Incumbents have advantage in special-interest cash

OLYMPIA – State Rep. Alex Wood, D-Spokane, has an unusual distinction: he hasn’t received a single individual campaign donation this year.

He didn’t have to.

Woods’ entire $16,550 re-election war chest comes from political action committees or businesses. According to his campaign finance reports, groups representing the Teamsters, auto dealers and beer and wine wholesalers each gave the maximum: $1,400 each. Other big donors included the state teachers union, a truckers association and a group representing tribal casinos.

Woods’ fundraising, without a single kitchen-table check, is unusual.

But he’s not alone among local lawmakers in relying heavily on special-interest cash. Among the others:

“ Nearly 85 percent of the $23,825 raised by state Rep. Bob Sump, R-Republic, this year came from PACs and companies, including dentists ($1,400), Tesoro Petroleum ($700), Weyerhaeuser ($700), Philip Morris ($700) and Conoco Phillips ($700).

“ About 92 percent of this year’s $31,015 raised by Rep. Lynn Schindler, R-Otis Orchards, came from PACs or companies. Among them are the state troopers association ($1,400), hospital association ($700), chiropractors ($700), Wal-Mart ($700) and the state restaurant association ($700).

“For better or worse, it’s kind of a natural advantage that incumbents have,” said Todd Donovan, political science professor at Western Washington University. “Based on what you’ve done in the session, the checks are going to come in.”

And it’s a huge advantage, he said. Barring a strong challenger, incumbent lawmakers can campaign without having to work the phones and hit people up for checks at fundraisers.

“What would you do?” he said.

In interviews, the lawmakers all said the same things. First, they don’t want to hit up their high-poverty districts for donations.

“If you’re in a tight race, you just keep asking, asking, asking,” said Schindler. “I’m not in a tight race, at least I don’t think so. Why should I ask, if I don’t really need it?”

“I’ve explained to most people around here: save your money, or put it where it could do the most good,” said Wood, who faces a very conservative challenger in one of Eastern Washington’s most liberal legislative districts.

Secondly, all three lawmakers maintain that the PAC money has no effect on what they support or oppose in Olympia.

“It doesn’t matter to me who gives me money,” said Sump. “I vote the way I want to.”

For years, he said, he kept a blank check in his pocket during the Legislative session, so he could issue a refund on the spot if a lobbyist ever complained that Sump wasn’t supportive after getting a campaign donation. No one ever raised such a complaint, he said.

“I’m my own man,” he said.

Sump cited a vote several years ago when – after receiving considerable cash from timber companies – he opposed a bill to increase the limit on timber exports. It would have hurt local mills, he said.

“If they (PACs) want to send us money, fine,” said Wood. “It’s good to know they support us and our views. I don’t know anyone over there (in Olympia) who would vote differently because they got a check.”

Washington’s League of Women Voters President Barbara Seitle is skeptical.

“I think it’s impossible not to have it affect politics,” she said.

Certainly, she said, many lawmakers are conscientious and will unfailingly vote their conscience. “But it clouds the issues, to put it mildly.”

The league has long pushed for campaign finance reform.

“The biggest problem we see is the PAC money, because sometimes you don’t know who the individual contributors are to these organizations,” she said. Under state campaign finance law, most individual donors must be publicly reported by name, city and occupation. PAC money – often in larger amounts – just comes in the name of the group, not its members.

The league supports public financing of campaigns. Under such a system, candidates would have to show significant support, such as by gathering signatures, and then would get a fixed amount of public money with which to campaign. The key argument against this is that many taxpayers would be loath to see their money paying for the campaign of a candidate they oppose.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Gerry Alexander floated a similar idea recently, after a grueling race in which conservative builders and their allies poured roughly $2 million into an unsuccessful campaign to replace him with property-rights lawyer John Groen.

Yet even Laura Carder, a Republican running on a shoestring against Wood, said she’d have some qualms about public financing of campaigns.

“It sounds like government financing,” she said. “I kind of have a distrust for more government.”