THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, February 19, 1997 TAG: 9702190441
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B2 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY DAVID M. POOLE, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: 80 lines
General Assembly members do more than make laws each winter. Many legislators also make money for their respective political parties by selling tickets to annual caucus receptions.
Some lawmakers are assigned to make personal pitches, often to lobbyists with legislation pending before the Assembly.
Both political parties raise hundreds of thousands of dollars each winter from a captive audience of corporate lobbyists willing to pay from $100 to $1,000 each for a chance to rub shoulders with lawmakers.
While no one has suggested any lawmaker would sell his or her vote for a $100 donation, some Assembly members are uncomfortable touching lobbyists for cash while the Assembly is sitting.
``There's a public perception that dollars are driving decisions here,'' said John ``Butch'' Davies, D-Culpeper. ``That's not true, but why do things that reinforce that perception?''
A bill introduced this year would prohibit lawmakers from passing the cup for political organizations. Democrats in the House of Delegates succeeded in deleting the ban, but a Senate panel restored it last week.
The bill has languished on the Senate floor for a week, with senior Democrats vowing to kill it.
``It will hurt the caucus fund-raiser,'' said Sen. Richard Holland, a Democrat from Isle of Wight and treasurer of the Senate Democratic caucus.
Both political parties raise money each winter to help candidates in the General Assembly, which in the 1990s emerged as a competitive two-party legislature. Democrats hold a four-seat margin in the House, while Democrats and Republicans are locked in a 20-20 deadlock in the Senate.
With the partisan margin so narrow, neither side is willing to give up any advantage. Senior Democrats say they need to take a personal role in order to match the cash magnetism of Republican Gov. George F. Allen.
``If you don't have the Governor's Mansion, it's hard raising money,'' Davies said. ``The feeling of the Democratic leadership is that this is what gives us balance.''
Davies and others who support the ban on contributions said the events could continue, with lawmakers sending out invitations to the events before the Assembly convenes on the second Wednesday of each January.
Senate Democratic Leader Richard L. Saslaw called the bill a ``sham'' because his office could continue to raise money for the Democratic Caucus as long as his aide made the pitch.
``What's the difference if I call or she calls?'' Saslaw said in an interview Tuesday afternoon. ``When she calls, they know it's me calling. Why sham the public?''
Earlier in the day, Saslaw offered an alternative bill that would preserve a proposed ban on lawmakers raising money for their own campaigns during Assembly sessions. But Saslaw's version would allow lawmakers to raise money year-round for party organizations.
A vote could come as early as today.
Saslaw said that federal campaign reform has proven that prohibitions on contributions are ineffective. The better approach, he said, is the Virginia system of having candidates disclose all contributions over $100.
``If the voters disapprove of who contributes to your campaign, they ought to throw you out. It's that simple,'' he said.
Money that lawmakers solicit for caucus receptions does not show up on the candidates' campaign finance reports. But Saslaw said he believed the public was aware of the role many Assembly members play in party fund-raising.
Portsmouth Del. Kenneth R. Melvin, who has sponsored the original bill, has warned his colleagues that escalating pressure to raise campaign money could lead to abuses.
``It's inevitable that somebody is going to do something that will bring discredit to this body,'' Melvin told the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee last week. ``We should not be accepting funds of soliciting them while we're doing the people's business.''
Supporters acknowledge that a ban on lawmakers taking money for their own campaigns or party organizations is largely symbolic. But they argue it would help reassure the public, which has been getting a nightly dose of news about questionable fund-raising by the Democratic National Committee on behalf of President Clinton.
But Saslaw termed the bill ``empty symbolism'' that will only add to voters' cynicism.
``Why do we want to fool the public?'' he asked.
KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY LOBBYISTS