Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, March 19, 1993 TAG: 9303190511
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
TOO HIGH A COST FOR CAMPAIGNS
THOUGH overshadowed by the presidential contest, last year's congressional elections produced change as well - including in the Virginia delegation.There was no revolution, but there was evolution. More minorities and more women were elected. Congressional turnover, if not a postwar record, was still unusually high. In the House, a freshman class of more than 100 may prove a cohesive force, like the Watergate Class of '74 was for several years.
Virginia followed that evolution-if-not-revolution trend. Though the net change was small in partisan breakdown, from 6-4 to 7-4 Democratic, three newcomers were elected, including Robert Goodlatte in the 6th.
Unfortunately, what did not change in Virginia was the continuing escalation of campaign spending.
University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato, in a recent newsletter of the UVa Center for Public Service, reports that the record figure of more than $9 million was spent on '92 congressional campaigns in the commonwealth.
In each of three districts, including the open 6th, the two major-party candidates spent a combined total of more than $1 million.
There are explanations for the skyrocketing spending. Inflation. The addition of an 11th seat, because of the state's overall population growth during the '80s. Greater competitiveness than usual, due to the Republicans' commendable fielding of candidates in all 11 districts. (GOP incumbent Thomas Bliley, however, faced no Democratic opposition in the 7th District - and he still spent nearly $700,000.)
Moreover, money didn't guarantee election, as Sabato notes, at least not in races without an incumbent. In the 6th, losing Democrat Steve Musselwhite outspent winner Goodlatte by a nearly 3-2 ratio. In the 11th, losing Republican Henry Butler outspent winner Leslie Byrne by an 8-7 ratio.
Still, the campaign-spending increase is too big - 61 percent more than in 1990, nearly 40 percent more than the previous record set in 1986. Too big to chalk it up only to inflation, a new district and stiffer competition.
And in any event, the problem is not only the amount of the money, but how and from whom it is obtained.
OK, some of the cash may be from donors who, as patriotic Americans interested in the political system, simply want to help ensure that their preferred party's or candidate's message gets out.
But much of the money is from donors with special-interest axes to grind. If they're not buying lawmakers' votes, exactly, they are buying access, an ear, a door opened wider than for the average constituent.
And OK, so the spending is mostly for the legitimate purpose of introducing candidates to voters, through the mass mailings and advertising necessary in an era when face-to-face campaigning is no longer practical.
But to raise the money, candidates - including, of course, incumbents running for re-election - must devote too much time and energy to the demeaning task of groveling for campaign contributions.
The current method of funding congressional campaigns should not endure. Even for the most personally honest of politicians, it is a corrupting system. The more money it involves, the more corrupting it gets.
Keywords:
POLITICS