They Wanted Congress to See Telecom Their Way

The long-awaited congressional vote on a mammoth telecommunications bill will end, at least for the moment, a long and bitter fight among some of America’s most powerful--and generous--special interests.

Billions of dollars are at stake as senators and House members overhaul the rules governing competition in the telephone, television and related businesses. For years now, companies ranging from giant AT&T; to Delaware’s Diamond State Telephone Co. have been making themselves heard--and forking over campaign contributions that might give their position just a little more weight.

A computer-assisted study by The Times shows that 100 telecommunications companies and their executives have showered House and Senate candidates with $40.7 million in campaign contributions in the last five years.

Charles Lewis, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity, calls the amount of money contributed by the telecommunications industry “astounding.” He estimates that it rivals the campaign contributions of the huge health-care industry, which recently waged its own protracted battle in Congress over health-care reform.

“The bottom line is that [telecommunications companies] don’t want to be regulated, and if they see an opening where that can occur, they go after it,” Lewis said.

Campaign contributions cannot buy the support of members of Congress, Lewis said, but they can buy the next best thing--access to their offices.

“They are all trying to make sure they have more access [to Congress] than others . . ,” he said. “The hurricane force of all this money means that they usually get it, more often than not.”

Of the $40.7 million the telecommunications industry contributed to all congressional candidates in the 1990s, nearly $5 million went to the senators and House members serving on the telecommunications conference committee, which was charged with reconciling different House and Senate versions of the telecom legislation and producing the compromise measure that will be considered today.

The donors include the traditional telecommunications companies such as AT&T;, the television networks and cable television operators. The list also includes some less obvious contributors, such as Hollywood studios and newspaper publishers.

*

The Times’ review of campaign spending records focused on 100 companies and associations with an interest in the legislation. The Times was able to identify the contributions not only of the companies’ political action committees, or PACs, but also of the corporate officers who gave individually to congressional candidates.

Some companies that once shunned PACs have stepped up their efforts as telecommunications reform has neared a climax on Capitol Hill.

“Historically, MCI hasn’t been much of a player,” said Laurence Harris, the company’s senior vice president for public policy. But in the current climate, Harris vowed, “MCI is going to be a player. We are not interested in becoming the NRA [National Rifle Assn.] of lobbying, but we are going to have a presence.” The company gave $311,120 in the last five years.

*

Perhaps no segment of the telecommunications industry has been more successful at developing a “presence” in Congress than the local telephone companies. Led by the nation’s largest local phone company, GTE Corp., and the seven regional Bells, local carriers and their subsidiaries gave more than $10 million during the period, even as they were laying off more than 75,000 workers.

Gary R. Lytle, chairman of Ameritech Corp.’s political action committee, says workers are contributing more than ever to the PAC.

“Employees see that our ability to compete and offer more choice to consumers is related to our ability to change the laws” that govern the industry, Lytle said. Ameritech’s PAC contributed $926,290 to candidates during the last five years.

Critics say the public interest is submerged by such massive giving, since the money buys access to politicians that ordinary voters can’t hope to match. That is especially true in the telecommunications industry, which, in addition to its deep pockets, is able to use its vast network of employees to wield its political clout in statehouses and election booths.

Nearly $1 million in individual and PAC contributions to members of Congress over the last five years was credited with helping Ameritech last year come close to carving out a lucrative legislative exemption protecting its foray into the $10-billion-a-year electronic security industry.

Throughout a flurry of tough negotiations that forced others to accept compromises, the Chicago-based Baby Bell had managed to insert and protect a provision in the telecommunications bill that would have allowed the company to keep acquiring electronic burglar alarm firms even though the six other regional Bells were barred from such purchases for five years.

The provision was removed at the last minute after the burglar alarm industry mounted a massive lobbying campaign and Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) strenuously objected to the exemption as “unfair” catering to “special interests.”

*

“There is no question that Ameritech is a major presence in their region and that a combination of their large presence as well as their ability to provide financial support to members of Congress certainly helped them get people’s attention,” said Bill Signer, a veteran Washington lobbyist who represented the National Burglar and Fire Alarm Assn. in its successful battle to excise the special exemption for Ameritech.

Hollings, like most members of Congress, makes no apologies for soliciting money from the corporations that have a stake in his legislative agenda.

“I’m the Fritz who takes PAC money,” he boasted while running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984 against Walter F. Mondale. Both go by the nickname “Fritz.”

A Capitol Hill aide close to Hollings, whose $342,843 in PAC and individual contributions made him the second-largest recipient of such funds among telecom oversight committee members, said the lawmaker is not beholden to companies or individuals just because they have financially supported him.

If a voter and a lobbyist show up at the senator’s door at the same time, the aide said, Hollings “is just as likely to speak to the voter as the person who gave him $10,000. I think it’s his view that [by contributing] you are making it possible for a guy who cares about public policy to run and make the hard decisions for the country.”

Rep. Jack Fields (R-Texas), chairman of the House telecommunications subcommittee and the No. 1 recipient of campaign funds from telecommunications interests during the last five years, said the contributions have had no impact on his policy decisions.

“A PAC is nothing more than a collection of individuals who legally get together to contribute to a campaign,” Fields said. He said his regulatory philosophy--”I trust the marketplace rather than the government”--had nothing to do with his contributors.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Big Money

The 10 biggest contributors among telecommunications interests to congressional candidates from 1990 through 1995:

*--*

Rank Contributor Amount 1 American Telephone & Telegraph Co. PAC $4,893,850 2 General Electric Co. PAC 3,998,880 3 Time Warner Inc. PAC 2,780,168 4 National Cable Television Assn. PAC 1,872,824 5 Aflac Inc. PAC 1,819,746 6 GTE Corp. PAC 1,714,527 7 National Assn. of Broadcasters TV and Radio PAC 1,473,810 8 US West Inc. PAC 1,134,215 9 Bellsouth Telecommunications Inc. Federal PAC 1,038,357 10 Westinghouse Electric Corp. Employees Political 1,013,182 Participation Program

*--*

The 10 biggest recipients of campaign contributions from telecommunications interests among Senate and House members on the telecommunications bill conference committee

*--*

Rank Recipient Amount 1 Rep. Jack Fields (R-Texas) $443,090 2 Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) 342,843 3 Sen. Larry Pressler (R-S.D.) 278,161 4 Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) 223,554 5 Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202,650 6 Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) 169,474 7 Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) 167,775 8 Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas) 154,948 9 Rep. John Bryant (D-Texas) 150,494 10 Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) 150,131

*--*

Source: Federal Elections Commissions