More Candidates Elect to Arm War Chests With Own Money

Steve Forbes and Ross Perot are the most well-known examples, but political hopefuls increasingly are turning to their own wallets for the funds to run a campaign.

During the 1993-94 election cycle, 131 congressional candidates kicked in at least $100,000 of their own money, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That number is more than double the 1985-86 figure, when 64 candidates spent more than $100,000 in personal funds. And the total raised from self-financing more than tripled, from nearly $32 million in 1985-86 to nearly $109 million in 1993-94.

Once thought to be solely a Republican technique, self-financing is occurring just as often among Democrats.

Candidates, prohibited by law to accept individual contributions over $1,000, are allowed to spend an unlimited amount of their own funds, either in the form of gifts or loans to the campaign.

Joshua Goldstein, research director at the center, says that some voters may favor candidates for using their own money, as opposed to accepting funds from special-interest groups. “Many self-financed candidates are wearing it as a badge of honor,” he said.

But, he added, just because they are using their own money doesn’t mean they won’t get it back.

Most candidates lend the money to their campaigns. It often takes a losing candidate years to pay off the debt. But winners, particularly incumbents, are in a good position to repay themselves. The loans can be paid off via soft money they collect from special-interest groups, individuals and political action committees once in office.

In the first six months of 1995, according to the center, seven senators and 11 House members were repaid $50,000 or more for personal money lent to their campaigns. Leading the pack were Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who brought in $439,782, and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who recouped $400,000.

It is too early to determine the number of congressional hopefuls who will be footing their bills this election year, but there are several Senate candidates using personal funds to run their campaigns.

Elliot Close, a South Carolina textile magnate and likely Democratic candidate, said he plans to spend “whatever it takes”--perhaps up to $1.5 million--to finance his campaign against incumbent Republican Strom Thurmond.

In Georgia, the top candidates vying to replace retiring Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn are a showcase for the state’s rich and powerful. In the running for the GOP nomination are state Sen. Clint M. Day, a real estate investor and son of former Days Inn owner Cecil B. Day Sr.; Guy Millner, who pumped $1.7 million into an unsuccessful 1994 bid for governor; and former state Sen. Johnny Isakson, president of a realty company whose net worth reportedly tops $3 million and who spent more than $200,000 of his own money on a failed gubernatorial run in 1990. Isakson has since had a change of heart, challenging his opponents to limit their personal campaign loans to 25% of their total donations.

“If we don’t voluntarily limit our personal spending in the primary, the Democrats and the media will devalue our party’s nomination as one going to the highest bidder and not the most qualified,” Isakson said. He has raised about $300,000 from outside donations, so following his own rule, he could lend his campaign $100,000.

*

But Day has said that he will kick in $500,000 or more of the anticipated $1.5 million-plus it will take to run his campaign. “The reality is, it takes money to run a campaign--for people to understand who you are,” he said.

This trend highlights the problem of big money dominating the political process in America, according to the center, which noted that the cost of elections will continue to climb.

“The current . . . system puts such a high premium on high-financed campaigns,” Goldstein said. “It seals the ordinary American out of the process.”

Day disagreed, suggesting that candidates without personal financial resources need to “get creative” in marketing their names and maneuvering into a position where they can raise money.

Despite its increasing popularity, self-funding does not appear to be a key to success. Perot and Forbes both failed in their presidential bids. And of the 93 House candidates who spent more than $100,000 of their own in 1994 races, only 15 were successful.