THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, March 18, 1996 TAG: 9603180042
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY DAVID M. POOLE, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Long : 128 lines
For a 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.
It called for a one-year study of computerizing candidates' campaign finance reports. Now they're on stacks of paper so unwieldy that it's difficult to evaluate the role of special interest money.
House Majority Leader C. Richard Cranwell said several newspapers are moving ahead with their own computer initiatives, so there was no reason for the state to lag behind with a study. ``If it's a good idea, let's just do it,'' he declared.
So the Rules Committee voted to bring the State Board of Elections into the digital age.
But the fervor quickly cooled, and lawmakers eventually opted for a tentative first step toward automation.
The General Assembly, which left town last week , took the same measured 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 money candidates cantake from individuals, corporations, political action committees or labor unions.
That 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,'' Albemarle Del. Peter T. Way said.
On Feb. 13, the House of Delegates quietly killed the idea of campaign limits - on a voice vote. The chamber was 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 ducked the issue. Opponents say that while limiting contributions may resonate with citizens, the plan would do little to curb money in politics.
The consensus among lawmakers is 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 Van Landingham, D-Alexandria.
In fact, the proposed Virginia law had loopholes large enough to accommodate a jumbo jet filled with corporate bigwigs and special interest mavens.
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 funneled $125,000 to GOP legislative candidates through a Republican PAC organized by Gov. George F. Allen. A Middle Eastern oil broker with ties to Libya channeled $100,000 to legislative candidates through a state Democratic Party organization.
Overall, the proposed limits would have had a minimal impact on the amount of money spent in Assembly races last year. A Virginian-Pilot computer analysis found as few as 12 individual and five PAC contributions over the proposed limits. The data base did not include contributions to losing candidates after Oct. 1.
Jumbo contributions had an impact on a few local races, particularly in the Roanoke Valley where Edward and Peter Via, two millionaire brothers, together gave Republicans challenging Dels. C.A. ``Chip'' Woodrum and Richard Cranwell a total of $160,000. But such large contributions from nonpolitical PACs represented less than 2 percent of the $21 million spent.
Instead of imposing limits, the General Assembly enacted several measures aimed at ensuring that candidates comply with existing disclosure laws.
One change came in response to a Virginian-Pilot computer analysis that found legislative candidates routinely failed to provide the name, address, occupation and employer of people who give more than $100, as required by law.
The Assembly responded by raising the disclosure threshold to $200.
Van Landingham 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 that campaign finance reports are timely and complete.
M. Bruce Meadows, director of the State Board of Elections, admitted 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 Virginian-Pilot - to launch separate projects last year to computerize campaign finance reports.
The resulting data bases 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 data base.
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.
When SJR 71 reached the House floor a few days later, the measure contained none of the bold progress envisioned 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 data base.
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.
KEYWORDS: CAMPAIGN FINANCE GENERAL ASSEMBLY by CNB