Campbell Fund-Raising Doesn’t Match Rhetoric

Tom Campbell is a headstrong Republican congressman who stakes out iconoclastic positions seemingly not in his political self-interest. And in his bid for the U.S. Senate, he refuses political action committee money to promote an image of independence from special interests.

But an examination of his campaign donations over the years shows how difficult it can be to completely disengage from what Campbell calls “the potentially corrupting system.”

Although politicians commonly reap donations from like-minded supporters, Campbell’s record of fund-raising contrasts sharply with the populist tenor of his political speeches.

“I’m not bankrolled by the special interests,” Campbell told a crowd in kicking off his fall campaign to unseat Sen. Dianne Feinstein. “I haven’t accepted a dime of PAC money in this race. . . . And I’d like to rally you to join me in taking power back from the special interests who call the shots. . . .”

Still, Campbell has raised more than $13 million during his political career, mostly the traditional way: by dialing for dollars, mixing with well-heeled donors and accepting contributions from members of special-interest groups.

His largest sources of political donations are the banking and financial services industries, which have had a keen interest in him as a member of the House Banking and Financial Services Committee.

Lawyers and lobbyists also are among his most frequent contributors, according to a Times analysis of Federal Election Commission records. So are doctors and computer-industry executives.

His donor list is not surprising, given that Campbell represents a large swath of the Silicon Valley.

For example, a lawyer for investment bankers helped him draft legislation that would benefit Silicon Valley financial titans. And two physicians who had donated to his campaign successfully urged him to introduce a bill giving doctors more power in negotiations with HMOs.

Campbell, 48, a Stanford law professor and son of a federal judge, sees himself as a reformer trapped in the skin of a politician. He says he needs campaign cash to get reelected so he can push election reforms.

Campbell used to take money from PACs--more than $2.5 million from 1987 to 1995, according to FEC records.

He even briefly ran his own PAC, the Republican Majority Coalition. But several years ago, he decided to stop taking PAC money, and he has made bashing special-interest dollars a central theme of his campaign.

His opponent, Feinstein, is one of the most prolific fund-raisers in Congress--and during the current campaign, she has brought in more money than Campbell has from most special interests. As of Sept. 30, Campbell had receipts of $4.3 million, including almost $900,000 transferred from his House campaign committee. Feinstein had collected $9.2 million, including nearly $1.1 million from PACs.

So Campbell said he cannot afford to turn away cash from friendly members of key industries.

“What if you really believe in something . . . and people who agree with you contribute to your campaign? Do you refuse the money?” Campbell asked. “If I’m to run for the U.S. Senate and I’m not independently wealthy, then I either raise money or I’m unsuccessful.”

“If the criticism is, ‘OK, you can raise money, but don’t talk to us about being such a reformer,’ the rebuttal would be: ‘Why deny me the record that I’ve built? . . . I am a reformer.’ ”

Campbell was one of about a dozen House Republicans to buck their own leaders to force a vote on a campaign finance reform bill in 1998.

“He has been the real deal in fighting for reform,” said Donald J. Simon, general counsel of Common Cause. “He’s as genuine as they come on Capitol Hill.”

Still, Campbell spends a hefty portion of his time hustling campaign money. In June, about 20 San Diego business leaders attended a $1,000-a-plate ham-and-eggs breakfast hosted by Elizabeth Dole at the Hyatt Regency.

What’s the difference between collecting the maximum of $5,000 from a business PAC and gathering the maximum individual contribution of $1,000 from five executives in that business?

“There may be only a perception difference,” Campbell said. But, he added, perceptions are important because voters have become increasingly disillusioned about the influence of money in politics.

It’s tricky business to woo donations while warning against their potentially corrupting influence.

Campbell recently scratched a fund-raiser at the “home of a personal friend” to avoid “even the appearance of impropriety.”

The friend was the public relations director of CalPine Corp., which wants to build a controversial power plant in San Jose. Campbell threw his support behind the proposal, saying the state has a critical need for more electricity. Campbell said he bowed to criticism from power plant opponents in canceling the fund-raiser.

In keeping with his maverick image, Campbell gets mixed reviews from the Silicon Valley lobby, and scored lower than Feinstein on one industry report card.

However, Campbell did introduce a bill in 1997 to make it harder for investors to file class-action stock fraud lawsuits, siding with high-tech contributors who felt they were being bled by frivolous suits.

A coalition of 150 companies was pushing legislation that would stop the spread of shareholder lawsuits in state court, and limit them to federal court.

Benjamin M. Vandegrift, then a lawyer and lobbyist with Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro’s Washington, D.C., office, sought out a sponsor. “We talked to a lot of people, and Campbell was interested,” Vandegrift said. “I had known him for a long time. He was my Republican.”

Vandegrift said he drafted a bill for Campbell, who later introduced it with minor changes. Vandegrift said the idea for the law originated with Jack G. Levin, general counsel of Montgomery Securities, a San Francisco-based investment banking firm.

Campbell said that he remembers Vandegrift being involved in the issue but that he drafted the bill with help from a Stanford colleague. “It’s been several years, and I could have a memory block,” he said.

Pillsbury associates have contributed at least $33,100 to Campbell’s campaigns over his 13-year political career, records show. Montgomery Securities employees have contributed at least $54,150 to Campbell’s campaigns.

“I remember meeting with [Montgomery Securities co-founder] Thom Weisel, who was kind enough to bring together a group for a lunch,” Campbell said.

Records show that Weisel, Levin and a dozen other Montgomery Securities executives wrote checks totaling $14,000 for Campbell’s reelection campaign on June 1, 1998--two weeks after Campbell joined Levin and a Pillsbury attorney in testifying before Congress in support of curbs on shareholder lawsuits.

Weisel, who left Montgomery Securities that year, declined to comment. Levin acknowledged that he orchestrated support for the bill and that Campbell solicited him for donations.

When asked whether his actions benefiting campaign contributors created an appearance problem, Campbell said he sees nothing wrong with accepting money from people who like what he is doing. “I’m absolutely sincere in thinking that the securities bill was right for America, right for my district, right on the merits,” he said.

A similar, but competing, bill was passed instead with his support.

Since 1992, Campbell has received at least $327,384 from physicians and other health care providers for House and Senate campaigns, according to a Times analysis of FEC data supplied by the Campaign Study Group.

Two years ago, he introduced a bill to exempt health-care providers from federal anti-trust laws so they could collectively bargain with HMOs.

Trying to get the bill passed, Campbell rankled some Republicans by accusing “five to 10” unnamed GOP colleagues of delaying a vote so they could collect campaign donations, both from doctors who support the bill and insurance companies who opposed it.

He confronted House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), saying, “What is the point of working around here?” which Hastert took as a veiled threat that Campbell might resign from the House. The bill passed, 276-136, and the issue now is in the Senate.

Campbell said he came up with the idea after two neurosurgeons, both campaign contributors, complained that HMOs were bullying doctors into signing contracts not in their interests or the interests of their patients.

The congressman said he was particularly concerned about reports of “gag clauses” that forbid a physician from telling a patient about a costly, alternative treatment, if the HMO provided an adequate, but cheaper, one. “I thought that was wrong,” the congressman said. “So I drafted a bill.”

Campbell bristles at any suggestion that campaign donations, rather than conscience, ever motivate him. “If you are sincere in trying to change what is a potentially corrupting system, you are always vulnerable to the person who would tear you down,” he said. “And then no one gets to reform the system.”

*

Times staff writer Greg Krikorian and Times researcher Maloy Moore contributed to this story.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Campbell Campaign Finances

During his political career, Rep. Tom Campbell (R-San Jose) has raised more than $13 million, with the largest amounts coming from individuals and political action committees in the computer, financial services, health care and real estate industries.

*--*

Two-year cycle Amount 2000 $3,356,334* 1998 $848,549 1996 $2,430,024** 1994 $602,210** 1992 $3,843,797 1990 $1,087,377 1988 $1,075,790 Total $13,244,081

*--*

* Contributions for 2000 cycle are through Sept. 30. Figure excludes the $889,787 that Campbell transferred from his House committee to his Senate committee.

**Total and 1994 and 1996 figures include money raised to run for state Senate.

Sources: Federal Election Commission and Capitol Weekly

Since 1992, Campbell has received his largest contributions from individuals and PACs in the following industries.

Financial services: $1,210,172

Lawyer/lobbyist: $553,688

Real estate: $407,318

Health care: $327,384

Computer industry: $236,509

*

Note: Industry totals through June 30.

Source: Campaign Study Group

Researched by MALOY MOORE / Los Angeles Times