Category: Spring 2003 Newswire
Candidate-Donor Relationship is a Strong One
WASHINGTON – Everything, right down to the paper and the water in Democratic Rep. Michael Michaud’s legislative offices, is about unions.
Michaud is a 30-year labor union man, a paper mill worker and Maine credit union board member. He considers himself a blue-collar laborer. In his first few months in Congress, he co-sponsored legislation to increase the minimum wage and extend unemployment insurance benefits. He also signed letters opposing President Bush’s plan to stripping homeland security workers of their union protections.
And he makes sure the paper coming out of his printers and the water his staff members drink come from union sources.
Labor unions, conversely, know that they have a congressman on their side – which explains why union political action committees donated $301,500 to help Michaud beat Republican Kevin Raye in a close and competitive 2002 race, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which analyzes campaign contributions.
Michaud is “one of us,” said James Carson, president of the Maine Teamsters Union Local 340. “We were pretty excited to see if we could elect a union member to Congress,” he said. The union contributed $10,000 to Michaud’s campaign.
Labor PACs also raised $138,600, as reported on the Center for Responsive Politics’ Website, to help ensure nine-year House member Thomas Allen’s reelection over his Republican opponent, Steven Joyce, in 2002. Allen, an outspoken advocate of health- care reform and prescription-drug benefits – issues important to labor groups – listed the Laborers Union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the United Auto Workers and the National Association of Letter Carriers among his top contributors.
Members of Congress often vote in ways that please groups that give them such large amounts of money during campaign time. However, staff members say, money exercises less influence in these decisions than similarities in political philosophies.
“The Congressman always has the perspective that you can’t take a contribution from someone you can’t say no to,” said Peter Chandler, Michaud’s chief-of-staff. Fundraising, he said, “is an opportunity for people who support a campaign to invest in it. It’s doesn’t guarantee votes.”
As an example, Chandler said Michaud received $10,000 in campaign contributions from the Philip Morris Cos. Political Action Committee even though he voted against tobacco interests while serving in the state legislature in Maine. Michaud nevertheless had good working relationships with some officials from Philip Morris, now called the Altria Group Inc., Chandler said.
Especially in a first-time race, political affiliations become less important than the personal connections Chandler described. Of the $1,187,462 Michaud raised, a little less than half was from individual donors. The donations from PACs were unusually high for a first-time candidate, to a great extent because of strong support from labor.
Allen’s chief -of staff Jackie Potter said personal relationships were key during Allen’s first run for office in 1996. “He called every person he knew,” she said.
That year, almost 75 percent of Allen’s contributions were from individuals, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. This time around, for Allen, 57 percent of donations were from individuals, while 42 percent came from PACs.
In the 2002 race, however, potential donors could simply look at the congressman’s voting record and decide whether he stood with them or against them.
Often, donors decide which Congress members to give money to based on committee assignments.
“When you get elected, you pursue your interests,” Potter said. “These things coincide with what other people are interested in.” Allen’s interests, particularly his battle for affordable health care and prescription-drug benefits, as well as his efforts in energy and education reform, coincide with those of many PACs.
Potter recalled one vote that upset many labor unions – and donors. In 2000, Allen voted to establish permanent normal trade relations with China. Many labor groups, fearing the effect of foreign competition and cheap overseas labor on domestic manufacturing, lobbied hard to kill the bill.
Despite their disappointment on that vote, union leaders continued to support Allen. “He had built up a strong enough relationship” with the organizations he went against, she said.
The Teamsters had been especially vociferous during the fight against knocking down trade barriers to China, she said. But the Teamsters’ Carson said that though Allen and the group have “had our differences, by and large he’s been on our team.”
Financial support didn’t buy the Teamsters a vote. However, Carson said, the real advantage of donations comes in the form of access.
“It doesn’t get you the vote. But I really believe you have a receptive ear – that they’ll listen and give good consideration,” he said.
Ultimately, money rarely enters into a decision-making process, Chandler said. The Maine delegation – “independent thinkers,” according to Chandler – is especially apt to make decisions against donor or party lines.
“The delegation mixes it up,” he said. “They vote the way they think is right.”
Published in The Kennebec Journal and The Morning Sentinel, in Maine.
Senate Run Could Be Costly Affair For Rep. Frank
By Scott Brooks
WASHINGTON - There are few surer bets in politics than an uncontested election.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, knows all about this. In the last five general elections, he has run unopposed three times.
The Newtonville Democrat, a 22-year institution in the U.S. House of Representatives, says he has not run an active campaign since 1992, having coasted to easy victories throughout the last decade. That would change, however, if he follows through on recent comments that he might seek Sen. John Kerry's Senate seat if the Democratic senator succeeds in his bid for the presidency next year.
That seat, securely held by Sen. Kerry for nearly 20 years now, would be expected to attract some serious political heavyweights and could be one of the most hotly contested races to hit Massachusetts in years.
If Sen. Kerry leaves the Senate, the field to succeed him would be crowded, speculated Jennifer Duffy, a political analyst for the Cook Political Report. Ms. Duffy named some of the state's recent Republican governors as possible contenders, including William Weld, Paul Cellucci and possibly even Mitt Romney, whose term ends in 2006, when the seat would be up for grabs.
Such names, she said, could pose a formidable challenge to Rep. Frank, who recently became the first politician to express an interest in the seat.
"Open Senate seats don't come around that often," Ms. Duffy said. "He would get challenged. I just can't see him getting a free ride to a nomination."
Experts say an open seat in 2006 could be costly, and it has been years since Rep. Frank has been sufficiently threatened to require a heavy fundraising effort. In the last 10 years, he has raised a total of $1.7 million, a figure only slightly higher than the $1.5 million he put together in 1981-82 alone to win a second term in the House.
Among Massachusetts incumbents in the House last year, six of whom were uncontested, Rep. Frank raised the least, collecting less than $450,000.
With or without competition, Rep. Frank said, he has not organized a full-bore campaign since 1992, when his district was reshaped. That year, the last in which he ran TV and radio advertisements, he defeated his closest opponent by more than 40 percentage points
"I don't run a campaign," he said. "I just go to my district and meet with people."
In most of the congressman's recent elections, in fact, he has given away nearly as much as he has spent for himself. More than one-third of Rep. Frank's expenditures last year went to other candidates in elections all across the country.
Without an opponent, Rep. Frank dedicated just 3 percent of his total expenditures last cycle to campaign fundraisers. He spent no money on campaign signs, stickers and other paraphernalia, and won more than 166,000 votes without hiring a campaign manager.
For some politicians, such a history of campaign inactivity could be trouble during the long, crazy months of an open Senate race, according to Stuart Rothenberg, editor and publisher of The Rothenberg Political Report.
"Fundraising ability does atrophy if you don't do fundraising," Mr. Rothenberg said. "People move, people die. If he was going run statewide, he'd have to put some energy into expanding his list, updating his databases. He'd have to invest some time and energy into it."
Senate races are considerably more expensive than House races. The average Senate candidate last year spent $5 million, more than five times the average amount spent by candidates running for the House, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
In his own race last year, which did not feature a Republican opponent, Sen. Kerry raised $8.6 million, according to Political Money Line, a campaign finance research website. That figure is roughly five times what Rep. Frank raised over the last decade.
Ms. Duffy said a race to replace Sen. Kerry could resemble the senator's intense 1996 race against then-Massachusetts Gov. William Weld. That race cost the two candidates a total of about $19 million.
However, Ms. Duffy, said Rep. Frank should not have much of a problem tapping into new revenue sources. In particular, she said, he could draw heavily from the gay community, which gives overwhelmingly to Democratic candidates. That could be a deep well for Rep. Frank, given the scarcity of other openly gay candidates for the community to support, she said.
Also, she said, Rep. Frank's voting record might prove attractive to environmental groups and organized labor, both strong Democratic revenue sources.
"Lots of people might have a problem," Ms. Duffy said. "I think, however, that Frank has some national constituencies that will help him a great deal."
Rep. Frank said he would not speculate on a future Senate campaign.
"It is in the future. It's non-existent right now," he said. "If and when it happens, it will happen. It plays zero part in my life right now."
Published in The New Bedford Standard Times, in Massachusetts.
Department of Veterans Affairs Prepared to Deal With New Vets
By Bill Yelenak
WASHINGTON – The Veterans Affairs Department is "definitely better prepared than ever" to give aid to soldiers who complete their military duties after the war in Iraq, according to department spokesman Jim Benson.
Some in Connecticut, however, are not ready to share Benson's confidence. They said they were uncertain that the state's VA facilities would be able to handle an increased caseload.
There is no need to worry, Benson said, about the department being overwhelmed when new veterans come home from Iraq. Under a 1998 program, the VA will provide free medical care to veterans who are "returning from a combat zone" for up to two years, even without a medical issue connected to combat. Soldiers with medical issues stemming from military action can then request further assistance from the VA.
"We've allowed care to be given right away," Benson said. "One of the criticisms before was not getting care to them as quickly as possible."
However, Pamela Redmond, a spokeswoman for the VA Connecticut Healthcare System, said it was too soon to tell whether the war would cause a backlog in the state, saying it is "so early in the conflict to predict that at this point."
Questions on availability of VA aid arose after the department said veterans whose incomes exceed specified thresholds could no longer be eligible for VA programs after Jan. 17, 2003. According to Benson, this mandate will last until Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal year, at which point it could be ruled on again.
"The idea was partly to help give us a chance to work down the backlog of the people waiting for appointments," he said. "That's been a real frustrating issue for veterans, as well as for VA."
Redmond said Thursday that the number of state veterans who have been turned away since Jan. 17 was unavailable.
However, the absence of the "Priority Group 8" veterans, who can no longer apply under the ruling, has made it possible for the program to be ready for veterans who come back from Iraq, Benson said.
He said VA Secretary Anthony J. Principi believes that the current limitation on medical care "helps protect the access to that care for those combat veterans because we're relieving some of that pressure. Those folks will come in and we would be able to handle them."
Benson added that the VA has been preparing for any combat illnesses soldiers may face after being in Iraq, including the addition of two research centers that would be "devoted strictly to war-related illnesses and treatment."
"We've worked with the Department of Defense, and our physicians have developed standardized clinical practice guidelines because before, many physicians had not come in contact with those kinds of injuries or illnesses," Benson said. "We've been blessed by not having to deal with a lot of combat-related things from challenging environments."
Mike Kirk, spokesman for U.S. Rep. John Larson (D-1), said the VA was a major concern of veterans in the congressman's district, and said there had been a "lot of complaints that they aren't getting the level of service they would like."
Kirk said one of the veterans' biggest worries in previous years was that specialty care services might be moved from the Newington facility to the one in West Haven, leaving local veterans with a much longer commute to get treatment. The Newington facility remains.
Larson introduced legislation earlier this year designed to afford veterans easier access to care. Under the proposal, if the VA facilities could not handle all requests for care, veterans could go to a non-VA medical facility for treatment that would normally be covered by the agency and then bill the VA for it.
The bill would also include provisions to create electronic processing of claims and to improve the department's assessment of waiting times for services.
"Basically, it's a bill to ensure that if the VA can't live up to its own standards, veterans will continue to get what they deserve," Kirk said.
Brian Schubert, press secretary to U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-5), said the congresswoman was also planning to introduce legislation to aid veterans by speeding up the filling of their prescriptions.
Currently, certain groups of veterans must see a VA doctor, even if they have a prescription from their own doctor, to get their prescription filled at a VA facility, according to Schubert. He said the legislation would help to eliminate the backlog at many VA locations.
Bill Yelenak, a Boston University student, works at the Boston University Washington News Service in Washington, D.C. His telephone number is 202-756-2860 ext: 114 and his email is byelenak@newbritainherald.com.
Published in The New Britain Herald, in Connecticut.
Michaud Campaign Finances Broke State Records
WASHINGTON--In his first run for Congress last year, Rep. Mike Michaud raised $1,187,462, more than any candidate ever brought in before in a District 2 House of Representatives race, according to the Federal Election Commission.
Michaud spent $1,178,398 to win his seat, and the national Democratic Party threw in about $800,000 more on his behalf, according to Rick Galena, the fundraising director for Michaud's campaign.
Michaud captured 52 percent of the vote in a race against Kevin Raye, a former aide to Sen. Olympia Snowe. Both parties poured money into the race for the seat vacated by Democrat John Baldacci, who was elected governor, as they tried to increase their numbers in a closely divided House.
Galena said the fundraising was as close and as difficult as the race itself.
"When they said how much money we had to raise, I laughed," Galena said. "I think we surprised a lot of people."
Galena said Michaud raised a large amount of money from core Democratic donors and supporters he met during two decades in the Maine legislature.
Eighty-five percent of Michaud's contributions came from Maine, Galena said.
Michaud, a former employee of the Great Northern Paper Mill, received about $300,000 from organized labor. Other union political action committees that contributed represented electrical workers, carpenters, ironworkers and food and commercial employees.
"We benefited greatly from our wide breadth of support from organized labor," Galena said. Michaud, he said, was "one of two or three actual card-carrying union members running. It's very uncommon for labor to be able to elect one of their own to such a high position."
Michaud's campaign finances were split closely between individual contributions and political action committees (PACs). Of the money donated by PACs, about half came from labor, 32 percent from interest groups that focus on single issues and 18 percent from business PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors campaign contributions.
Some of the top contributors to Michaud's campaign were the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of Credit Unions and the AFL-CIO.
Raye raised nearly as much as Michaud-$1,129,835-and spent almost as much as the winner--$1,116,770. Spokespeople for the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee declined to say how much the GOP spent on the race.
Because of campaign finance reform laws passed last year that restrict "soft money" -previously unlimited contributions to political parties - Michaud's fundraising strategy may change in his next election. The law is being challenged in court.
"We will be relying even more on individual contributions, everything from the person who can give $25 to the person who can give the maximum [now $4,000]," Galena said.
First-time candidates who won their races raised an average of $1,120,215 in the 2002 congressional races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.. Michaud's campaign raised the second-highest amount, topped only by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who raised $2,970,215 to topple Republican Rep. Connie Morella.
When Baldacci first was elected in 1994, he spent less then $400,000 on his campaign, according to the Federal Election Commission.
In other 2002 congressional races in Maine, Rep. Tom Allen - running for his third term in the District 1 House seat - raised $510,244, and Sen. Susan Collins - in a competitive race again Common Cause President Chellie Pingree - raised $4.3 million.
Published in The Bangor Daily News, in Maine.
Both Sununu and Bradley Won More With Less in 2002 Election
WASHINGTON—Both of New Hampshire's freshman Congressmen, Sen. John Sununu (R) and Rep. Jeb Bradley (R), spent and received less money than their losing opponents in the 2002 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) in Washington.
The CRP's Web site, www.opensecrets.org, shows that Bradley raised $1.01 million in the 2001-02 election cycle and spent $983,450, while his opponent, Democrat Martha Fuller Clark, raised and spent more than $3.5 million. Bradley defeated Clark in November with 58 percent of the vote.
Sununu raised over $3.73 million and spent over $3.67 million in what became one of the tightest Senate races in the country, defeating former New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen with 51 percent of the vote. Shaheen both raised and spent more than $5.8 million during the campaign.
"It's not about money. It's about people and ideas," Sununu's communications director, Barbara Riley, said in a statement. "Sen. Sununu ran a town-to-town, person-to-person, grass-roots campaign. We may have been out-spent, but we were never out-thought"
Rep. Charlie Bass (R-N.H.) ran successfully for reelection last year. Like Sununu and Bradley, he received less and spent less than his challenger, Katrina Swett.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) who will not be up for re-election until 2004, received $277,763, according to the CRP Web site.
Both Bradley and Sununu received campaign money from a range of individual donors, companies and political action committees (PACs), which are groups of individuals who pool their money under one common concern, such as the name of an employer, union, or interest group. Campaign finance laws limit PAC contributions to a candidate to $10,000 per election cycle.
Sununu received over $1.56 million from PACs (42 percent of his overall receipts), while Bradley received $369,338 (37 percent).
One of the largest PAC contributors to the New Hampshire campaigns was telecommunications company Verizon, which gave Bradley $10,000, according to the CRP. Verizon also contributed $2,500 to Gregg in 2001-02.
SBC Communications, another major PAC contributor, gave Bradley $3,000. An SBC spokeswoman said in an interview that the company values and supports members-"like New Hampshire's"--with an "intellectual command of how our industry works."
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) shows that Bradley is working to pay back $309,000 in personal loans he took out during the campaign and that the campaign itself is more than $33,000 in debt.
Bradley said in an interview that he is working on paying back his loan and removing the campaign debt, and cites the reason for both was that was a first-time candidate for the House.
He hosted a clambake fundraiser on March 13 in New England, saying that he was "getting a head start." The Nashua Telegraph reported that Bradley raised over $25,000 at the event.
Bass, noting that he was outspent by his opponent, said one thing candidates learn in an election is that winning comes from saying what you mean and how well you communicate your message.
"Money doesn't win elections. Votes win elections," he said.
Published in Foster's Daily Democrat, in New Hampshire.
NH Congressional Delegation Focused on Work and War
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — Eight days after the first bombs struck Iraq, Congress and New Hampshire's lawmakers are going about their daily business, for the most part.
"We're getting briefings every day from the State Department, Defense Department and, if necessary, Homeland Security," Rep. Charlie Bass, R-N.H., said in an interview. "That's the only change on a daily basis. We have a regular schedule this week, so the business of Congress is going along."
With the thundering sounds and flaring images of bombs and missiles constantly lighting up the night sky in Iraq, ground troops speeding through the desert in tanks, pictures of injured or captured U.S. soldiers on television and recent reports that the war might take much longer than originally expected, Americans and members of Congress have focused much of their attention on the war. For the nation's political leaders, however, life pretty much continues as planned.
The House could vote on President Bush's $74.7 billion supplemental war budget request as early as next week. Yesterday, the House voted to pass the Amber Alert bill to help prevent child abductions.
Bass, along with New Hampshire's other congressman, Rep. Jeb Bradley, R-N.H., said he thinks that Americans are keeping a close eye on the war. "I think members of Congress are watching very carefully the news and so forth, and responding to it," he said.
"Like every other American, members of Congress are glued to their television set," Bradley said in an interview. "From my point of view, I'm doing everything I guess that we can to show support for the troops publicly, to support the mission."
With most Americans' eyes on the war, and this being the first time journalists are "embedded" with military units, the media's coverage of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" has become a controversial topic.
"I find that coverage has been exceptional," Bradley said. "What I think it's showing Americans at home is how dedicated these young men and women are who are defending our liberties."
After spending the majority of the last two weeks voting on various amendments to the budget resolution for next year, the Senate approved it on Wednesday.
"The Senate continues to go about its business," Jeff Turcotte, press secretary for Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said in a statement. The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which Gregg chairs, met yesterday, Turcotte noted. "So business has not ground to a halt," he said.
However, he said the war has prompted lots of talk and concern at the Capitol.
"While the Senate continues its business, the war in Iraq has been front and center for a great deal of discussion here," Turcotte said. "I'm not sure it's fair to classify the mood on the Hill as business 'as usual.' While the budget process is a predictable, annual event, obviously the thoughts and prayers of Senator Gregg are with the troops in Iraq."
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge testified yesterday before the Senate Appropriations Committee on the President's supplemental budget request.
Sen. John E. Sununu, R-N.H., said he doesn't think it's been "business as usual" in this time of war.
"This is an extraordinary circumstance," he said. "National security issues, homeland security spending, are at the top of the priority list. On a day-to-day basis, we're receiving top-secret briefings each morning that help to ensure senators have any information they need in making good policy decisions."
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
Gregg, Sununu Vote Against Special Education Amendment
By Kim Forrest
WASHINGTON--Sens. Judd Gregg (R-NH) and John Sununu (R-NH), both notably strong supporters of federal grants for special education, voted against an amendment Wednesday that would have provided the full 40 percent of local costs next year that Congress had promised when it adopted the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1975. Their vote prompted much disapproval from the New Hampshire Democratic Party.
The Senate, by 27-71, rejected the amendment to the fiscal 2004 budget resolution offered by Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN).
The vote came only days after the Senate accepted Gregg's amendment, which would place the IDEA law on what Gregg described as a "glide path" toward full promised 40 percent of special-education costs in six years, with 26 percent funded by 2005. Gregg's amendment was approved, 89-10.
In a statement, Dayton called for removing the President's proposed dividend tax exemption from the budget or retaining current rates for the top three tax brackets to compensate for the increase in special-education funds. He noted that the federal government currently meets less than 17 percent of the IDEA target.
"The need for more funding is so urgent that surely we can postpone half of the tax cut this budget provides the wealthiest people in America," Dayton said in the statement.
On the Senate floor Wednesday, Gregg expressed concern that Dayton's amendment would increase IDEA spending by 250 percent in one year and cost $229 billion over 10 years. That, he said, would boost the federal share to more than 60 percent, much more than the 40 percent Congress committed to in 1975.
"At some point, we have to recognize that what is happening here is not an attempt to have fiscal responsibility or proper budgeting but simply to put forward a show," Gregg said on the floor.
Jeff Turcotte, Gregg's press secretary, said Gregg's view is that government spending "simply has to be put under control," emphasizing that the vote against the Dayton Amendment was bipartisan, including liberal Democrats.
"Full funding [for special education] is something [Senator Gregg] is still committed to on aggressive levels," Turcotte said.
Sununu agreed with Gregg's take on the Dayton's amendment, saying that it would cause excessive spending and a substantial tax increase.
"Since I was elected to Congress in 1996, I have voted consistently to increase special- education funding - from $3.1 billion in 1997 to $8.6 billion in 2003," he said in a statement. "Additionally, the budget resolution just passed by the Senate funds IDEA at its highest level ever. This represents real results, not partisan rhetoric, and I will continue working toward full funding as we reauthorize IDEA this year.
In his statement, Sununu expressed continued support for the Gregg amendment,, saying it "places the federal government on a direct path to full funding of special-education costs and it does so while controlling the growth of the overall budget."
Kathy Sullivan, chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party expressed disappointment in the Granite State's Senate delegation, saying that if special education was receiving the promised 40 percent, it would mean lower taxes for New Hampshire residents, who, she said, must pay to compensate for the inadequate federal funds for special education.
"It's another case of Senators Gregg and Sununu making the wrong choices for New Hampshire," she said. "… If they voted to fully fund special education, it would mean a local property tax break for every one in New Hampshire."
She also noted that while the Senators support the tax cut for the wealthy, they did not vote in favor of an amendment that would
"[The New Hampshire Senators] are very happy to give away money to a few, but…by not fully funding special education, it shows that their priorities are not right," she said.
Published in The Keene Sentinel, in New Hampshire.
Shays Says Strong Incumbency A Response From Voters
By Paul Ziobro
WASHINGTON – Eight-term Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4, said Thursday he mentally prepares two speeches each election night, aware that voters might have decided to send him packing.
"When I win reelection, I'm excited about it but I don't have any illusions," Shays said in an interview. "Two years from now, I can be on the opposite side."
But 4th district voters have yet to give Shays a scare, returning him to his seat with a comfortable majority in each campaign. Part of this success rate, Shays said, is the voters' approval of his job.
"Incumbents tend to have an advantage particularly if they're doing a good job," said Shays, who plans to seek a 9th full term in 2004. "But if they're not doing a good job, being an incumbent can be a pretty big disadvantage."
Incumbents, however, have other advantages that keep them entrenched in office-mainly, name recognition and non-competitive districts, according to University of Connecticut political science professor Ken Dautrich. Access to money, media coverage and free mailing, he said, keeps incumbents' names and faces fresh in voters' minds come election time.
"More than half the battle with a congressional election is name recognition," Dautrich said in an interview Tuesday. Challengers to an incumbent's seat, he said, usually need a deep-pocketed campaign fund and near perfect campaign management to raise their name recognition to that of their opponent.
Name recognition oftentimes translates to campaign funding, where Shays has enjoyed a consistent advantage. Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings show that Shays raised and spent more than eight times as much money as his democratic opponent, Stephanie Sanchez of Greenwich, in the 2002 congressional campaign. Shays raised $975,551 over the 2001-02 election cycle, spending all but $60,438. that unspent sum alone was more than half the amount that Sanchez raised in her entire campaign, records show.
The same two candidates ran against each other in the 2000 election, with similar numbers, as Shays spent $1,401,299 in route to winning 58 percent of the vote while Sanchez spent $172,155. That has been the pattern since Shays won a special House election in 1987: he has always won at least 57 percent of the vote and has always outspent his opponent by at least $300,000.
Sanchez said in an interview Wednesday that free mailings for challengers and free television time for both candidates would be a step toward curbing the incumbent's advantage in name recognition. State Democratic Party chairman George Jepsen suggested capping spending and publicly financing campaigns to reduce the advantage.
"What's fair about a 98 or 100 percent reelection rate?" Sanchez said, referring to the 98 percent success rate that the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) has identified for House incumbents. "Where's the democracy-the level playing field-in that?"
Shays said reelecting him time and again represents constituents voicing their approval. "Instead of saying that someone who has been in office for a long time is not doing a good job, what I would say is they are doing a good job or they wouldn't have been elected," he said.
Continuity in Congress also benefits people back in the district. "I have more experience, I have more authority and I have more knowledge of the district," Shays said.
Sanchez, who raised $118,970 for the 2002 campaign, said she fell prey to what he described as Shays' advantage in getting contributions from individuals from political action committees (PACs) trying to gain access to the congressman. Shays received $157,257 in PAC contributions, compared to Sanchez' $8,900, FEC records show.
The CRP found that $62,000 of Shays' PAC contributions came from the finance, insurance and real estate industries and $47,500 from organized labor. He also received $18,825 from ideological and single-issue groups and $10,000 from the transportation industry.
Sanchez said the Shays-sponsored Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, which went into effect Nov. 6, the day after the past elections, would add to the fundraising advantage incumbents have. "The people that want to donate the large amounts, and the special interests that want access to these legislators-they're going to find ways to donate to them," she said.
Shays said the law deals with reducing the influence of corporate contributions and union dues money that distorted campaigns. However, he said, he would advocate publicly financing congressional elections and establishing low television advertisement rates during elections to level the playing field.
Thomas Mann, a senior fellow who studies campaign finance for the Brookings Institution, said the new law would have little or no bearing on an incumbent's advantage. "The effort to improve the competitiveness of elections will require a subsequent reform agenda having to do with free TV time and such other things," he said Wednesday.
Fairfield resident Charlie Gibbons, a Republican, said he and his wife, Jane, a Democrat, find few political issues to agree on but both support Shays as a candidate, contributing $1,750 to his campaign committee since 2000. But despite Shays' easy victories, Gibbons said he thinks incumbents don't have an advantage because they have more to answer to than their challengers.
"A new person coming in can say anything, promise anything, do anything-they don't have to deliver," Gibbons said Wednesday. "They (incumbents) can't hide from tough decisions or just say things that make people happy."
The other main factor keeping lawmakers in their House seats is that most congressional districts lean toward one of the major parties, making it difficult for a candidate in the district's minority party to win an election, Dautrich said.
Connecticut, however, has a higher concentration of independent voters than most states-42 percent compared to a nationwide average of about 30 percent-so the state's congressional districts are harder to characterize as either Republican or Democratic, said Dautrich, who heads UConn's Center for Survey and Research Analysis. Shays knows this and said his "term limit" comes up every two years, when he has to win reelection in a "totally swing district."
"Our founding fathers devised a system where you had to go out into the marketplace and make sure that people wanted you back in office," he said.
Asked what it would take to mount a serious challenge to Shays, Sanchez responded, "If I could raise $1 million, I could afford to get my message out and reach the voters. No matter how idealistic or optimistic I'd like to be, realistically, it's close to impossible."
Jepsen, a former state Senate majority leader, also spoke uncertainly about being able to find a viable Democratic challenger for Shays' seat.
"There's a strong case to be built against Chris Shays, but it would take a well-financed, strong candidate who has spent a lot of time doing it," Jespen said. "No incumbent is unbeatable, but the system is stacked."
When asked the same question, Shays said he knew there were people who could present a stiff challenge, "and I hope they don't run."
Published in The Hour, in Connecticut.
U.S. Senate Approves President’s $2.2 Trillion Spending Package, Tax Cut Package Still Up In The Air
WASHINGTON-- After days of intense debate over President Bush's plan to cut taxes, the U.S. Senate on Wednesday approved the president's request for $2.2 trillion to run the government in fiscal year 2004.
The budget passed 56-44; the Republican senators from New Hampshire, John Sununu and Judd Gregg, voted for the spending package and the Democratic senators from Massachusetts, John F. Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy, voted against it.
The vote came a day after the Senate narrowly agreed to reduce Bush's proposed tax cuts over the next 10 years from $726 billion to $350 billion. The decision of a few moderate Republicans to join forces with the Democrats in Tuesday's vote reversed an earlier decision by the Senate to reject the reduced tax cut proposal. Republicans say that Bush's plan would boost the economy and create jobs. Democrats and the GOP opposition argue that Bush's tax cut is too large at a time of war, when the country is facing record deficits and increasing costs to defend the homeland.
The Senate budget resolution must now be reconciled with the House version, which includes the president's full $726 billion tax cut. Congressman Jeb Bradley, R-N.H., said in an interview Wednesday that the tax-cut number should fall somewhere in the middle of what Bush proposed and what the Senate approved.
"It's open to further amendments at this point, so what the final package is remains to be seen," Bradley said Wednesday. "We will have to begin negotiations to reconcile the differences between the two bodies."
Bradley said the tax cut would probably be lower than he'd like, but he hopes it is still enough to spark an economic growth spurt.
"In historic times, with fighting the war on terror, with a significant recession, we need a stimulus package that gets the economy moving again," he said. "That will be the best shot in the arm for the economy."
Massachusetts's lawmakers scorned the Republicans for focusing on a tax cut when the country is at war. Congressman Martin T. Meehan, who voted against the budget on the House side last week, said in an interview Wednesday that it's inconceivable "at a time when we're asking Americans to sacrifice, when some of our men and women in uniform are making the ultimate sacrifice, to give a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans."
In a Senate speech Monday, Kennedy said he's baffled that at a time when most Americans are tuned into television news coverage of the war in Iraq, Congress was pondering a budget without money for war-related expenses.
"It is as though this budget had been drafted in a sound-proofed room, so that the sounds of war and the voices of the American people could not be heard," Kennedy said.
The president plans to pay for the war through a supplemental budget, which includes money that that is not appropriated in the regular budget. Bush is asking Congress for almost $75 billion to pay for the first 30 days of the war. The money would be spent to pay the troops, replenish weapons and equipment and help rebuild Iraq when the war ends.
Unlike the president's fiscal year 2004 budget and proposed tax cut, the war budget is not likely to face much opposition. Meehan, D-Lowell, said that while he is skeptical of the price tag, he expects the war budget to gain bipartisan support.
"Certainly, with our troops in harm's way, we need to provide money for the war," he said. But $75 billion "really isn't the cost of the war. It's only based on a brief period of time. It assumes a short war, and while we're making progress, we can't be sure of the length of the war."
Meehan said the president's supplemental war budget does not include sufficient funds to rebuild Iraq. Meehan said he hopes United States can get "other countries to share that cost with us."
The New Hampshire delegation backed the war budget without question, with Bradley calling the $74.7 billion price tag "appropriate" and Sununu labeling it a "common sense package."
"This spending is needed now," Sununu said in a statement.
"We really have to move forward with paying for our troops to be over there," said Bradley, a freshman this year.
Congress is likely to massage the war budget when it goes before the House and Senate Appropriations Committees next week, but Gregg pledged to make sure "our brave men and women have the resources they need to be successful in Iraq."
"They are doing a tremendous job, and I expect Congress to approve these funds," Gregg said in a statement.
Published in The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, in Massachusetts.
Meehan has $1.8 Million in War Chest
WASHINGTON-- He earned a national reputation by battling the influence of big money on politics. But being the king of campaign-finance reform has not hurt Congressman Martin T. Meehan's ability to raise money for his own campaigns: his $1.8 million year-end war chest was larger than that of any other member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Massachusetts.
Unlike most members of Congress, Meehan doesn't take money from corporations or special-interest groups. To keep his campaign coffers brimming, the Democrat from Lowell relies on his roots.
"It seemed that a better way to raise money would be from individuals back home rather than individuals inside the (capital) Beltway," Meehan said in an interview.
Of the nearly $600,000 that Meehan's campaign raised for his re-election last year, almost all of it -- $597,438 -- came from individual donations, rather than from political action committees, or PACs, according to campaign finance reports Meehan filed with the Federal Election Commission.
The Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors federal campaign spending, reported that 79 percent of Meehan's contributions came from Bay State residents during 2001-2002. The independent, Washington-based center analyzes FEC reports and posts summaries on its Web site, www.opensecrets.org. According to the site, Meehan received $10,500 from New Yorkers and $25,000 from his Washington-based supporters.
Unlike his opponents in last year's election - Republican Chuck McCarthy Jr., and Libertarian Ilana Freedman - Meehan did not take any money from political action committees.
Meehan said he doesn't want to run for Congress on the backs of interest groups that lobby him on legislation. He said he returns any PAC contributions that might slip through; and the Center for Responsive Politics confirmed that he returned $2,000 from communication and technology PACs during his last campaign.
Instead of rubbing elbows with lobbyists at cocktail-party fundraisers, Meehan goes home.
"I never realized that not taking PAC money would keep me so plugged in to the people in Massachusetts," he said. "It keeps me in Massachusetts more than most members. I think that's a good thing. It keeps me in touch."
Most other Massachusetts Congress members also receive the majority of their campaign money from residents of the state, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Democratic Congressman John Tierney topped the list for 2001-2002 with 95.9 percent of his money coming from Bay State residents. Meehan ranked sixth on the list with 79 percent, and Democratic Congressman Edward J. Markey was last with 39 percent.
Meehan's press secretary, Stacy Kerr, said Meehan wants most of his money to come from Bay State residents because "those are the people he represents.
"He comes to Washington to vote, but he spends his time in the district," she said. "The contributors are people who see him at home, and who share their problems with him when they see him on the street."
Even reformers need money
Meehan worked for more than seven years to convince Congress to reform the way campaigns are financed because he wanted to remove the influence of special-interest money on politics, Kerr said.
Last year, after several false starts, Congress passed sweeping legislation that banned the use of so-called "soft money," previously unlimited contributions to political parties. The bill increased from $2,000 to $4,000 the amount individuals can donate to a candidate.
The law, which took effect the day after the November 2002 election, was sponsored in the House by Meehan and Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and in the Senate by John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold, D-Wisc.
Soft money was supposed to be used for generic purposes, like voter registration drives, but it became common practice for the national parties to spend it on campaign ads for their candidates, said Steven Weiss, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. The fight for campaign-finance reform was one of the most bitter for many years on Capitol Hill - after all, it affects every member of Congress - and some lawmakers have filed lawsuits claiming it is unconstitutional.
Members of Congress also have complained that the legislation has many unintended consequences that could affect elections, and that even Meehan and the other authors of the reform measure don't fully realize all of the things it could do.
Reform advocates say the new law will not harm candidates' ability to raise money.
"What's interesting about Meehan and the other supporters of campaign-finance reform is that they still have to raise money, and they do it entirely legally," Weiss said. "And among those who are trying to remove money from the system, you find those who are very good fundraisers."
A knack for bringing in the cash
People who know Meehan well say he has a knack for fundraising. A former teacher of his, Marie Sweeney, said people are drawn to his down-to-earth personality and candid demeanor.
"People gravitate toward him because he's pretty direct," said Sweeney, who lives in Tewksbury. "He's smart about representing the community. He understands the big issues and the small issues."
Sweeney has attended many Meehan fundraisers and political events. She said her former English student delivers A-list guests, such as former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. His most recent fundraiser, a two-day event in conjunction with St. Patrick's Day, included John Hume, who shared a Nobel Peace Prize in 1998 for working for a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland. The event, in Haverhill and Dracut, drew 1,200 people.
Because he doesn't take PAC money, Meehan said he has to be a more aggressive fundraiser than some of his colleagues and it can be more difficult and time consuming to raise money. He typically holds five fundraisers a year, and said he tries to make the events entertaining. One of his most popular events is a whale watching cruise, which he booked out of Newburyport last year. Meehan plans to set sail again this summer and, with tickets priced at $50 apiece, he hopes to bring in at least $15,000. He also is planning a golf tournament and a comedy night this year.
Leon C. Asadoorian, president of Methuen Construction, is a large donor to Meehan's campaigns. A resident of North Hampton, N.H., Asadoorian gave $2,000 to Meehan's 2002 election and made another $1,000 donation in December for the 2004 race.
Asadoorian said he supports Meehan because he works hard for his district.
"Lawrence needs a lot of help, it needs a strong presence in Washington," he said in a phone interview. "Past congressmen have done OK, but Marty's doing an outstanding job."
Meehan is especially popular with members of the business community, which Kerr said is no surprise since "economic development is his top priority." Lawyers gave Meehan, a former prosecutor, $57,014 for his 2002 campaign; real estate agents donated $35,475, and contractors gave him $16,700, according to a list of top industry donors compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
When asked why he thinks Meehan gets so much support from the business community, Asadoorian said the congressman has continually supported local businesses like Malden Mills, which supplies the United States military with Polartec uniforms.
Giving back to the community
Meehan also maintains visibility in his district by donating excess campaign money to charities and civic groups. Last year, he gave $200 to the Merrimack Repertory Theatre in Lowell and $100 to the Haverhill Chamber of Commerce, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
With the next election more than a year-and-a-half away, Meehan has more money socked away than his House colleagues from Massachusetts. After Meehan, Congressman William Delahunt, a Democrat representing the 10th District, had the largest war chest, with $1.37 million. Congressman Richard Neal, a Democrat representing the 2nd District, had $1 million, according to the center.
Political insiders speculate that Meehan is stockpiling money to prepare for a possible future bid for the Senate. Massachusetts democratic Sen. John F. Kerry is running for president next year, and if he wins, his Senate seat will open in 2006. Meehan told the Eagle-Tribune last October that he can't predict what he'll be doing in four years, but said he would consider running if there was an opening "some day down the road."
When asked recently what he's saving for, Meehan said he wants to be prepared for the possibility of a closely contested House re-election race.
"Sometimes," he said, "millionaires run."
Published in The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, in Massachusetts.
