2 Costly Campaigns Tap Disparate Interests

It’s getting so you almost have to pity the voters in two of the Los Angeles area’s--and the nation’s--hottest House of Representatives races, in the 27th and 36th districts.

They’re receiving a bewildering barrage of political mailings--sometimes several a day--plus radio and television ads and telephone calls, the tangible evidence of at least $14 million being spent by the two Republican incumbents, Rep. James E. Rogan and Rep. Steven T. Kuykendall, and their Democratic challengers, state Sen. Adam Schiff and former Rep. Jane Harman.

The sources of all these dollars are tens of thousands of individuals across America, a varying range of businesses and interest groups, according to analyses of campaign finance data reported to the Federal Election Commission. Donors from the financial services field were the top contributors to the two Republicans, while labor unions topped the list for the two Democrats, the Virginia-based Campaign Study Group found.

The race in the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena area’s 27th District--where Rogan, of Glendale, who helped lead the drive to impeach President Clinton, is battling Schiff, of Burbank--could well end up the costliest House contest in history. Together, the candidates are expected to spend $10 million or more by the Nov. 7 election.

Spending in the South Bay’s 36th District contest--between Kuykendall, of Rancho Palos Verdes, and his predecessor, Harman of Rolling Hills--pales in comparison. But the expected total tab of at least $4 million is more than enough to keep mailboxes bulging and the airwaves humming in the closing days of the campaigns.

According to the latest round of campaign finance reports, filed last week, Rogan had raised more than $6.2 million from the start of the race through Oct. 18. Of that, $371,395 came Oct. 1-18, and he entered the final three weeks of the campaign with $623,794 left to spend. Schiff’s total on Oct. 18 was $3.8 million, including $214,863 raised since Oct. 1. He had $559,410 cash on hand.

Both are expected to continue a fast pace of fund-raising through election day, and possibly longer.

Kuykendall added $244,974 to his coffers during the reporting period of Oct. 1-18, bringing his total raised to $1.75 million. He had $380,125 left to spend. Harman, who held the seat for six years before giving it up in 1998 to run for governor, raised $88,320 during the latest period, putting her total at more than $1.6 million. She entered the home stretch of the campaign with $519,698 in her account. Harman has not so far dipped into her personal wealth, as she did to first win the seat in 1992.

The reports do not cover the activities of the political parties or the interest groups that are running ads or sending mailers independently of the campaigns. The so-called independent expenditures are expected to add significantly to the total amount spent in both of the hard-fought contests, which are among a handful nationwide expected to determine which party controls the House.

Understanding the sources of campaign contributions can give voters valuable clues to the depth and breadth of a candidate’s support and to which interest groups have a stake in the election’s outcome, say analysts who track contributions.

“It’s so expensive to run for public office these days that when these guys finally arrive in Washington, they are carrying with them a satchel full of political IOUs, not just from their constituents but from the ones who have paid for their campaigns--the ‘cash constituents,’ ” said Larry Makinson, who heads the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research group that analyzes money in politics and its effect on elections and public policy.

The organization runs a Web site, https://www.opensecrets.org, that tracks campaign data reported to the Federal Election Commission. The information is not always up to date because it usually takes several weeks for the election commission to key all the data from campaign finance reports into its computer system. Nonetheless, the data reveal patterns that voters should be aware of, analysts say.

Top Donors Are Labor Union PACs

Another organization that tracks campaign money is the Campaign Study Group, run by Dwight Morris in Springfield, Va. Using the latest data available, through about mid-August, Morris did analyses for The Times that showed which industries and interest groups were contributing to the main candidates in the 27th and 36th districts. He examined the industry and interest connections of individual donors and of groups’ political action committees and arranged them into about two dozen categories.

The top givers to the two Democrats were labor union political action committees--$255,400 to Schiff and $126,720 to Harman. The second-largest donor group for the two candidates--both attorneys--was lawyers/lobbyists. Members of that group gave Schiff $177,848 and Harman $91,668.

Financial service interests were the biggest category of contributors to the Republicans. Rogan collected $165,748, while Kuykendall got $68,958. Next were health care industry interests for Rogan and wholesale/retail interests for Kuykendall.

Campaigns routinely scour their opponents’ reports, looking for clues about their financial positions--and possible vulnerabilities.

Just last week, for instance, the Rogan campaign scanned the Center for Responsive Politics’ Web site and pulled up a page grouping individuals’ contributions by ZIP Code. The lushest ZIP Code for Schiff was Beverly Hills’ 90210, which yielded $49,850. Pacific Palisades and West Los Angeles were next, so the Rogan campaign issued a news release questioning Schiff’s support in the 27th District, which runs from Sunland-Tujunga east to San Marino.

“Adam’s core of support comes not from the families of this district but from the old-line left wing liberal activists who support his political allies and friends in West L.A.,” the news release proclaimed.

What the Rogan release did not mention was that another page of the same Web site showed Rogan had raised a much larger portion of his individual contributions from out-of-state donors. Nearly one-third of Rogan’s contributions came from outside California, particularly from people who liked his prominent role in the impeachment of President Clinton. Less than 14% of Schiff’s contributions came from outside the state.

Parke Skelton, Schiff’s campaign consultant, said he does not think the geographic location of donors is as significant as such factors as the industry or interest group they represent.

“Looking at campaign contributions is an extremely good way for voters to parse through the rhetoric,” said Skelton, adding that a “phenomenal amount of Rogan’s money comes from the pharmaceuticals industry and the big HMO companies. I think that belies his claim he is fighting for a prescription drugs benefit and HMO reform.”

The Rogan campaign denies that and criticizes Schiff for taking money from a trial lawyer group.

The Kuykendall campaign also looked at the location of big individual contributors to further its efforts to portray Harman as an outsider with few true ties to the district. The top four ZIP Codes of her contributors were in Washington, D.C., and New York City, while Kuykendall’s were within the district. Some 47% of Harman’s individual contributions total came from outside California, compared with less than 14% for Kuykendall.

“It just shows what this campaign has been talking about all along: Jane Harman has no roots in this district,” said Kuykendall campaign spokesman Adam Mendelsohn.

But Roy Behr, a Harman consultant, said the figures are misleading because they do not reflect the large numbers of district residents who gave Harman less than $200 and therefore are not included in the geographic breakdown of contribution sources.

Behr said more than half of Kuykendall’s money is coming from political action committees, compared with about one-quarter of Harman’s.

“The issue here is the connection between the [contributions] source and his actions,” Behr said. “Kuykendall, over the course of his career, has received about $250,000 from big HMOs, insurance companies and financial industries. He voted twice against a measure that would have greatly strengthened privacy protections.”

Watchdog groups such as Makinson’s hope voters will study the campaign finance information and decide for themselves what to make of it.

Elected officials have to be responsive enough to contributors to keep their support, “whoever they may be, the Sierra Club or the National Rifle Assn.,” Makinson said. “We just want the voters to know who the cash constituents are, and they can make their own value judgments as to whether they are good or bad.”