Democratic Congressmen Outspend Foes : Politics: Margin is less than in previous years. And many incumbents do not have an overwhelming cash edge as final weeks of the campaign begin.

Vulnerable Democratic incumbents have outspent their challengers in congressional races across the country, but by less than in previous years, and many do not enjoy an overwhelming cash advantage as they enter the final weeks of the campaign, a Times analysis indicates.

Democratic strategists have been hoping--and Republicans have been fearing--that incumbents could mount a heavy, last-minute spending blitz to knock down potential Republican challengers, despite polls showing the election tilting strongly toward the GOP. But campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission this week and analyzed by The Times cast doubt on that strategy in many competitive districts.

Through Sept. 30, Democratic incumbents had outspent their Republican challengers but in most races the advantage is not huge.

The Times analyzed FEC reports from 74 candidates in highly competitive races--involving 25 seats held by Democrats and 12 held by Republicans. The analysis indicates that, while some Democratic incumbents have an apparently insurmountable money advantage, others are in far more vulnerable positions. The races were among those considered most competitive by strategists from both parties.

To take control of the House, the Republicans must win 40 seats more than they have now. They would need to win almost all of the seats they now hold, take the vast majority of the 31 seats in which Democratic members of Congress have decided not to run and knock off a number of Democratic incumbents as well. Republicans have targeted several dozen Democratic incumbents.

In the races analyzed, Democratic incumbents had spent an average of $492,519 from January, 1993, through the end of September, while their GOP challengers had spent $348,173. In eight races, the Republican challenger had outspent the incumbent--the most striking example being that of Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills), who has been outspent by more than a 3-1 margin by GOP opponent Rich Sybert.

For the most part, the Democrats entered the stretch run with a substantial advantage in cash on hand--an average of $211,032 remaining versus $122,883 for challengers. But in only a handful of these competitive races are the incumbents clearly in a position to outgun their challengers.

The analysis looked only at spending by the candidates and could not evaluate another potential factor--independent expenditures by groups seeking to influence the races. In some races, that spending can be considerable. Most large outside spending campaigns this year are being conducted by conservative groups, such as the National Rifle Assn. or backers of term limits and are aimed at defeating Democrats.

Republicans have considerably fewer vulnerable seats to defend and their incumbents have a noticeably larger financial edge over their challengers than do Democratic incumbents. On average, Republican incumbents have spent nearly 60% more than their challengers, although even that sum is less than the roughly 2-1 advantage that incumbents have enjoyed in past elections.

Money, of course, does not mean everything in politics. But it is a powerfully important factor, particularly for challengers who usually must build name recognition and persuade voters that they are credible alternatives to incumbents.

The most ready sources of funds are interest groups that contribute to congressional campaigns in hopes of improving their access to the policy debate. Those groups prefer to give their money to incumbents rather than taking chances on unknown challengers. For instance, although many business groups tend to ally with Republicans ideologically, they often give money to the Democrats who control Congress and who therefore control the committees and subcommittees in which crucial legislative decisions are made.

For those reasons, incumbents generally have been able to vastly outspend their opponents--a chief reason why--despite several years of anti-incumbent sentiment--most incumbents are likely to win reelection.

Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) have met several times with representatives of leading political action committees to press them to contribute more to GOP candidates this year, leading to complaints of heavy-handedness--against Gingrich, in particular.

At least through the end of September, the period covered by the FEC reports, however, that effort did not appear to have paid off.

The 25 Democratic incumbents whose reports were analyzed collected an average of $325,060 from PACs. Their Republican opponents had collected an average of $55,806.

Republican incumbents did not fare as well with PACs. The 12 Republican lawmakers collected an average of $134,551 from PACs. Democratic chalengers had collected an average of $86,021.

The analysis also found that most Democratic incumbents who have been outspent are in much better shape for the final stretch because they have stockpiled considerably more money than their opponents. But Beilenson, whose district covers the northwestern part of the San Fernando Valley and part of Ventura County, is a notable exception.

Beilenson had spent only $184,680 through Sept. 30. His opponent Sybert had spent $601,141. Considered the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent in California this year, Beilenson is also one of the few incumbents who refuses to take money from PACs, a move that severely limits his fund raising. Going into the final weeks, he and Sybert had roughly equal amounts of cash on hand--just over $200,000 each.

Other Democratic incumbents who have been outspent so far include Reps. George (Buddy) Darden and Don Johnson in Georgia, Neal Smith in Iowa, Ted Strickland in Ohio, Karen Shepherd in Utah, Leslie L. Byrne in Virginia and Jay Inslee in Washington. All are considered highly vulnerable, although Darden has a war chest for the final weeks that is $250,250 more than his opponent’s. Smith and Shepherd also have money advantages of more than $100,000 over their opponents.

At the other extreme is the case of Connecticut Rep. Sam Gejdenson, another of the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents. Gejdenson led his party’s efforts on campaign finance reform this year but that does not appear to have slowed his fund-raising efforts.

Through September, he had raised more than $1 million, including $363,313 from PACs, and had outspent his opponent, Edward W. Munster, by a margin of more than 4 to 1. Munster had raised only $265,601 and has hoarded much of that for the final few weeks of the campaign, hoping to match Gejdenson’s spending for the last weeks of the campaign.

Coming in right behind Gejdenson in terms of outspending opponents is another vulnerable California Democrat, Rep. Richard H. Lehman (D-North Fork). Lehman had spent $720,581, compared to only $154,348 by his Republican opponent, George P. Radanovich, in the district that covers much of the Central Valley.

Researchers Murielle Gamache and Gary Feld contributed to this story.