127,788 32.8 $91,268 17.5 Fund raising $80,031 20.5 $61,213 11.7 Polling 0 0.0 $26,250 5.0 Advertising* $90,142 23.1 $205,767 39.4 Other campaign spending** $50,269 12.9 $85,779 16.4 Donations $35,370 9.1 $36,434 7.0 Unitemized $6,131 1.6 $15,547 3.0 Total spending $389,731 100.0 $522,258 100.0

SPENDING BY SAFE INCUMBENTS

Berman % of Total Waxman % of Total Overhead $83,333 14.5% $87,584 17.6 Fund raising $127,560 22.2 $89,242 17.9 Polling 0 0.0 0 0.0 Advertising* $15,065 2.6 $6,750 1.4 Other campaign spending** $26,444 4.6 $11,001 2.2 Donations $305,371 53.1 $296,303 59.4 Unitemized $17,181 3.0 $7,517 1.5 Total spending $574,954 100.0 $498,397 100.0

SPENDING FOR AN OPEN SEAT

McKeon % of Total Overhead $101,783 23.8 Fund raising $26,765 6.3 Polling $23,693 5.5 Advertising* $247,122 57.8 Other campaign spending** $25,283 5.9 Donations 0 0.0 Unitemized $2,710 0.6 Total spending $427,356 100.0

* Includes persuasion mailings

** Includes constituent gifts and entertainment

Source: Times analysis of campaign spending records filed with the Federal Election Commission