High-Profile Contest Is Awash in Soft Money

The television spot, seen in homes from Glendale to San Marino, sounds as if it were written by James Rogan himself, or at least his campaign manager.

“Congressman Jim Rogan has voted to strengthen and improve Medicare,” the narrator intones as a statesmanlike picture of Rogan appears on the screen. “He’s working to provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors and make sure medicines are available for every senior who needs them.”

The ad was not paid for by Rogan’s campaign, which must abide by strict campaign contribution limits and disclosure requirements. Its tagline reads, “Paid for by Citizens for Better Medicare Inc.”

The commercial actually was funded by so-called soft money from a pharmaceutical industry group--one of several organizations trying to influence voters in Rogan’s congressional race against state Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) with heavy spending that has not been subject to federal campaign finance disclosure rules and limits.

Led by the state Democratic and Republican parties, soft money and so-called independent-expenditure campaigns are pouring more than $2.2 million into television ads, mailers and phone banks in the race, according to records and interviews. And that is in addition to the $10.5 million the candidates say they will spend directly by election day.

The soft money alone is half a million dollars more than the total spent by candidates two years ago in the 27th Congressional District election.

“It is unprecedented,” said one national GOP official.

The Republicans plan to spend more than $1.2 million on the race. The Democrats, who say they will be “competitive” with the GOP, have declined to specify, but cable company records examined by The Times indicate that they have already spent $370,000 for television ads alone.

Joining the two parties are several special interest groups, such as Citizens for Better Medicare, which cable company records show has spent $70,000 on ads promoting Rogan; the AFL-CIO, which has spent $60,000 on ads attacking Rogan; and even smaller groups, including Peace Action, which paid $1,000 for cable ads supporting Schiff.

One of the largest independent-expenditure campaigns is being mounted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The organization is spending $594,000 to blitz 18 Los Angeles radio stations with commercials attacking Schiff and Democratic congressional candidate Jane Harman in the South Bay’s 36th Congressional District over the Democratic plan for prescription drug coverage.

At the same time, a group of corporate executives called the Business Roundtable is spending an average of $150,000 each on media campaigns praising 40 pro-business congressional candidates, including Rogan.

The emergence of so much soft money in a single House race has caught the attention of campaign reform advocates, who cite the Rogan-Schiff contest--already notable for its near record in direct expenditures by the candidates themselves--as a prime example of why soft money contributions should be more closely regulated and, in the case of political parties, banned.

“Any person with a pulse is going to see these ads as campaign ads,” said Don Simon, general counsel for Common Cause. “The parties and outside groups are taking the position that if the ad doesn’t contain the magic words ‘vote for’ or ‘vote against,’ it is not a campaign ad and it is outside federal law.”

Vice President Al Gore, campaigning for the presidency, has said the first bill he would send to Congress would be one banning soft money spending by political parties. George W. Bush also favors a ban on such spending if labor union members are given a say in whether their dues are used in political campaigns.

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill would prohibit political parties from accepting soft money, but would not cover spending by non-party groups such as Citizens for Better Medicare, which are addressed in other proposals.

Schiff favors the McCain-Feingold bill, while Rogan has voted against it, saying it does not go far enough.

“It’s a very strong step in the right direction, and I regret that Mr. Rogan has voted against it,” Schiff said during a recent debate.

Rogan said he might support a ban on soft money if it were coupled with rules regulating the use of union dues for political campaigns. But he said limiting political spending by member-supported interest groups other than political parties is a “terrible restriction” on free speech rights.

“You can give all the speeches you want about campaign finance reform, but everybody that runs for office knows that 25 years ago the United States Supreme Court said you can spend as much money as you want in independent expenditures,” Rogan said during a recent debate.

At issue are state and federal campaign laws aimed at preventing special interest groups from exerting undue influence, and providing the public with information on how candidates are bankrolled by special interests.

Under federal law, direct contributions to congressional campaigns are limited to $1,000 from individuals and $5,000 from corporate and union political action committees. The federal limit on contributions to political parties is $20,000 from individuals and $15,000 from corporate and union PACs. The limits apply to any money spent by the parties to campaign for specific congressional candidates.

But there is no limit on contributions to political parties used to promote the party’s agenda. So-called party-building activities include voter registration drives, get-out-the-vote efforts and issue-oriented communications with voters.

But soft money may not legally be used to specifically seek votes for, or against, a named candidate.

Political parties wanting to take advantage of unlimited contributions have pushed the ethical envelope with “issue-oriented” ads that stop just short of that boundary.

The results are ads like one paid for by the state Democratic Party: “Last year Jim Rogan voted to raid the Social Security trust fund. Since 1998 he has opposed legislation to protect the trust fund from raids. Over and over again Jim Rogan has failed to put Social Security and Medicare first.”

Critics say such soft-money campaigns are less accountable for distortions and falsehoods than campaigns by candidates, who have to answer to the voters.

“Campaign ads are not known for total honesty and veracity,” said Peter Eisner, managing director of the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity. “There definitely is less opportunity for the voter to know who is responsible for the ad.”

In one mailer from the California Republican Party, Schiff was accused of promoting the distribution of satanic bibles in prison and the hiring of felons as school bus drivers. Schiff’s campaign said the mailer is a significant distortion of the facts.

A spokesman for Citizens for Better Medicare said his group is acting legally and has a legitimate interest in promoting its positions in the 27th District race.

“We want to be heard, and we are doing that without advocating for the election of or defeat of any candidate,” said Dan Zielinski, a spokesman for the group.

“This is a really important battleground,” said Denise Mitchell, spokeswoman for the AFL-CIO. “Rogan is a real leader in terms of casting votes against working families.”

How far ads can go and still comply with the law remains “the big question,” said Ian Stirton of the Federal Elections Commission. The commission is charged with enforcing campaign finance law, but its vagueness makes the job difficult, reform advocates said.

For now, the effect of soft money can be crucial in a close race, such as Rogan versus Schiff.

The state Republican Party has already spent $250,000 on cable television ads, $200,000 on a flurry of mailers, and $100,000 to operate seven volunteer headquarters in the district where phone banks reach out to voters.

“Most people agree this race will have more spent on it than any other [House] race,” said Marit Babin, press secretary for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

The California Democratic Party is mounting a significant independent-expenditure campaign to bolster Schiff’s chances of getting elected, said party Chairman Art Torres.

For statewide efforts, the Democratic State Central Committee of California raised $3.8 million during the first nine months of this year, with major contributions including $100,000 from Andersen Consulting LLP of Chicago, $100,000 from E.J. Gallo Winery and $15,000 each from Boeing Co. and Coca-Cola Enterprises. But the big money came in the form of $853,524 from the Democratic National Committee Non-Federal (soft money) Fund and $1,419,948 from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The California Republican Party raised $6.3 million during the first nine months of this year, including $100,000 from the National Rifle Assn.’s Political Victory Fund; $110,000 from Irvine Co.; $60,000 from Donald Bren, executive of Irvine Co.; $30,000 from Safeway Inc.; and $17,050 from Edison International.

The state party also received $2.49 million from the Republican National Committee’s soft money account and $230,183 from the National Republican Congressional Committee.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

A Hard Look at Soft Money

By election day, more than $2.2 million will have been spent outside federal campaign finance rules to influence voters in the race between incumbent Rep. James Rogan (R-Glendale) and state Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank). That’s on top of the $10.5 million the candidates say they will spend themselves. Here is a look at the soft money spending:

*

Researched by PATRICK McGREEVY/Los Angeles Times