New Tactics Generate Record Campaign Cash : Politics: ’96 presidential hopefuls amassed nearly twice as much as any other race. Parties offer foreign trade mission spots and high-level briefings.

Despite repeated pledges by both Democrats and Republicans to curb the influence of money in politics, the competition for campaign cash continues to escalate at an unprecedented pace and with aggressive new tactics. Indeed, the 1996 presidential contenders already have raised nearly twice as much at this stage of the campaign as in any previous race.

More than a year before the 1996 election, President Clinton and his nine would-be GOP foes have reported raising a total of $60 million. In contrast, at this same juncture in 1987, the 13 candidates from both parties vying to succeed Ronald Reagan had reported a total of $35.8 million in contributions.

At this point in 1991, when then-President George Bush was viewed as a heavy reelection favorite and few Democrats had yet entered the race, reported contributions to the various campaigns amounted to less than $800,000.

As the current crop of contenders scrambles for money, the two political parties have done their part to fuel the giving by openly offering prospective contributors new inducements, including spots on foreign trade missions and private briefings by top government officials.

The money race has been spurred by such candidates as Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas, who early this year made his ability to raise vast sums quickly a major selling point to GOP voters and forced other candidates to try to match his campaign treasury.

The compression of the primary calendar in early 1996--more than 60% of each party’s convention delegates will be chosen by late March--is also compelling presidential candidates to raise multiple millions before the first vote is cast.

In addition, Republicans in Congress have moved to capitalize on their new majority status by pushing lobbyists and political action committees to get on board fast. A black-tie dinner earlier this year celebrating the GOP’s control of the House and Senate brought in $11 million; Republican Party Chairman Haley Barbour hailed it as “the most money ever raised in any single fund-raising event in American history.”

Critics contend that the stepped-up fund raising feeds the public’s doubts that the views of ordinary citizens can be heard over the pleadings of big-dollar interests. Although Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) vowed in June to create a panel to propose reforms in the campaign finance system, their high-profile New Hampshire handshake has so far produced little more than partisan sniping.

Ross Perot, meanwhile, plans to make Washington’s failure to rein in the money game a central element of a planned three-day meeting in Dallas starting Friday that could launch a new independent bid by him for the White House. The members of United We Stand, America, Inc., his organization--the core of potential supporters of an independent candidacy--are growing increasingly disillusioned with what they see as the cynicism of leaders of both parties who pledge reform but fail to deliver, he said in an interview.

“It’s better never to promise people things than to make a promise and not keep it,” Perot said, while remaining noncommittal on his plans for 1996. “Otherwise people get their hopes up and they get disappointed.”

Some analysts say the money chase has reached new lows in the brazen links between campaign donations and political access, if not governmental benefits.

“It’s a good thing the statue of Abe Lincoln is so heavy or they’d sell that,” said Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity.

“We’ve never seen the level of audacity and the garishness and the matter-of-factness [in fund-raising appeals]. It’s a metaphor for Washington these days--awash in money and with no judgment,” Lewis said.

But Thomas E. Mann, head of governmental studies at the Brookings Institution, said the public does not appear as outraged as some commentators about the prominence of money in the political process.

“Most Americans are represented by those special interests and we have a First Amendment and a tradition of free speech and a very vibrant private sector and a very big government,” Mann said. “All the participants move to exploit all the opportunities that exist.”

In any case, with rare exceptions, the ability to harness large sums of money is increasingly essential for White House hopefuls.

As of June 30, Clinton’s campaign reported receiving $10 million, while Gramm had raised $17 million and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) nearly $13.9 million. Although Gramm’s fund raising has weakened recently, he took in a record $4.1-million at a single event in Dallas on the eve of declaring his candidacy in February. That event set the pace and tone of the money race as other candidates scrambled to prove that they too were legitimate players based on their fund-raising abilities.

Clinton, perceived as vulnerable next year, has begun his fund raising unusually early for an incumbent, partly in an effort to discourage a potentially costly and divisive primary challenge.

Spending in presidential primaries is capped under a system of partial matching public financing. The maximum, which rises every four years, will be about $37 million in 1996; it was about $33 million in 1992 and $27.8 million in 1988. The general election campaigns for major party nominees are bankrolled entirely through public funds.

The breakneck fund-raising pace is being driven in no small measure by the significantly accelerated political calendar.

By mid-March, 30 states will have held their primaries and caucuses. And the delegate-rich California primary is the last Tuesday in March.

In addition, the current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls may be the most prolific campaign money-raising crew ever to seek the White House.

Dole is the powerful Senate leader and a former presidential contender, with a list of past contributors that aides say includes more than 500,000 names.

Gramm, who long had shown his prowess as a fund-raiser, further sharpened his skills and broadened his contacts while serving as chairman of the Republican National Senatorial Committee from 1991 to 1994.

California Gov. Pete Wilson has a strong, proven fund-raising base among thousands of past supporters, as well as industrial, agricultural, banking and real estate interests in the Golden State.

In addition to the candidates, the Democratic and Republican parties raise millions of dollars, including so-called soft money which, unlike other federal contributions, is not subject to donor limits and can include money from corporations and labor unions. These funds can be used for such “party-building” purposes as political organizing through phone banks, door-to-door canvassing and generic party advertisements.

The high stakes have led to various incentives. A recent Democratic pitch offered those who contribute $100,000 two meals each with Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, “impromptu” meetings with Administration officials, a slot on a foreign trade mission and a specific Democratic National Committee staff member to assist them with “personal requests.”

Faced with a furor following disclosure of this offer, Clinton ordered the party to put the program on hold while it devises a pitch with a less offensive tone.

For its part, the Republican National Committee is hawking a package deal of meetings with top party senators and House members, a get-together with the President and vice president on Inauguration Day in 1997 (if they are Republicans), and a place on a GOP-sponsored trade mission for a relative bargain--a $20,000 family membership to the Eagles Club.

Both parties have long awarded big givers special entree to the President or a presidential nominee. And such benefits as ambassadorships routinely have gone to major political benefactors. But close observers of this process say that the recent inclusion of trade missions represents an escalation.

“It is more open, more obvious and more blatant,” said Ellen Miller, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks federal campaign funds. “It’s a ratcheting up of the goodies offered. . . . We’re offering more democracy to the rich.”

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have raised some eyebrows with their tactics to amass campaign stockpiles in a bid to solidify their majorities next November.

Under the leadership of Rep. Bill Paxon (R-N.Y.), the National Republican Congressional Committee has assembled a report ranking every PAC as either “friendly,” “neutral” or “unfriendly” to GOP interests in a bid to persuade business interests to jettison their previous support for Democrats. Amid strenuous objections, Paxon dropped another project to list lobbyists’ party affiliations.

Some lobbyists were taken aback to receive a recent letter from House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) on behalf of freshman Rep. Randy Tate (R-Wash.). DeLay noted the amount that each of the lobbyists’ PACs had given to the Democratic incumbent who Tate defeated and told the donors: “Your immediate support for Randy Tate is personally important to me and the House Republican leadership team.”

Partisans of both parties say the GOP is simply building upon a process honed by former Rep. Tony Coelho of California in the early 1980s when he headed the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Coelho encouraged House Democratic leaders to press business PACs to donate by linking access to contributions.

The numbers reflect the impact of such efforts. In 1994, the average House winner spent $525,883--double the 1982 sum, according to Common Cause, a government reform group. In the Senate, the increase has been even more dramatic; the average victor spent $4.6 million in 1994, a 120% jump from 1982.

“The money chase has gotten out of hand,” said Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity. “What we’re seeing is an inordinate emphasis on the ability to raise money to the exclusion of other pertinent qualities of leadership.”

Times staff writer Dwight Morris and librarian Pat Welch contributed to this story.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Cash Totals

Total campaign funds for the major candidates at this point in:

1995: $60 million

1991: $800,000

1987: $35.8 million

Source: Federal Election Commission