THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, December 26, 1995 TAG: 9512220009
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 60 lines
A decade ago it was news when a General Assembly candidate spent $100,000 on an election campaign. Today it's virtually the norm. Of the major-party candidates in last month's elections, 60 percent in the Senate and 25 percent in the House of Delegates each spent more than $100,000.
More than a half-million bucks was spent in each of the five most costly Senate races. In half the South Hampton Roads House and Senate races, $200,000 or more was spent, including half a million in one local Senate race.
Altogether, according to staff writer David M. Poole, candidates for the 140 seats reported spending a total of $20.9 million through Nov. 30. That's twice as much as in 1991, the previous time all seats were up for grabs.
``Another development,'' Poole wrote, ``was the influence of so-called `jumbo' contributors who - with a stroke of a pen - were able to change the dynamics of individual races.''
Since Virginia is one of eight states with no campaign-donation limit, one person or company theoretically could pay for an election. It hasn't happened yet, but in the Roanoke Valley, Edward and Peter Via wrote checks totaling $100,000 for two GOP challengers. That's a lot of TV spots. As has been much reported, Gov. George F. Allen's political-action committee received $125,000 from one source.
One delegate troubled by six-figure contributions is Fairfax County Republican James H. Dillard II. ``Although we say it's providing access,'' he said, ``realistically you have to ask if they'll get more than access. . .
Four thousand dollars, the maximum legal campaign donation in Maryland, should buy a legislator's ear. For $100,000 or more, Dillard wondered, will the donor get ``special consideration''?
To say the least, there is no push in Virginia for imposing a political donation cap.
If most of the campaign money were going to one party, the other party would be screaming for campaign reform; but both sides got huge chunks: the Republicans $9.7 million, the Democrats $11.1.
If challengers typically got more than incumbents, incumbents would call for immediate campaign reform. Instead, incumbents get most of the campaign money. Since they are the only people who get a vote on the issue, a cap on campaign contributions is in no danger of passage.
It's often argued that a cap on individual donations could easily be circumvented by having relatives or cronies contribute some of the money, but it would take a lot of relatives and cronies to come up with $100,000 if $4,000 were the individual limit. Because limits are useful, 42 states have them.
In go-slow Virginia, it probably will take some outrage - perhaps a $1 million donation buying an election - before public pressure is applied to legislators to clean up campaign financing.
We'd rather impose a campaign cap now. Maryland's $4,000 limit sounds good.
KEYWORDS: CAMPAIGN FINANCES by CNB