Election '82: Slinging Mud and Money

(2 of 4)

Incumbent Clements actually had trouble spending all his money effectively at the end of his campaign. He could buy no more than $280,000 a week of TV time because that is all Texas stations were willing to sell. Lehrman's spending in New York became an issue in itself, adding bite to the slogan of his Democratic opponent, Lieutenant Governor Mario Cuomo: "Experience money can't buy."

These results, however, are more than a little misleading. For one thing, the conquerors of the megaspenders were forced into extraordinary outlays. Democrat Mark White spent $5 million to turn Clements out of the Texas Governor's chair, and Republican David Durenberger shelled out $3.5 million to beat back Dayton's Senate challenge in Minnesota. Moreover, lavish spending did buy some offices. Democratic Businessman Frank Lautenberg concedes he could never have upset Republican Congresswoman Millicent Fenwick for a New Jersey Senate seat if he had not spent $3.25 million to Fenwick's $1.4 million.

On the spending level just below the top, money counted very heavily. Of the 33 Senators elected last Tuesday, 27 outspent their opponents, frequently by wide margins in close races. Says Fred Wertheimer, president of Common Cause: "Anyone who argues that money was not a crucial factor in this election is not really looking at what happened." Several political analysts estimate that the ability of Republican incumbents to raise more cash than Democratic challengers held Democratic gains in the House to 26 seats, from perhaps 40 that might have switched if outlays had been more even, and prevented a loss of two or three Senate seats.

Even Republicans who applaud that result often concede that the escalating spending is undermining the political process. It tends to confine political office to candidates who are either independently wealthy or willing to sell their votes to the proliferating political action committees (PACs) of special-interest groups. These two types often are really one. It has become standard procedure for a rich candidate to lend huge sums to his campaign from his personal fortune, then stage fund-raising parties after the election at which he solicits funds from PACS to repay himself. Says Edward Roeder, compiler of a directory, PACs Americana: "Many Senate seats have been bought but not yet paid for. We will see whether they are put up for sale."

Ominously, PACs are also spreading their influence into state legislatures, fearfully bloating the once modest cost of campaigning for them. The standout example is California. Democrat Tom Hayden, who spent $1.3 million winning an assembly seat, had little need of PAC support; his wife Jane Fonda contributed or loaned two-thirds of the money for his race. But business PACS eager to keep the left-leaning Hayden from acquiring any political power pledged to raise $1 million for his opponent, Bill Hawkins, and they almost did. Hawkins spent more than $800,000. Party groups and business and labor PACs also provided much of the $1 million, split about evenly, that Republican Charles Imbrecht and Democrat Gary Hart (no relation to his namesake, the Colorado Senator) spent battling for a seat in the state senate. Hart narrowly won.