War-Chest Rich Nethercutt Slams Olson Pac Money He Criticizes Percentage Of Funds From Pacs

Rep. George Nethercutt started the last month of his re-election campaign with five times the contributions and twice as much political action committee money as his Democratic rival, Judy Olson.

But this week the Spokane Republican suggested that Olson’s PAC money was tainted because it constituted a much larger percentage of her total contributions.

“My opponent has received more money from Washington, D.C., union bosses and liberal special interests than individuals from the 5th Congressional District,” he said.

Nethercutt raised $739,000 over the last 21 months in his effort to keep Eastern Washington’s 5th District seat - about $219,639 of it from PACs. Olson has raised just under $133,000 since entering the race this spring; $88,300 of it has come from PACs.

Campaign documents recently released by the Federal Election Commission show that business executives and labor unions engaged in the same industries sharply disagree on the best candidate in the race.

Nethercutt, who serves on a committee that decides how the nation spends its defense dollars, has received $5,500 from PACs that represent such military contractors as The Boeing Co., McDonnell-Douglas, Northrup and Lockheed-Martin. Olson has received $5,000 from the committee for the aerospace workers union that staffs those companies’ factories.

Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical’s PAC gave Nethercutt $1,000, and Alcoa gave him another $500. The United Steelworkers, whose members work in those companies’ smelters, gave Olson $5,000.

The Carpenters Union gave Olson $5,000; the Association of Home Builders gave Nethercutt $5,000 and the Associated General Contractors gave him another $2,500.

The committee for Services Group of America - a food preparation and distribution company that is one of the state’s largest privately owned operations - gave $5,500 to Nethercutt, and the National Restaurant Association gave him another $2,500.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which represents many restaurant workers, gave $10,000 to Olson.

That amount - the most allowed under federal law - was the largest donation to the Olson campaign.

“We support candidates that support working families,” said Greg Denier, a union legislative spokesman.

Nethercutt’s top PAC contributor was the National Automobile Dealers Association, which gave him $10,000.

Janet Ramble, association vice president, said he supported several key bills, including one requiring all car titles to identify rebuilt vehicles and another allowing teenagers to drive cars at work in non-emergency situations. The group usually supports incumbents and has given about 70 percent of its $2 million to Republicans this year.

The National Rifle Association, which played a prominent role in the 1994 campaign, gave Nethercutt $2,000. The political committee operated by former House Speaker Tom Foley, whom Nethercutt defeated two years ago, gave Olson $1,000.

Federal law does not set limits for how much of a candidate’s money can come from PACs. But Nethercutt has a self-imposed rule of taking no more than a third of his total donations from the committees. He also refuses money from tobacco PACs.

The law does limit individual contributions to $1,000 for the primary and $1,000 for the general election. But Olson has a self-imposed limit of $500 for each election, saying “middle-class families can’t afford more than that.”

On Wednesday, the Nethercutt campaign criticized her for a $1,000 contribution listed from one Spokane contributor, accusing her of violating her own campaign pledge.

“Holding high elective office is a public trust. Violating that trust is unacceptable,” Nethercutt said.

But the donor, retired attorney Leonard Jansen of Spokane, said Wednesday Olson had not violated her pledge. The $1,000 check was written on a joint account and accompanied by a note that said it was to be equally divided between himself and his wife, Jean.

“How damn mean can these people get?” he wondered when told his donation was being questioned.

The donation was incorrectly listed as a single donation by a staffer preparing the report, Olson said.

Any checks that come in for more than Olson’s self-imposed limit are cashed, and the difference refunded to the donor, Dave Field, her campaign spokesman said.

“We have to accept the check and then reimburse them,” Field said.

Ken Lisaius, a spokesman for the Nethercutt campaign, said that meant the public wouldn’t know until after the election - when final spending reports are released - whether Olson was keeping her promise during this last month.

But a check with Nethercutt’s treasurer, Lowell Ruen, showed both campaigns follow the same practice when receiving contributions that exceed a limit - whether it’s the one set by the federal government or the candidate’s personal pledge. Nethercutt’s campaign occasionally has received multiple donations from an individual which, over time, exceeded the $2,000 limit set by federal law. When the computer showed the total was too high, Ruen said, donors were called and asked if they wanted it to be applied to another election cycle or refunded.

Lisaius also said Olson has variously described her pledge as $500 for the election cycle - which would be the entire two years before Nov. 5 - or $500 for the primary and $500 for the general. He released a copy of a notice for an Olson fund-raiser that described it both ways, and a tape of a radio interview in which she said she did not take cash contributions of more than $500, but would accept more than that in in-kind contributions.

Olson said she has always tried to be clear that she meant $500 for the primary and $500 for the general, and limited it to cash contributions.

“I have been maintaining my limits,” she said. “I would think there’s probably more important issues to talk about.”

, DataTimes MEMO: This sidebar appeared with the story: CAMPAIGN AD WATCH The money that Rep. George Nethercutt and Democratic challenger Judy Olson are raising is going primarily into television advertising. Here’s a look at commercials the two are running:

‘Seniors’ Background: This 30-second Olson ad is an attempt to set up a contrast between the two candidates. It shows a picture of Nethercutt from a previous commercial, then criticizes him for voting “to reduce seniors’ cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), denying $23 billion in lost Social Security benefits” and “to cut $270 billion from Medicare while giving wealthy Americans a tax cut of $245 billion.” It then shows video clips of Olson in farm country and describes her as someone who “will stand up to Newt Gingrich.” Campaign Response: The Nethercutt campaign says the Social Security adjustment was a slightly lower increase than previously planned, and was based on projections of lower inflation, which came from the Clinton administration. He has repeatedly said that Medicare would not have been cut, but held to smaller increases than currently planned. Rebuttal: Olson insists that any reduction in COLAs would impact seniors’ budgets, and the proposed changes in Medicare eventually would have cost seniors more money, which is a cut in their disposable income. Analysis: This ad reiterates the claims on Medicare that have been made, and disputed, for months by ads sponsored by the AFL-CIO. Nethercutt is right that spending on the health program would have gone up - but at nearly 3 percent less per year than administrators project is needed under current conditions. Republicans also proposed major changes, which the ad doesn’t mention, which may or may not have allowed them to bring down the costs. By mentioning Gingrich, Olson is trying to capitalize on negative attitudes some voters may have about the controversial House speaker.

‘Remember’ Background: This 30-second ad starts with still photographs of Nethercutt in Congress and asks if the viewer remembers “why we elected George Nethercutt two years ago.” It mentions civic activities in Spokane before he was elected, and describes him as “living up to his commitments with courage” on cutting spending, reforms and changing welfare. It ends with video footage of Nethercutt, his family and their dog walking toward the camera. Analysis: This ad tries to do a lot in 30 seconds: reintroduce Nethercutt to voters who forgot some of his biographical details, rekindle the support from those who were angry with Congress in 1994, and mention some key issues of the past session. It doesn’t get into detail on the issues, some of which were controversial. The ad marks the television return of the family dog, Chestnut, who played a prominent role in his commercials two years ago. - Jim Camden