Republicans Already Weighing Campaigns Against Beilenson

CHOMPING AT THE BIT--Sensing new-found vulnerability, the jockeying is already beginning among Republicans to oppose Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills) in 1994.

Beilenson, who won a surprisingly decisive victory last November in a newly drawn and more conservative district, said this week that he intends to seek a 10th term next year.

Often underestimated in the past, he has moved quickly to cement his ties with his GOP-leaning 24th District that extends from Sherman Oaks through the San Fernando Valley out to Malibu and up to Thousand Oaks in Ventura County.

Nevertheless,Bill Spillane,a former fighter pilot from Thousand Oaks and an also-ran in last year’s Republican primary, and Robert K. Hammer, an investment banker, GOP activist and Vietnam veteran from Newbury Park who has never run for public office, both say they are considering bids for their party’s nomination. Both predicted that Beilenson would be far more vulnerable next year because Democrat Bill Clinton gave him a boost last year but is likely to pull him down next year.

Beilenson has supported President Clinton’s economic plan--which the Republicans say is widely unpopular in the district--and the President’s party traditionally loses ground in midterm elections.

“Congress people get swept along with tides, and Beilenson enjoyed a high tide last November and he can expect a low tide next November,” Spillane said. “He’s subject to the vagaries of fate.”

Spillane, who invested more than $200,000 of his own money to finish third in 1992, sounds ready for another jump into the ring. “There’s every likelihood that I’m running,” he said. “Any Republican who’s not a career legislator and wins the primary will beat him.”

Beilenson rolled over then-Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) last year.

Hammer was more circumspect about his prospective candidacy: “It’s something that’s being considered.”

Beilenson, while impressed with Spillane’s poetic turn of phrase, said he saw no reason to respond to his would-be adversaries at this early date. “When the time comes, of course, I’ll be happy to talk issues or personality or anything anyone wants,” the lawmaker said.

“Obviously, it’s a difficult district and I’m sure a number of Republicans will be looking to run. They have to prove themselves in their own primary first.” At that point, he said, “I’ll be available.”

*

FULL DISCLOSURE--Valley area lawmakers emerged largely unscathed in a new national survey of how thoroughly congressional candidates identified their individual campaign contributors in the last election cycle.

The Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based watchdog group that promotes campaign finance reform, assessed how frequently candidates reported the name, address, occupation and employer of individual donors who gave over $200 on their public campaign reports--as required by federal election law.

“Identification of donors by occupation and employer can indicate whether a significant portion of a candidate’s contributions comes from a particular industry or other economic interests,” the center said.

Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills) failed to fully identify $55,744 in contributions from 11.7% of his individual donors; Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Glendale), $2,800, or 7.6%; Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), $12,800, or 6.7%; Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), $18,650, or 6.6%, and Rep. Howard P. (Buck) McKeon,$3,050, or 1.9%.

In contrast, the 10 top non-identifiers in the House did not fully account for $96,000 or more; on a percentage basis, the top 10 ranged from 46.3% to 94.1%.

In the Valley, Beilenson bore the heaviest burden since he raised all of his $739,415 from individuals while the other lawmakers took in large sums from political action committees--which must also be identified but were not included in the study.

McKeon, on the other hand, had the easiest time because he loaned his campaign a significant portion of the $457,650 he raised.

“Whoever is working on fund-raising ordinarily calls back people if they don’t have the proper information from them,” Beilenson said when informed of the survey’s findings.

“I did not know we had any people who were not properly identified or what the percentage was. We had a much larger number of contributors last year. I think it’s not so bad. It’s better than having easily identifiable PAC contributions.”

This column was reported by Alan C. Miller in Washington.