
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SATURDAY, August 5, 1995                   TAG: 9508080015
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-9   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: PETER L. VIA
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

LOOK WHO'S CRYING FOUL ABOUT BIG CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

THE SUBJECT of money in politics will always be controversial. But so long as candidates - especially nonincumbents - must be competitive with their opponents in the paid media, it will be necessary. The evil, if any, will lie in the extent to which donors expect and receive personal benefits at public expense.

I have voted for Democrats in the past, and expect to do so in the future. In fact, like most people, I'm an independent voter not entirely comfortable with the main direction of either party. But an important election is coming, and choices must be made.

My support for Dr. Newell Falkinburg and Trixie Averill is based on a conclusion that, whatever their merits in the past, Del. Chip Woodrum and Del. Dick Cranwell have come to put the narrow interest of the Democratic Party above the state as a whole. At some point, they crossed the line that separates a conscientious legislator from a professional, partisan politician.

Despite their pretense of outrage at the contribution my brother and I made to their Republican challengers, neither man is any stranger to big-money politics. In fact, Cranwell spent almost $200,000 winning re-election two years ago. That was about six times as much as his Republican challenger, and it was close to a record for House campaigns.

If you examine the campaign reports of Woodrum and Cranwell, you will discover a fact hardly surprising: A substantial portion of the large sums they raise come from groups and individuals having an immediate and highly specific interest in the outcome of issues before the General Assembly.

Beyond the interest any citizen has in the proper conduct of government, I defy Woodrum and Cranwell to name a single economic interest my family has had before the legislature, or is likely to have.

Having decided public interest would be best served by competitive races in these districts, we made what most would regard as a very substantial contribution. It was done at an early stage in the campaign, and it is entirely a matter of public record and fair comment.

But I'm willing to bet that Woodrum and Cranwell - so loud in crying foul now - will raise even more money. The source and interests of their donors should also be scrutinized. We might anticipate that much of their funding will materialize in the late stages of the campaign when finding who is giving what to whom is difficult.

Woodrum has been essentially unopposed since his election in 1979, and Cranwell has only once drawn a serious challenge since 1971. Has the absence of serious opposition over so many years given them a sense of being ``entitled'' to their seats? If so, it isn't a good thing.

We all benefit from competitive politics. It's only in that belief that my brother and I decided to make this contribution.

Cranwell speaks of ``tainted'' money. That, of course, is in the eye of the beholder, as we shall discover when he reveals his final spending for the 1995 campaign.

These taunts will not prevent our doing what we can to help those people and causes we believe beneficial to the quality of life in this valley and commonwealth.

We in Virginia have much for which to be thankful, and everybody should take a part in preserving it. We plan to continue our family tradition of commitment to our community.

Peter L. Via lives in Roanoke.

by CNB