Document text
Following the money trail Legislators' votes seldom differ from big donors' goals By PETER WONG When he and his wife, Dixie, were invited out a quarter century ago to dine with the first vice president of the Oregon AFL-CIO, the state's largest labor federation, Lenn Hannon knew it was more than a social occasion. As a 31-year-old heavy-equipment operator for the city of Ashland, Hannon had not held elected office prior to his unseating a veteran Republican senator in 1974. Now he was not only one of 30 senators, including 22 Democrats, but also vice chairman of the Senate Labor Committee. He said the dinner remains memorable not for what was served to him but what was said by the labor official. "He said, `Senator, we have not asked you for a thing,' and I said, no, he hadn't," Hannon recalled. "He said, `Well, now we are. You are killing our bills on 4-3 votes -- and we expect those bills to start coming out of committee.' "I said, `You gave me a political contribution, but you certainly didn't buy me -- and I know you don't own me.' So Dixie and I excused ourselves, went home, gathered our children around us and told them what happened. "The following morning, I called my banker in Ashland and had him withdraw the exact amount for the political contribution, which was $500. He wired it to Salem, where I got a cashier's check, paid back the campaign contribution -- and announced it on the floor of the Senate." Hannon became a Republican in 1980 and an insurance agent in 1987. Today he is one of the Senate's two senior members and its senior Republican, but often votes independently of his party or interest groups. "I think the true character of a public official lies not in accepting political contributions beforehand but in how you conduct your public life afterward," he said. But times may be changing in the state Capitol, given the soaring cost of legislative campaigns and the need of candidates to raise money for them. Some argue that it's a chicken-and-egg issue: Does the contribution buy a legislator's vote or does the contribution simply help elect a legislator who is already likely to vote for the donor's cause? Whichever comes first, the money or the like-mindedness, it's clear that legislators and their contributors usually end up on the same side of the issues. In votes involving the priority issues of the top 10 political action committees in the state, six legislators who represent portions of Jackson County sided with their contributors 27 of 33 times. No Rogue Valley legislator, Republican or Democrat, disputes the necessity of raising money for political campaigns. But they say contributors should expect nothing more -- expect perhaps their ears -- when they consider legislation in Salem. "A lot of people have given to me," said Rep. Judy Uherbelau, a three-term Democrat from Ashland. "But I think they do it because they know your political philosophy and they agree with it. I do not want to sound Pollyanna-ish. But I doubt it's nearly as bad as some people think it is." All say their doors are open to constituents who contribute small amounts or nothing. "I may be a romantic, but it really put a big lump in my throat when a senior citizen on a fixed income sent me $5 and said he really liked the way I campaigned," said Rep. Jason Atkinson, a Jacksonville Republican. His primary campaign relied on small contributors -- and a couple of contributions from political action committees that favor conservatives. Rep. Rob Patridge, a Medford Republican, said the large amounts from political action committees of business, labor unions and professions represent the collective contributions of thousands of individuals. "You have to consider the fact that they represent large groups of employers and employees," he said. "But the size of their contributions does not mean they should have any more sway." Yet candidates spent a record $12 million for election to the Oregon Legislature last year, according to Secretary of State Phil Keisling, himself a former state representative. The total in 1972 barely reached $800,000. The average for a Senate candidate was $100,032 for primary and general election campaigns, up from $6,892 in 1972. The average for a House candidate was $60,665, up from $3,784 in 1972. With numbers like those for legislative campaigns, Al Densmore of Medford said big contributors are looking for something in return. Densmore was a 24-year-old Democrat in 1970, when he campaigned door to door and spent $2,186 to upset a Republican state representative in a countywide race. He said he would be unable to duplicate that feat today, given that a candidate must reach more voters -- and needs money to do it through extensive advertising. Densmore, now a Republican who lost a comeback bid for the House in 1996, said a candidate must woo interest groups -- or be wealthy. "Let's be realistic -- there are `right' and `wrong' answers to the hypothetical questions about issues they pose to you," he said. "It isn't as if people are for sale, because it's not that crass. But what these groups do is look for people whose values match their own. "It's not quite like betting on horses, but they bet on who is going to win -- and who they like the best." The number of political action committees not affiliated with parties proliferated from 49 in the 1972 general election to a peak of 358 in 1994. The total dropped to 233 last year. Keisling said unlike two decades ago, the biggest shares of contributions to legislative candidates today -- as much as 80 percent -- come from political action committees, businesses and labor unions. "I think the predominance of this kind of money has a subtle but corrosive effect," he said. "It plays out in issues that do not get serious attention or bills that are not enacted because they offend a past or future contributor. It plays out in committee hearings that do not occur, and debates that never are heard on the floors of the House or Senate." Narrower interest groups with specific legislative goals for this year emerged as big givers in the 1998 campaigns: Oregon Restaurant Association, the fourth-ranking giver, failed twice in efforts to let employers credit a portion of employee tips against the minimum wage. The 1999 Legislature passed it, but Democratic Gov. John Kitzhaber vetoed it. Oregon Trucking Association, the sixth-ranking giver, failed in a 1997 effort to change truck taxation. The 1999 Legislature substituted higher registration fees and a diesel-fuel tax for weight-mile taxes, but coupled them with an increase in gasoline taxes. Kitzhaber signed it, but opponents led by the American Automobile Association and Oregon Taxpayers United are gathering signatures in an effort to refer it to voters next May. About two dozen legislators who received contributions voted against that bill. Oregon Credit Union League, the eighth-ranking giver, failed in a 1997 effort to expand the definition of credit-union membership. The 1999 Legislature passed that bill. "The greatest effects of campaign contributions are on issues that do not lend themselves to easy categorization but are important to the interests involved," said Bill Lunch, a political science professor at Oregon State University. "Since legislators are not getting guidance from their constituents, they are more likely to be influenced by contributions." Kip Lombard of Ashland, a Republican state representative from 1977 to 1985, said he's worried about something more. "What bothers me today are the huge contributions on both sides," Lombard said. "On the Republican side, it is people like Mark Hemstreet who put huge sums in the coffers of certain candidates. I talked to some of the recipients. They told me in retrospect they felt uneasy, because I think Hemstreet expected something along with his contributions." The owner of Shilo Inns, Hemstreet was one of two chief sponsors of a political action committee (Primary PAC) that was the fifth-largest giver in 1998. Its aims were to elect conservative Republicans such as Atkinson and unseat then-House Speaker Lynn Lundquist of Powell Butte, who held his House seat but lost the speakership after the 1998 election. Among the top givers to legislative candidates are the political action committees of the Oregon Education Association, the state's largest teachers' union, and the Oregon Public Employees Union, which represents most state and many local government employees. They give generally to Democrats, who controlled the Legislature in the 1970s and 1980s. "When they can spend more money telling their candidates' story than you can with your candidates, you are in trouble," said former House speaker Larry Campbell of Eugene, co-founder in 1988 of the Oregon Victory PAC, which recruits non-incumbent Republicans and supports them. "The purpose of our PAC was to put Republicans in control and keep them there. But we do not get into the issues." Republicans finally won the House in 1990, enabling Campbell to move from minority leader to speaker, and won the Senate in 1994. Victory PAC was the second biggest giver to legislative campaigns last year, outranked only by OEA. Laurie Wimmer, an OEA lobbyist, said the teachers failed to win legislative approval this session of $4.95 billion in aid for public schools and a requirement for licensing of all charter-school teachers. But OEA won other battles, including the death of bills to cap teacher pay increases and curb teacher dismissal rights. But Wimmer said money often was less of a factor than a motivated and mobilized membership that's 46,000 strong. Dave Barrows, a lobbyist for almost four decades, represents clients such as the Oregon League of Financial Institutions and the Association of O&C Counties. He said although there have been changes in how and where Oregon legislators get their campaign money, the changes have had less of an effect on lawmaking than people think. "Bigger chunks of dough are being thrown around these days," he said. "But I don't see them as overwhelming the system." Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 1999, Medford, Oregon USA