ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, March 17, 1996 TAG: 9603180056
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B-1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: RICHMOND
SOURCE: DAVID M. POOLE STAFF WRITER
LAWMAKERS FAILED TO PASS a bill limiting groups from dumping jumbo cash donations into campaign war chests.
For one fleeting moment, the 1996 General Assembly took up the banner for improved scrutiny of campaign contributions.
On Feb. 27, the House Rules Committee was plowing through a stack of study resolutions when it came across Senate Joint Resolution 71.
The bill called for a one-year study of computerizing candidates' campaign finance reports, which now are filed on stacks of paper that some public watchdogs say are so unwieldy that it's difficult to evaluate the role of special-interest money.
House Majority Leader Richard Cranwell, D-Vinton, said that with several Virginia newspapers launching computer initiatives of their own, there was no need for the state to lag behind with a study.
"If it's a good idea, let's just do it," he declared.
The Rules Committee initially voted to bring the State Board of Elections into the digital age. But the lawmakers eventually opted for a tentative first step - not a quantum leap - toward automation.
The General Assembly, which left town last week, took a similar approach to campaign finance reform in general.
The assembly killed legislation that would have limited campaign contributions, which reached a record $21 million in legislative races last fall.
Virginia is one of eight states with no limits on the amount of campaign cash that candidates can take from individuals, corporations, political action committees or other interest groups.
This sky's-the-limit system led some Virginia lawmakers to warn of a public backlash over politicians routinely spending $100,000 or more for a chance at a part-time job that pays $17,000 a year.
"The people are looking for us to do something," said Del. Peter Way, R-Albemarle County.
On Feb. 13, the House of Delegates quietly killed a campaign-limits bill on a voice vote. The chamber was sharply divided, but no one demanded a recorded vote - or even a show of hands.
This was the second year in a row that the House dropped the issue. Opponents of the bill say that while limiting campaign contributions may resonate with a cynical public, the plan would do little or nothing to curb money in politics.
There is a consensus among lawmakers that limits would be no more effective in Virginia than they have been in other states and in federal elections.
"We've had campaign limits on the federal level for years, but what do you get?'' asked Del. Marian VanLandingham, D-Alexandria.
In fact, the proposed Virginia law had loopholes large enough to accommodate a jumbo jet filled with special-interest mavens, critics charged.
The version that died in the House would have limited General Assembly candidates to receiving contributions of $8,000 from PACs and $5,000 from individuals, corporations and labor unions.
The proposal, however, placed no restrictions on cash that candidates could receive from political party organizations. This so-called "soft money" was the driving force of the record-setting expenditures in last year's legislative races.
Smithfield Foods donated $125,000 to GOP legislative candidates through a Republican PAC organized by Gov. George Allen. A Middle Eastern oil broker with ties to Libya gave $100,000 to legislative candidates through a state Democratic Party organization.
Overall, the proposed limits, even if they had been passed earlier, would have had a minimal impact on the amount of money spent in assembly races last year. A computer analysis by The Roanoke Times and its sister paper in Norfolk, The Virginian-Pilot, found 12 individual and five PAC contributions over the proposed limits. The database did not include contributions to losing candidates after Oct.1. Such large contributions, other than political PACs, represented less than 2 percent of the $21 million spent.
Instead of imposing limits, the General Assembly enacted several measures aimed at ensuring candidates comply with existing disclosure laws.
One change came in response to The Roanoke Times/Virginian-Pilot computer analysis that found legislative candidates routinely failed to comply with the law requiring them to provide the name, address, occupation and employer of contributors who gave more than $100:
The assembly responded by raising the disclosure threshold to $200.
VanLandingham said the higher figure would give campaign treasurers, who often are volunteers, more time to gather information about more significant givers.
The assembly also gave local voter registration officials responsibility for making sure campaign finance reports are timely and complete.
M. Bruce Meadows, director of the State Board of Elections, admitted that the volume of paper reports was so overwhelming that his staff did not have time to read them.
"We don't have the resources to do it," Meadows said.
The crush of paper reports led two news organizations - the Richmond Times-Dispatch and Landmark Communications, publisher of The Roanoke Times and the Virginian-Pilot - to launch separate projects last year to computerize campaign finance reports.
The resulting databases led to unprecedented analyses of statewide trends in campaign finance. Some lawmakers say the articles exposed the antiquated and cumbersome nature of the state's paper-based system.
At least that was the consensus of the House Rules Committee last month, when senior lawmakers amended SJR 71 to direct the State Board of Elections to computerize its operations.
Candidates could still file by paper, but the state board would use computer scanners or data entry clerks to compile a database.
Cranwell, who urged swift action, joked that the consolidated information might even come back to haunt him in the next election.
"The Via brothers might want to know how much more they need to put up to beat me," he cracked, referring to millionaire brothers Edward and Peter Via, who gave $160,000 to Republican opponents of Cranwell and Del. Clifton "Chip" Woodrum, D-Roanoke. Cranwell and Woodrum both won re-election.
When SJR 71 reached the House floor a few days later, the measure lacked several of the key items recommended by the Rules Committee. The document still called for a one-year study, a drafting oversight that Cranwell said would be corrected in the Senate.
But the resolution moved ahead without the changes, forgotten in the assembly's annual rush to adjourn.
"It slipped through the wringer on me," said Cranwell, who added that next year he would "do whatever it takes" to put campaign finance reports on the fast track to computerization.
Meanwhile, the assembly approved a modest $163,000 for the state Elections Board to buy equipment and hire two employees to scan paper reports into a computer database.
Meadows, the elections director, said the appropriation is the first small step in a much larger plan to automate his office. But he's not sure how much that will cost.
"We have not caught our breath from the fall to have time for an in-depth analysis," he said. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS -UNLIMITED, AND UNCOMPUTERIZED
The 1996 General Assembly killed attempts to limit campaign contributions. Virginia remains one of eight states with no limits.
Even the limits that were proposed would have done little to curb the record amount of money spent in legislative races last years.
The General Assembly also delayed action on require candidates to file computerized campaign finance reports to make it easier to spot trends. Instead, the legislature called for one-year study.
The most significant change the legislature made was to increase the fine for failing to complete campaign finance reports - a problem exposed during the 1995 campaigns. STAFF
LENGTH: Long : 145 lines KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1996 POLITICSby CNB