Out-of-State Funds Boost House Races

Milton J. Chamberlain, a retired patent attorney in Buffalo, Wyo., had never heard of Rep. James E. Rogan until the Glendale Republican gained national attention for his prosecution role in President Clinton’s impeachment trial last year.

“I was very impressed with him. I have the very strong feeling that he was doing what he thought was right . . . [and] he did a very professional job,” said Chamberlain. He wrote a $250 check to the Rogan campaign even before the congressman launched a national fund-raising drive that taps into just such sentiments to help pay for a tough reelection battle in the changing 27th District.

Nor has Esther L. Ritz of Milwaukee ever met former Rep. Jane Harman, who is trying to win back the South Bay 36th District seat she gave up to run for governor two years ago. But the octogenarian with a lifelong passion for politics donated $250 to Harman’s campaign after consulting with several groups she trusts.

“She’s a Democrat, and she’s a liberal, and when Jane Harman’s name turns up on a list, I pay attention,” Ritz said.

Rogan and Harman, contestants in two of the nation’s hottest congressional races this year, have been getting substantial proportions of their campaign treasuries from people who do not live in California, federal records show.

According to preliminary compilations of data reported to the Federal Election Commission, more than a third of the money from individuals who contributed $200 or more to Rogan’s campaign came from residents of another state, and out-of-state residents accounted for more than half of such contributions to Harman.

By contrast, 88% of large individual contributions to Rogan’s challenger, state Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) came from within California, as did 85% of those for Harman’s opponent, incumbent Rep. Steven T. Kuykendall (R-Rancho Palos Verdes).

With some notable exceptions (including Kuykendall), contributions from individuals, not political action committees, are the biggest source of funds for most congressional campaigns, according to Dwight Morris, whose Campaign Study Group analyzes contributions for The Times and other news organizations.

“PACs are an important source of funds, particularly in close races, but the individual donors are still the ones raising the money that puts people in Congress,” Morris said.

In such contribution-rich states as New York and California, candidates typically find their biggest individual donors relatively close to home, according to several nonpartisan or watchdog organizations that keep tabs on campaign financing.

For example, in two other contested Southern California congressional races--San Diego’s 49th District, where Republican Rep. Brian P. Bilbray is facing a strong challenge from Democrat Susan Davis--and Long Beach’s 38th District--the bulk of the large, individual donations to all four major-party candidates were coming from California residents.

Rogan-Schiff Race Is Costliest

In fact, the 38th District’s incumbent, Republican Rep. Steve Horn, advocates legislation restricting nonlocal contributions to less than 50% of a candidate’s total take.

Not quite 8% of the money Horn has raised from individuals has come from outside California; Democratic challenger Gerrie Schipske’s individual donors accounted for less than 18% of such contributions.

But that is not the case with the race in the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena area’s 27th District, by far the nation’s costliest House contest this year.

Incumbent Rogan had raised more than $3.8 million by the end of March, and Schiff had collected almost $1.9 million--more than any other House challenger in the country. In addition to political action committee funds and donations from Californians, Rogan has pulled in contributions, small and large, from around the country, based in large part on his impeachment trial role.

“Maybe you heard . . . ‘I lost.’ And Bill Clinton got his first victory against the House Impeachment Managers,” began a letter in Rogan’s national direct-mail fund-raising drive.

Aimed at conservatives and those who favored impeachment, the letter referred to Rogan’s two-point blanket-primary finish behind Schiff in a formerly conservative Republican district that is increasingly voting Democratic.

“The attacks on me are intense and unrelenting,” the letter continues, then urges, “Will you join me in the fight to keep my congressional seat?”

Joseph W. Cagle Jr. of Southern Pines, N.C., a former hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, said he has answered Rogan’s letters, with $925, because he thought Rogan did a good job on the impeachment trial and because “I like his conservative views.”

“He’s an outstanding man,” Cagle added.

Florida Donor Just Dislikes Clinton

Horace “Rusty” Jacobs III of Lakeland, Fla., said he contributed $250 to Rogan because he dislikes Clinton. The lifelong conservative Republican and retired department store manager said he wants to help Republicans who led the impeachment and now are targeted by Democrats for defeat.

Rogan also continues to stump for cash closer to home. A $500-per-person reception featuring Rogan and Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who voted against impeachment, at the Bel-Air home of Noel Irwin Hentschel and her husband, Gordon Hentschel, last month drew about 35 people from the Los Angeles area.

On May 30, the couple will host another Rogan fund-raiser, this time featuring Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). McCain also will be helping raise money for Kuykendall during the same trip to California.

Rogan campaign director Jason Roe said the large numbers of individual contributors will insulate his boss “from feeling pressure from any one of them.”

Schiff, however, says it is unseemly for Rogan to tap out-of-state conservatives whose views do not match those of his constituents.

“I think it would be very disturbing if Jim Rogan succeeded in getting hard-right contributors from Georgia and Texas and Alabama to decide who ought to represent Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena,” Schiff said.

He acknowledged, however, that the high cost of campaigning has led him, too, to seek out-of-state money. Schiff is getting a lot of help from national Democratic leaders, including an upcoming fund-raising reception in Washington late next month featuring Clinton.

When Harman first ran for Congress in 1992, she spent $1.7 million to win the moderate, Republican-leaning 36th District, which runs from Venice to Los Angeles Harbor. Of that, $1.4 million came from her personal wealth, and most of the rest came from out-of-state contributors, many of whom had known her from her years in Washington, including a stint as deputy secretary to President Jimmy Carter’s Cabinet.

Although she has not yet kicked in any of her own cash this time around, she is again drawing heavily on longtime friends and family members on the East Coast, records show. And many of Harman’s out-of-state supporters see nothing wrong with helping to influence an election on the opposite coast.

“I think it is important to support good candidates wherever they are,” said Susan Patricof of New York City, who has known Harman and her husband, Sidney, for a long time. She and her husband, venture capitalist Alan J. Patricof, gave $1,000 each.

“The decisions that are made in Congress impact all of us,” Patricof said.

The Harman campaign, however, seems sensitive on the subject. Shortly before the latest finance reports were due, it issued a statement claiming that it had contributions from 4,334 individuals, “71% of whom are from California.”

Those were mostly small contributions--some as little as $5 or $10--that candidates are not required to itemize, said Roy Behr, Harman’s campaign consultant. He acknowledged that many of her initial large contributions, of up to $1,000 per person in the primary election, came from out of state but predicted that may change as fund-raising continues.

Behr said Harman’s out-of-state contributions are mostly from friends or from EMILY’s List (“Early Money Is Like Yeast--it makes the dough rise”), a donor network that raises money for Democratic women favoring abortion rights in House, Senate and governor’s races.

He also took a swipe at Kuykendall, who by the March reporting period had received 60% of his campaign chest from political action committees Harman got 23% of her funds from such committees.

Information about candidates’ campaign finances is available from the Federal Election Commission and through several organizations, including Morris,’ that provide nonpartisan analyses of the commission data.

The reports have their limitations, including the time it takes for the commission to enter all the data electronically. In general, detailed information on House races in California is currently available only through mid-February, although total amounts raised and spent are current through March 31, the end of the last campaign finance reporting period.

Additionally, analyses of individual donors include only those who give at least $200 because federal law does not require campaigns to itemize smaller donations.

Nonetheless, the reports provide an important window into a candidate’s sources of financial support. And, from image-conscious politicians to government watchdog groups, they stir debate over the significance of a donation’s origins.

Voters need to be aware of who is paying for a campaign and whether the donations might lead an elected official to act contrary to the wishes or best interests of the people who put him or her in office, watchdog groups say.

“In an ideal situation in a democracy, there is no difference between [an officeholder’s] real constituents and the cash constituents,” said Larry Makinson, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, which keeps tabs on campaign financing.