THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, October 30, 1995 TAG: 9510300037
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SERIES: Election '95
SOURCE: BY DAVID M. POOLE, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Long : 160 lines
Virginia election laws that require candidates to identify who funds their campaigns are routinely violated, but rarely enforced, a Virginian-Pilot review of campaign contributions shows.
Even the chairman of a state Senate committee who drafts those laws doesn't follow them.
Sen. Joseph V. Gartlan Jr. of Fairfax County failed to name the occupation or employer for most of his individual contributors in his re-election bid this year.
Are the contributors Gartlan's neighbors lending a hand? Or, are they people with special interests seeking access to a senior Democratic lawmaker?
There's no way to tell from his campaign finance reports.
Gartlan is not alone in lax compliance with disclosure laws. One in five contributors to General Assembly campaigns this year wasn't identified by occupation, according to the newspaper's computer analysis.
Candidates also identified some contributors as ``businessman,'' a catch-all that could apply to anyone from storefront barber to hazardous waste hauler.
Yet no candidate has been fined for vague or incomplete disclosure this year. Candidates get away with skimpy campaign reports because the state Board of Elections lacks the staff to enforce the law.
``I don't really want to broadcast that, but that's the reality when we have to push so much paper,'' said M. Bruce Meadows, the board's executive director.
Disclosure is supposed to be the safeguard built into campaign finance laws in Virginia - one of only eight states that does not limit contributions. Lawmakers who for years have resisted caps say the system works fine because anyone interested can learn who is giving money to candidates.
``Everybody knows what they need to know,'' said House Majority Leader C. Richard Cranwell of Roanoke County.
The public can know, for instance, that doctors are providing a balm for Virginia Beach state Sen. C.A. ``Clancy'' Holland in his tough re-election campaign. Physicians have provided half of the $45,895 that Holland - himself a family doctor - has raised from individuals giving more than $100, according to a computer analysis of contributions through Sept. 30.
But vague entries make it difficult for the public to know how contributors might try to influence representatives.
This summer, Roanoke County Sen. J. Brandon Bell reported receiving $1,250 from D.J. Cooper, whose occupation was listed as ``self-employed.'' The report did not mention that Cooper owns a trailer park, which is under a consent decree with the state Department of Health because of water quality problems.
James Faulkner, Bell's campaign manager, said it was difficult to describe an occupation because Cooper is retired and has a variety of business interests.
``We didn't want to put down everything, so we just put down `self-employed.' We weren't trying to hide anything,'' Faulkner said.
Disclosure works best when big money is involved. Candidates tend to come forward with the required information - occupation, employer and business address - about donors who give a few thousand dollars. The press digs deeper into jumbo donations, like the $100,000 that two Roanoke brothers gave to two Roanoke Valley Republican challengers and the $100,000 that Smithfield Foods gave to a political action committee led by Gov. George F. Allen.
The system, however, breaks down when it comes to contributions of $1,000 or less. A handful of candidates are meticulous. But many don't bother to fill in lines reserved for the occupation and employer of all people who give less than $1,000.
Some reports leave a lot to the imagination. One candidate listed contributors' occupations as ``individual'' and another marked them ``private.''
When asked about those and other entries, several candidates said they were unaware of what their reports contained.
Cranwell, whose campaign finance reports are often flawless, said that many candidates rely upon volunteer treasurers who don't have time to note occupation and employer with every $100 check that comes in the door.
Some candidates said they were unaware of the specifics of the law, which holds them and their treasurers jointly responsible for errors and inaccuracies. Gartlan - a vocal advocate of tougher campaign laws - got it wrong even though he wrote the law.
Gartlan said he was under the impression that reports had to include occupations only for donations of $250 and up. But it was Gartlan's own bill two years ago that lowered the threshold to $100.
``We're going to have to file an amended report,'' said Jinny Peters, his campaign manager. ``Joe is going to die when he finds out he hasn't been complying.''
Vague and incomplete disclosure is nothing new. The problem was epidemic in 1989 statewide elections, according to an analysis by Common Cause, a non-partisan citizen's lobby group.
Then, many candidates provided no occupation for supporters who accounted for nearly half of their contributions. The worst offender was Eddy Dalton, a GOP candidate for lieutenant governor who got 85 percent of her money from people not fully identified in her reports.
In recent years, the General Assembly has tightened reporting requirements, but has not given the state Board of Elections the resources to enforce them.
Michael Brown, who was elections board director until this January, hired temporary workers last year who reviewed reports for thoroughness and sent out scores of notices of fines ranging from $50 to $300.
Lawmakers' reactions were immediate. ``You would have thought I was the Ayatolla of Virginia,'' Brown recalled. ``I got raked over the coals by every single individual who filed a report.''
The assembly revised the law this year requiring the Board of Elections to give a candidate time to correct the bad report before imposing a fine.
Notices of fines stopped, but not because candidates cleaned up their act. The Board of Elections, under Allen administration appointee Bruce Meadows, is busy with more pressing election-year tasks and can't make time to review reports, Meadows said.
The staff situation wasn't helped this year when the Board of Elections - traditionally one of the state's most underfunded agencies - lost three of 18 positions under the Allen administration's buyout program for ``non-essential'' employees.
``We just decided that others (in the office) would have to pick up the slack and we would have to do the best we could,'' Meadows said.
In some states, the forms are filed electronically, making them easier to audit. Virginia still uses paper copies. Overworked elections board workers cope with mounds of paperwork that flood into the office each month. To audit for accuracy, those workers would have to sift through 20,000 contributions by hand.
Automation, Meadows said, is the answer. But that would be costly and involve time for planning - something that Meadows says is in short supply this time of year.
``I haven't stopped to figure it out because we don't have time to figure it out.'' MEMO: Staff Writer Lise Olsen contributed to this report.
ILLUSTRATION: VIRGINIA VOTER LAWS AND LOOPHOLES - A CLOSER LOOK (DETAILS, A6)
UNLIMITED CASH CONTRIBUTIONS
Beacuse Virginia is one of eight states that have no limits,
jumbo contributions have revised the ante in a handful of
campaigns.
INCOMPLETE DISCLOSURE
Many candidates ignore a law that requires them to list
profession and business information for contributors who give more
than $100.
LABOR UNIONS AND BIG BUSINESS
Unlike federal law, Virginia law has no limit on direct
contributions from corporations and labor unions.
SOFT MONEY
Millions in party PAC money has flooded into Virginia campaigns
for expenses like direct mail, advertising and polls. Often,
individual candidates do not report all of the party help.
UNOPPOSED CANDIDATES AND WAR CHESTS
Virginia allows all candidates - including unopposed incumbents
and the governor - to raise as much as they want. It They can use it
for almost anything except personal expenses.
NONPROFITS
Federal tax law bars non-profits from contributing to campaigns.
But state employees do not thoroughly review tens of thousands of
paper entries.
HORSE RACING, GAMBLING INTERESTS
Virginia bans contributions from a few groups, such as licensees
of horseracing tracks. But other gambling interests - like riverboat
casino operators - are not affected.
KEYWORDS: CAMPAIGN FINANCE by CNB