Money and mud major issues in congressional race

Deep Throat put it best when he -- or they -- told reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to "follow the money." The famously mysterious source was referring to Watergate and Richard Nixon, of course, but the advice still applies to politics in the 1990s.

Consider Nevada's 1st District Congressional race, where Democrat Shelley Berkley has built an almost 6-to-1 advantage in campaign contributions over Republican Don Chairez. Through mid-August Berkley had amassed $882,414 compared to Chairez's $153,484 in their tussle to succeed Republican Rep. John Ensign, who is leaving the seat to challenge Democratic Sen. Harry Reid.

Federal Election Commission figures show that as of Aug. 12 Berkley had received $625,212 from individuals, $249,141 from political action committees and $8,061 from "other" sources. Chairez had pulled down $117,484 from individuals and $11,000 from PACs, and chipped in $25,000 of his own money. Berkley had outspent Chairez $350,423 to $42,147 up to that point.

What makes all that money worth following is a simple political equation that has become nearly incontrovertible: Big dough spells big results at the polls.

The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan government watchdog based in Washington, D.C., reports that 92 percent of House races in 1996 were captured by the candidate shelling out the most money, with winners dropping an average of $673,000. Moreover, 43 of the 53 open-seat House races that year were won by the top-spending candidate.

"In general, money has become such a big factor in campaigns that it swamps almost everything else," said center spokesman Paul Hendrie.

Berkley campaign manager Richard Urey portrayed the fund-raising chasm as evidence of the university Regent's grass-roots appeal. He attributed Berkley's huge money lead to her laying the groundwork for a political bid some 18 months ago, as well as her frequent meet-and-greet forays into coffee shops and diners across the district.

Bob Spretnak, Chairez's campaign manager, conceded that it's unlikely the former District Court judge will match Berkley dollar for dollar. But nor will the gap touch off a group nail-biting session in the Republican's camp.

"As long as we get our message out, we're not going to be concerned with how much money she has," Spretnak said.

Yet in a race that since the Sept. 1 statewide primaries has been defined by fierce mudslinging, mentioning the subject of money only speeds the sludge flow.

Spretnak acknowledged that Berkley's head start in the campaign -- Chairez waited until 15 minutes before the 5 p.m. deadline May 18 to file his candidacy -- has helped her. But he also insisted that controversial comments the Democrat made earlier this year, and the philosophy they revealed, may have boosted her cause.

A tape recording surfaced in June of a conversation Berkley had with a friend last year in which she discussed ways her former employer, Las Vegas Sands Inc. Chairman Sheldon Adelson, could use his deep pockets to influence politicians. Adelson fired Berkley last year as his vice president of government relations.

Any candidate who has suggested donations buy political favors "might find it easier to raise money," Spretnak said.

"If I wanted to be cynical, I'd say it is going to hurt your ability to raise money if people know they're not going to get anything by contributing to you," he said. "They know they're not going to get anything by contributing to Don, while Ms. Berkley seems to stand for something quite to the contrary."

Criticizing Spretnak for a low-road strategy, Urey said, "It's an outrageous and ill-informed analysis, purely politically motivated. It's seeking to extend the negative campaign against Shelley."

Urey contended that Chairez's "vacillation and indecision" over launching his bid has hampered the former Democrat's fund-raising efforts. Urey also noted that the number and breadth of contributors to Berkley's campaign -- she has received donations from several hundred people across the country -- indicates widespread support among average voters more so than special interests.

Without naming Chairez, Urey argued that a candidate who garners the support of a small group of donors deserves close scrutiny. Chairez has received at least $15,000 from Adelson and his business associates. (Adelson also has funneled $348,000 to the Nevada Republican Party and $100,000 to the Republican National Committee.)

"If there's a nexus of contributors that have a common interest, and the total amount contributed by them constitute a substantial portion of a candidate's money, that justifies raising a question about it," Urey said.

Countering TV ads sponsored by the Republican Party in Washington that assail her character, Berkley recently began airing spots that hammer Chairez for Adelson's stake in his campaign.

Meanwhile, Berkley has received $1,000 from Adelson's brother Zachary, who lives in Boston, and another $3,000 from Adelson's business associates or their family members. All the donations occurred before Adelson fired Berkley last year.

"If raising money from Mr. Adelson were somehow tainted, why hasn't she given that money back?" Spretnak said.

Urey replied that voters can give money to any candidate they choose. "I don't see where you can impugn either the donor or the candidate based on what their last name is or what company they work for," he said.

archive