Average Cost of a House of Representatives Campaign 1980
CAMPAIGN COSTS SOAR AS MEDIAN SPENDING FOR SENATE SEAT HITS $ane.7 MILLION
See the article in its original context from
Apr iii, 1983
,
Section i , Page
20Buy Reprints
TimesMachine is an sectional benefit for dwelling delivery and digital subscribers.
About the Annal
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times's print archive, before the outset of online publication in 1996. To preserve these manufactures as they originally appeared, The Times does non change, edit or update them.
Occasionally the digitization procedure introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are standing to work to amend these archived versions.
Political campaign spending soared across the nation in 1982 as candidates spent 69 percent more to win a seat in the Senate than in 1980 and 48 per centum more to win a seat in the Business firm. An analysis of entrada spending reports filed with the Federal Election Commission showed that the median expenditures past winning campaigns increased far faster than the 14.6 pct increase in the Consumer Price Alphabetize from November 1980 to November 1982.
For Senate victors, the median outlay, or the level at which half the campaigns were college and one-half lower, rose to $ane,746,230 in 1982 from $1,031,277 in 1980. For House winners, the median increased to $214,767 from $145,292.
While no candidates gear up private spending records, television advertising rate increases and increased use of high-technology campaign tools such equally highly selective direct mail and computerassisted get-out-the-vote efforts produced sharp increases in races that were shut and those that were ane-sided.
Would Relax Federal Limits
The magnitude of the increases produced renewed calls from Republicans and Democrats for efforts to strengthen party apparatuses and for a relaxation of Federal limits on party spending in campaigns. Representative Guy Vander Jagt of Michigan, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said that removing the limits on political party spending ''would allow parties to practice the jobs that parties ought to do.'' If parties did polling, or organized get-out-the-vote efforts, he said, candidates would not have to spend to do information technology.
Ann F. Lewis, political director of the Democratic National Committee, agreed, saying, ''1 way to go along the costs downwardly is to practise it through the party, whether it'south telephone banks or polling.'' She likewise noted that in a number of contests last fall, such every bit the Minnesota Senate race, high spending itself became an issue, and said she idea that would happen more and more.
The reports of spending in 1981 and 1982 filed with the Federal Ballot Commission showed increases spread widely across the country. In 1980, for example, 32 campaigns by Senate candidates showed $1 million or more in spending. In 1982 there were 39. In 1980, 28 House candidates spent $500,000 or more; 55 did in 1982.
The most expensive campaign for each house was that of a loser. Marker Dayton, a Minnesota Democrat, spent $seven,167,263 but still lost to Senator Dave Durenberger, who spent $iii,901,072. Adam K. Levin, a New Bailiwick of jersey Democrat, spent $1,652,845 but lost to Representative Matthew J. Rinaldo, who spent $701,483. Record Held by Helms
The Dayton and Levin totals fell curt of the records: $7,460,966 by Senator Jesse Helms, Republican of Due north Carolina, in 1978, and $1,937,209 by and so-Representative Robert K. Dornan, Republican of California, in 1980.
The biggest spending by winners in 1982 were by Senator Pete Wilson, Republican of California, and Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts. Mr. Wilson spent $vi,965,696 to win a vacant Senate seat in a contest with Gov. Edmund Grand. Brown Jr., who spent $v,292,443. The $12,258,139 total, a record for a Senate race, was 59 percent college than the $7,725,054 spent by Mr. Helms and his opponent, John F. Ingram, in 1978.
In his Massachusetts House race, Mr. Frank spent $i,435,222 to defeat another incumbent, Representative Margaret M. Heckler, who spent $926,769. She is now Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Politicians said the increases were caused largely past higher charges for tv set time and greater use of television. ''I'm shocked just not surprised,'' said Robert Squier, who produces commercials for Democratic candidates. He said rates had increased sharply. Rates Up 35 to 40 Percent
Robert Goodman of Baltimore, who makes commercials for Republicans, said: ''The television revolution is similar a raging bull. Politics seems to be immune from other economical realities, but I suppose that fifty-fifty in a depression the rich are bathing in Jamaica.''
William Tater, president of Media Management Service in New York, said an examination of stations' charges indicated that in that twoyear period, rates had gone up 35 to xl per centum.
Merely some politicians said it was not telly charges alone that caused higher spending. Richard Northward. Bond, manager of political operations for the Republican National Commission, said, ''I would guess information technology's not the increased cost of television as much as the increased employ of it.''
Martin Franks, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said that, also television costs, entrada expenses went up because ''many people are just now discovering the sophisticated technology that's been available.'' For example, mail tin be directed to a specific audience, such as all teachers in a district. Problems of Fund-Raising
Mrs. Lewis, the Democratic committee'southward political managing director, identified fund-raising as a circular problem, ''a monster that feeds on itself.'' She said, ''As campaign costs go higher and college, so do the costs of raising money.'' Richard Viguerie, a leading adept in direct mail service for conservatives, said costs of such mailings increased almost twenty percent from 1980 to 1982.
The totals from the year-end reports are yet subject to small alter by amendments to particular reports and past the filing of reports that are now ii months overdue. Danny 50. McDonald, chairman of the Federal Election Commission, said in a recent interview that the commission, which has not sought to punish a candidate for not filing since 1972, now has the enforcement funds to practise and then and has ''a clear enthusiasm to pursue non-filers.''
All candidates for Federal function are required by the Federal Election Campaign Human activity of 1974 to file detailed reports with the committee showing both total and itemized receipts and expenditures. The New York Times collected key data for all major party House and Senate candidates in the 1982 general election and used its computer to analyze the information, some of it in categories like median expenditures, which the commission's eventual reports will not include.
While some information is still to come, no additions can alter the bones trends constitute in the computer analysis. Ane cardinal finding was that a major office of the spending increase came from activity by Firm Democrats. While the median increase for the winning Republican was simply 27 percent, to $228,770 from $180,348, the increase for winning Democrats was 75 percent, to $205,345 from $117,135. Raised Large Sums
Mr. Franks of the Democratic campaign commission said that later Republicans gained 33 seats in 1980, Business firm Democrats went out early on in 1981 and raised large sums, which they spent even when the recession issue secured them confronting Republican challengers in 1982.
''Panic is not too potent a word to draw it,'' he said. ''Even people who were traditionally safe went out and actually raised money in Washington and around the land in a way that they haven't earlier.''
Some other major element in the higher spending was the increased activity of political action committees. In 1979 and 1980 they gave $51,789,155 to House and Senate candidates who ran as Republicans or Democrats in the full general election. They gave 53 pct more, or $79,119,402, in 1981 and 1982.
While PAC's gave Senate candidates from the two parties approximately equal sums, with $ten,870,509 for the Republicans and $10,794,796 for the Democrats, Democrats in the House got quite a bit more than. Political action committees prefer incumbents, and the Democrats had more of them in the House. They received $31,824,711 to $25,629,386 for Republicans. Two Incumbents Got Less
The preference of political action committees for incumbents was also reflected in the Senate, where only two Senators received less from such committees than did their challengers. Both Democrats, they were Senators Lawton Chiles of Florida and William Proxmire of Wisconsin. Mr. Chiles received $5,990 from committees to $45,345 for his challenger, Van Poole. Mr. Proxmire, who spent only $62 in all, took no money from such committees, simply his opponent, Scott McCallum, got $21,041.
Mr. Wilson led the PAC list with a record $1,217,721 from such committees, followed by Mr. Durenberger at $985,491 and Senator Orrin Chiliad. Hatch, Republican of Utah, at $884,762.
Amid House candidates, Representative Robert H. Michel of Illinois, the minority leader, led with $471,129, followed by then-Representative John H. Rousselot, Republican of California, at $411,098, and Representative Phillip Burton, Democrat of California, at $383,720.
Over all, 97 winning candidates in House and Senate races, 17 Republicans and 80 Democrats, raised more than half their campaign funds from political action committees.
To two regime, it was the availability of money from political activity committees and other sources, rather than higher prices for whatever specific weapon in the campaign arsenal, that caused the college spending totals.
''If they accept the money,'' said John Deardourff, who makes commercials for Republicans, ''they'll find a way to spend it.'' Gary C. Jacobson, associate professor of political scientific discipline, a leading authority on Congressional campaign spending, said, ''Whatever money is bachelor to candidates, they'll spend.'' Next:
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/1983/04/03/us/campaign-costs-soar-as-median-spending-for-senate-seat-hits-1.7-million.html
Post a Comment for "Average Cost of a House of Representatives Campaign 1980"