Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post Newsgroups: americast.twt.news From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: Again, spending and vote totals went hand in hand Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 15:13:22 EST Message-ID: \SE A;NATION \SS (WS) \HD Again, spending and vote totals went hand in hand \BY ASSOCIATED PRESS Big money was bigger than ever in the 1992 election. An estimated $100 million poured into the presidential election from corporations and wealthy donors - exactly the kind of donations that post-Watergate reforms sought to eliminate by financing White House campaigns with tax dollars. In the congressional races, big spending equaled winning once again as all but a few incumbents survived the anti-Washington mood of the electorate. The newcomers who did sneak in paid a high price: a joint $21 million for new Sens.-elect Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein of California and Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois, all Democrats. New House member Michael Huffington, California Republican, paid $37 of his own money for each vote he received - more than $4 million in all. The congressional candidates, in the general election alone, spent at least $380 million - $3.80 per vote cast. And the spend-more-and-win rule held true. Only one of the 12 biggest spenders ($3 million or more) in the Senate lost. In the House, 85 percent of those who spent $500,000 or more won. As usual, incumbents' war chests got plenty of help from political action committees. "More than in any other election, in 1992 you saw the failure of existing campaign finance laws and rules," said Ellen Miller, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "I think we're worse off today than before Watergate because there is more big money than ever." One man who observed the abuses of that era, Senate Watergate committee chief counsel Samuel Dash, agreed. "I think once again we're in a situation unfortunately where money is buying power," he said. But Mr. Dash said Bill Clinton's incoming administration is poised to make a change, noting that the Democrat has already said he would have signed the sweeping campaign finance reform bill passed by Congress earlier this year but vetoed by President Bush. That bill would have eliminated the so-called soft-money loophole, which unions and corporations, forbidden from donating directly to candidates, have used to plow large sums of money, often upwards of $100,000, to the political parties. "It will be difficult for Clinton to back away from that," Mr. Dash said. Mr. Clinton's own campaign benefited much from the Democratic Party's explosion of soft money from rich donors who'll now have an interest in the policies his administration crafts. The same types of donations to presidential candidates during the Watergate era led Congress to change the rules. They limited individual contributions to $1,000 per candidate per election, refined the prohibition against corporate donations and ended presidential candidates' reliance on private money by fully financing their campaigns and conventions with tax dollars. The soft-money loophole in those rules allowed the huge private contributions to continue, as general-purpose gifts to the political parties. Soft money first became an issue four years ago, but an Associated Press review earlier this year revealed that the practice quietly resumed in 1980, less than five years after the post-Watergate reforms. While more than $170 million in tax money was given to the presidential campaigns, the two major parties collected more than $70 million in soft money to pay for get-out-the-vote drives and other activities. Republicans tapped large corporations such as RJR Nabisco, Joseph Seagram & Sons, Philip Morris and Arco. Agricultural giant Archer-Daniels-Midland and its chairman, Dwayne Andreas, led the list by giving more than $1 million to the GOP. Democrats got their own $100,000-plus donations from Hollywood giants such as MCA and Sony, labor unions such as the United Steelworkers of America, and philanthropists such as Swanee Hunt and Alida Rockefeller Messinger. Tellingly, more than a half-dozen of the GOP's most faithful big-time donors suddenly defected with large donations to Democrats in early October when Mr. Clinton's victory appeared likely. Over the course of the campaign, corporate donors also used several other avenues to inject their money into the election beyond the soft-money route, including: * Paying about $11 million of the expenses for the two nominating conventions and an undetermined amount more to host posh receptions where corporate bigwigs and government leaders rubbed elbows. * Picking up the $2-million-plus tab for the four debates, which gave them a tax break in return. This article is copyright 1992 The Washington Times. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM