STUDY: SPECIAL-INTEREST FUNDS FLOW

Groups Seek To Keep Political Status Quo

WASHINGTON -- The nation's special interests are attempting to
preserve the political status quo with a flood of campaign
contributions to incumbents in Congress, a study released Monday by
the Center for Responsive Politics indicates.

Nearly two-thirds of the incumbents seeking re-election in this year's
House and Senate races received so much money by June 30 of this year
that they had at least a 10-1 fundraising advantage over their
challengers, the study shows.

The giving was measured by the non-partisan research organization for
the first 18 months of the current election cycle that began in
January 1997. The study used data from the Federal Election Commission.

Tobacco company Philip Morris, which has been fighting congressional
proposals to place substantial new taxes on cigarettes and limit
advertising, tops the list of individual contributors for that period.
The company gave nearly $2.6 million to candidates, political action
committees and in so-called ``soft money'' contributions to political
parties.

Other big individual givers included the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers ($2.3 million), the Association of Trial Lawyers of
America ($2.3 million), the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees ($2.1 million) and AT&T ($1.8 million).

Overall, the finance-insurance-real estate industry was the most
generous industry group, giving $98 million to candidates and parties
in the current election cycle. Other big giving groups included
lawyers and lobbyists ($45.7 million), labor unions ($38.4 million)
and the health care industry ($35.8 million).

Organizations and individuals in the District of Columbia gave by far
the most money ($104 million). The runner-up was the state of New York
with ($58.3 million).

The giving reflected the realities of power in Washington, with
Republicans claiming the largest shares of contributions from the
nation's business giants, and Democrats getting the biggest share of
gifts from unions and trial lawyers.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers gave 98 percent of
its $2.3 million congressional contribution to Democrats, while the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees gave
Democrats 97 percent of its $2 million donation. The American Trial
Lawyers Association ranked third among Democratic givers, with almost
86 percent of its $2.3 million contribution going to Democrats.

Philip Morris led GOP donations, giving 77 percent of its $2.6
million. Amway gave all of its $1.5 million donation to Republicans,
while the United Parcel Service supported the party with 78 percent of
$1.6 million.

``(The findings) paint a picture of the changing nature of power in
American politics or, more to the point, the use of money as an
instrument of political power,'' said Larry Makinson, executive
director of the Center for Responsive Politics.

``This shows that money is destroying elections, which is the building
block of democracy,'' said Ann McBride, president of Common Cause, a
lobbying group that supports partial public financing of congressional
election campaigns.

In 1974, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Practices Act,
which restricted cash contributions in federal elections. It required
disclosure of donors and amounts, and limited campaign contributions
to candidates and parties. But Supreme Court rulings since then have
opened new ways for political parties and special interests to spend
money on behalf of candidates.

Congress has spent most of the past year fighting over legislation
designed to put fresh limits on campaign donations, particularly
so-called ``soft money'' contributions to the political parties. The
parties are supposed to use soft money for such general political
activities as get-out-the-vote efforts. But soft money has
increasingly become a way for parties to indirectly support the
campaigns of individual candidates.

The House passed campaign finance reform legislation that included
some soft-money limits earlier this year but the Senate failed to act
on a similar proposal before concluding its work for the year last
week.

Checked-by: Patrick Henry