In Homestretch, Clinton Topped Bush in Fund-Raising : Campaign: Study finds big contributions from finance, entertainment sectors gave money edge to Democratic candidate for first time in generation.

Contributions from the finance, entertainment and real estate industries were primarily responsible for helping then-Democratic candidate Bill Clinton raise more money than incumbent President George Bush during the crucial last months of the presidential campaign, a new study has found.

Between July 1 and Dec. 31 of last year, Clinton and the Democratic National Committee raised about $69 million, compared to $49 million for Bush and the Republican National Committee, according to Federal Election Commission records analyzed by Common Cause, the nonpartisan watchdog group.

The contributions marked the first time in a generation that a Democratic presidential candidate raised more money than his Republican foe and reflected both Bush’s political weakness and the effect of the recession in drying up some of Bush’s favored Sun Belt sources of cash.

Clinton received $3.7 million from several major unions, led by the country’s two major teachers’ unions and the unions representing steelworkers, communications workers and auto workers. But companies and executives of major industries contributed far more--nearly $14 million.

The largest single block of contributions came from brokers, traders, bankers and others in the financial services industry, who collectively contributed more than $3 million. One of the largest contributors in that group was Robert E. Rubin, then chairman of Goldman, Sachs & Co. and now the head of Clinton’s National Economic Council, who gave $105,000.

Entertainment industry figures--including Californians David Geffen, a recording producer who gave $120,000; MCA Chairman Lew R. Wasserman, who gave $110,000, and Frederick W. Field of Interscope Inc., who gave $88,250--came in second, collectively contributing just under $1.7 million.

Those large contributions came in the form of so-called “soft money”--donations that fall outside federal limitations because they are technically spent by the parties for party building and get-out-the-vote activities and not on behalf of specific candidates. They allow individuals to make unlimited contributions and allow direct donations from corporations, which otherwise are forbidden to contribute to campaigns.

Both parties have come to rely on soft money for a growing share of the funds they raise. In the last election cycle, nearly one-third of the money that Clinton and the Democratic National Committee raised and slightly more than one-quarter of the Bush and Republican National Committee funds were from soft money donations.

But the campaign contribution totals substantially understate the amounts that large donors gave because they include only money donated directly to the presidential candidates or the national parties themselves, not the sums sent to Senate and House candidates and state party committees.

The dependence of both parties on soft money underlines one of the key problems facing reformers pushing for changes in campaign finance laws this year. Although public attention has focused mainly on contributions from political action committees, soft-money donations, because they are unlimited, provide a much more potent route through which interest groups can influence the political process.

Neither party is eager to close off the money spigot. Congress passed a bill last year that would have placed some limits on soft-money donations but Bush vetoed it. As a candidate, Clinton suggested tougher limits on campaign donations and he has promised to push for campaign reform.

In addition to the traditionally Democratic entertainment industry, Clinton also received substantial amounts from firms and individuals in the communications, energy and computer hardware and software industries, the study showed. In the software industry, Peter and Eileen Norton of Santa Monica provided the largest amounts--$210,000, placing them on the list of the top five donors.

The study did not analyze which industries contributed most to the GOP. But the list of individual contributions showed that some corporations bet on both sides. Atlantic Richfield Co., for example, was the largest single corporate donor to Clinton and the Democratic committee, giving them $171,573. But the company gave $304,641 to the Republicans. Others that contributed heavily to both sides included tobacco giants RJR Nabisco and Philip Morris, Sony Corp., and Revlon Group Inc.