Document text
--> --> Election 2002: Contributors hedge their bets First of three parts By Sean Wolfe Ashland Daily Tidings Call it a cost of doing business. As if hedging their bets to preserve political favor, individual and corporate donors are tendering campaign contributions to both Republicans and Democrats. The practice - called double-giving - is on the rise in Oregon, according to political watchdog Money in Politics Research Action Project. Janice Thompson is MIPRAP's executive director, and her figures - drawn from candidate contribution reports - show that Oregon leadership committees got about a third of their money in 2000 from sources that supplied both parties. This election season, with the first contribution reports in the 2002 primary elections now available, the numbers suggest that double-giving is continuing to mushroom. Today, about 43 percent of all dollars given to leadership PACs is from donors straddling both sides of the political fence. "This is an 11 percent increase in the money going to ensure access and influence, and it represents a trap for both the donors and the leadership PACs," Thompson said. "Double-giving trends in Oregon seems to indicate that some donors giving to both sides of the political aisle as one of the costs of doing business." Thompson points to a 2000 survey of some 300 corporate executives by the Committee for Economic Development which showed that a majority of business leaders agree that political contributions offer advantages in shaping legislation. The same study suggests that at least 51 percent of those surveyed agreed that turning down requests for campaign contributions could bring retaliation in the form of adverse legislation. "It is likely that one reason political parties are becoming more important in Oregon's politics is because of this double-giving trend. Double-giving is about keeping both political parties happy and ensuring access rather than ideological commitment," Thompson said. Ideological commitment aside, double-givers often exhibit a preference for one party over another. As one example among hundreds, area grocer Fred Meyer Inc. contributed $1,500 to Democrat PACs, but supplied $7,000 to Republican groups. That move was mirrored by the Oregon Grocery Industry Association PAC, which tendered $250 to Democrats, but over $21,000 to Republicans. A few notable exceptions don't play favorites, including: brewer Anheuser Busch, the Oregon Association of Broadcasters, spirits conglomerate Seagram, telecommunications firm Sprint, and several individual contributors. Whatever the bias, the pace of contributions to leadership PACs is stepping up, and setting records (see table). As of last count, the four leadership committees have raised more money at this point of the 2002 primary than was received during the entire 2000 primary. The popularity of PAC contributions draws in part from the power of PACs to circumvent campaign finance laws that cap the donations an individual or a corporation may contribute to an individual candidate. At the federal level, political action committees are typically headed by members of Congress or other federal politicians, but remain independent of their campaign committees. Such groups register with the Federal Election Commission as non-connected, multi-candidate political committees. From the donor's perspective, PACs let individuals contribute up to $5,000 per year to a leadership PAC, over and above the $1,000 per election the same individuals can give to the politician's federal campaign committee. Other PACs may also give up to $5,000 per year to a leadership PAC, also over and above the $5,000 per election the PAC can give to the politician's campaign committee. Thus, in a two-year election cycle an individual could give up to $1,000 to a candidate during the primary, another $1,000 in the general election, and $10,000 to the leadership PAC, for a total of $12,000. In a two-year cycle, a PAC could give a candidate up to $5,000 for the primary, $5,000 for the general and $10,000 to the leadership PAC for a total of $20,000. While leadership PACs cannot legally spend money on the sponsoring politician's election campaign, it can help defray that politician's overhead and general political costs. But typically, leadership PACs contribute to the other candidates from the sponsor's political party. Because double-givers work both sides of the fence, according to Thompson, their political impact and access to influence greatly exceeds that of ordinary citizens. But there's also a downside: Exhibiting bias in double-giving toward one party over another can lead to trouble down the road. For example, Thompson said, this is the first year that unions and trial lawyers - typically Democratic backers - have begun to double-give to the Republican party. Because they gave at lower levels, Thompson thinks that money may have been spent for nothing. "If tort reform comes up, if worker's issues come up, the legislature is going to know that they hedged their bets, but weren't a big giver. So the level of influence they could have is questionable," Thompson said. Email your... Technical questions & comments to: WebMaster Daily Tidings editorial comments & questions to: Editor Visit our other Oregon Newspapers... | Albany Democrat-Herald | Ashland Daily Tidings | Corvallis Gazette-Times | | Lebanon Express | Newport News-Times | Springfield News | Cottage Grove Sentinel | Ashland Daily Tidings 1661 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland, OR 97520 Telephone 541-482-3456 © Copyright 2001 Lee Northwest Publishing