Generosity Pays Off for Livingston

WASHINGTON —  With Rep. Bob Livingston (R-La.) poised to become the new speaker of the House, one advantage he’s exploited to help solidify his support has little to do with ideology, policy or personal style.

The leg up is money: campaign donations by Livingston to grateful Republican colleagues whose votes he now seeks.

A computer-assisted study conducted for The Times found that at least 87 Republicans who will be in the 106th Congress--three-quarters of the 112 votes Livingston needs to become speaker--have received a total of $327,062 from him in the last four years.

The tactic of aggressively raising and disbursing funds through his own campaign committees--a practice that has proliferated among congressional leaders in recent years--was meant to position Livingston for a leadership role.

Now, the early commitments from colleagues won through persuasion--and cash--have fueled his effort to succeed outgoing Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and shooed away the competition. With the expected withdrawal of Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach) from the race today, Livingston appears to have won the speaker’s job.

“Without question, [Livingston’s largess] is a plus,” Cox said Sunday before he decided to drop out of the race for speaker. “Even more important, he started gaining commitments last year. He did have a head start.”

Cox, by comparison, also gave money to fellow candidates, but far less than Livingston: a total of $48,000 to 38 winning House candidates from his campaign committee during the same period. But, even then, records show, Cox donated to 21 successful candidates in 1998; Livingston also gave money to every one of these candidates--in most cases, several times more than Cox.

“Candidates can’t help but look favorably on financial assistance because they need the money to run their races and win,” said Mark Corallo, Livingston’s spokesman.

A Livingston ally put it more bluntly: It gave him “a big advantage. That’s the point.”

Lawmakers will cast votes for speaker Nov. 18, based on factors other than this parochial pocketbook issue, including political philosophy, personal ties and which candidate they feel is best suited to unify their fractious ranks and serve as an effective party spokesman.

But the ability to generate large sums to help elect colleagues has itself become a litmus test for congressional leaders--many of whom form their own political action committees for this purpose--and there is no better way to demonstrate it than by aiding candidates fighting for their political lives.

Rep. Brian P. Bilbray (R-San Diego), one of those who received donations from both Livingston and Cox, “thinks it’s expected for people who are in leadership to help out other members, especially those in targeted seats,” said John Woodard, Bilbray’s chief of staff. “It may become an issue if someone does not do it.”

This phenomenon--exemplified by so-called leadership PACs established to further the ambitions or raise the profiles of lawmakers--has taken off in the last decade. Republican leaders have followed in the footsteps of their Democratic predecessors in using their majority status to maximize such fund-raising.

Indeed, the sums that Livingston and Cox provided to victorious House candidates is only a percentage of the overall amounts that they distributed to unsuccessful House candidates, Republicans seeking other offices and party committees.

Livingston donated a total of more than $2 million to candidate and party committees in the last two election cycles and Cox more than $350,000, according to the study by the Campaign Study Group, an independent research firm in Springfield, Va. These figures cover contributions through Oct. 14, the end of the most recent reporting period. Both lawmakers donated more money in the three weeks leading up to the Nov. 3 election.

Not everyone is sanguine about this process. Campaign finance advocates say the donations are a way to skirt contribution limits and another avenue for special interests to ingratiate themselves with influential lawmakers.

And there are varying views on the role of this money. Some congressional experts caution that, while helpful, too much can be made of the donations’ impact.

“It’s the modern-day equivalent of trying to build a political machine,” said Thomas E. Mann, director of governmental studies at the Brookings Institution. “Because so many people do it means that the influence of any one member’s doing it can be easily overestimated.”

Roger H. Davidson, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, said the donations are likely to be most significant with newly elected members, and there will be only 17 Republican freshmen in the next Congress. Even then, he said, there are limits.

“These are secret votes, and you can’t always rely on what people say they will do,” Davidson said.

In any case, Livingston, 55, an attorney and former federal prosecutor, is especially well-positioned to play this role. First elected in 1977, he chairs the powerful Appropriations Committee, a post that carries considerable clout to seek contributions from private interests dependent on government spending.

Moreover, while his conservative district outside of New Orleans was once a Democratic bastion, Livingston has faced only token, or no opposition, in recent years--freeing him to help others. In the 1996 election cycle, he disbursed $776,513 to GOP candidates and causes, including 49 successful House candidates.

Livingston initially sought to build up chits to succeed Gingrich as speaker when he stepped down, which was not expected to happen for several years. But earlier this year--well before the Republicans’ election debacle that led to Gingrich’s sudden departure last week--Livingston made clear his intention to challenge Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas).

He established a Building Our Bases (or BOB’s) PAC. This allowed him to accept individual donations as large as $10,000 to the PAC per election--five times the amount he can take for his own campaign committee.

Aside from giving leaders and would-be leaders an additional political war chest, such PACs also give special interest donors another means to contribute to an influential lawmaker.

“You max out to Livingston, then you max out to his [leadership] PAC,” said Larry Makinson, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign finance watchdog group. “Suddenly, he has two chits that he’s thankful to you for and he has money to play with.”

Corallo, Livingston’s spokesman, responded: “It is legal and totally out in the open. Bob’s never been a big fan of having to get out there and raise money. But it’s a fact of life.”

Livingston’s aides say that, overall, the lawmaker gave out $2 million, including $800,000 from BOB’s PAC, this election cycle. The largest sum, $532,500, went to Republican Party committees, primarily to the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, records show. Another $63,000 went to Republican Senate candidates.

Overall, Livingston contributed $681,861 to House candidates as of Oct. 14. He gave a majority of the money ($404,500) to candidates who lost; $277,361 went to 54 successful House candidates. He gave to all Republican freshmen-elect.

Livingston’s assistance did not stop there. He also attended scores of fund-raisers for candidates in their districts or hosted events for them in Washington, aides said.

Livingston also benefited from contributions where he merely served as a conduit, a process that is permitted under federal election law.

Seven different PAC donors, including the National Assn. of Convenience Stores PAC and the Mortgage Bankers of America, gave a total of $48,000 in contributions to BOB’s PAC in 1998 to distribute to 22 different candidates, records show. The checks were made out to the candidate’s campaign, but Livingston received the goodwill for passing them on. In addition, the donors got the double benefit of ingratiating themselves with Livingston and the candidate.

“We simply act as a conduit,” an official for BOB’s PAC said. “An organization comes to us and says we would like you to hand this check to Congressman X.”

An aide to a senior House Republican said that Livingston’s efforts were bearing fruit.

“He provided tremendous assistance, especially in this last cycle, anticipating this run against Dick Armey . . . in terms of fund-raising and speaking and helping. Chris [Cox] is a nice guy but hasn’t raised the dough and done the legwork out of California.”

Several beneficiaries of Livingston’s largess said that the money will play little or no role in their vote for speaker.

Judy Biggert, who won an open seat in the southwestern Chicago suburbs, said the $10,000 she received from Livingston was but one of many such contributions in time or money from various congressional Republican leaders.

“The fact they were all supportive is important in making this decision, but there are many other factors to be considered,” said Biggert, the assistant GOP leader in the Illinois State House. “The money is not the major factor.”

*

Staff writers Faye Fiore and Janet Hook contributed to this story.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Top House Beneficiaries of Livingston’s Largesse

Of the 29 Republican House candidates who received $10,000 or more, four were elected, all running in open seats.*

*--*

Name State First Elected Total Mike Simpson Idaho 1998 $12,000 Judy Biggert Illinois 1998 10,000 Lee Terry Nebraska 1998 10,000 Patrick Toomey Pennsylvania 1998 10,000

*--*

*Covers period of Jan. 1, 1997-Oct. 14, 1998

Source: CAMPAIGN STUDY GROUP ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION RECORDS