Campaign Funds and the Virginia State Legislature
| Date | 01 April 1987 |
| Published date | 01 April 1987 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9256.1987.tb00269.x |
| Subject Matter | Article |
CAMPAIGN
FUNDS
AND
THE
VIRGINIA
STATE
LEGISLATURE
AIec
T
Barbrook
VIRGINIA made
political
history in November,
1985
when the Democratic slate prevailed
Despite the electoral
albatmss
of
Mary
Sue Terry and
black
state
senator Dough Wilder on
the ticket The Washington Post commented:
The
Democratic
sweep
ofstut&
ofies
in
Virginia.
. .
marked
a
s&nt
sh$
in
pcrcejhons
of
the
state
and
Upset
ckarly
predictions
that
the
ticket
wd
be
doomed
thcpresme
$a
black
cana!idute
for
lieutenantgovmr
and
a
woman
mningfor
a-
general
(Smith and Baker,
1985
p
14).
Virginia
politics usually has
a
lower profile than this, especially
at
the level
of
the General
Assembly, the state legislature, but the election
of
senators and delegates
to
the
latter
does
shed some interesting light on the way in which money looms large in this process in
an
individual state.
The last election for the
State
Senate
was
in
1983,
House delegates then and in
1985.
This
paper
will
concentrate on the former
year,
which was the last one when the whole Assembly
(40
senators,
100
delegates) were
elected
together.
The
state’s
Campaign Finance
Laws
are not
an
especially
rigorous
set
compared
to
some
states
but they do require candidates and political
committees
to
report conmbutions (parties need not
do
so).
Politid
Action
Comminees
(PAC) report if they pay out over
$500
for a statewide election and
S
100
for any other election
and there
are
few restrictions on the establishment
of
PACs by corporations, professional
organisations, labour unions
or
my
group of like-minded citizens with an issue to propagate
(Palmer and Feigenbaum,
1986).
Campaign expenditure reforms enacted
in
the
state
in the
1970s.
which set up the above framework, appear to have been based on the concept of
‘fuU
disclosure’
rather than capping the size
of
contributions. In practice,the
sums
given
to
individual politicians rarely large in themselves (usually under
$1,000)
although an
individual war-chest
can
run into tens of thousarids when gathered in from
a
large
number
of
sources.
Campaign money comes
from
a
variety of sources but the larger single donations in Virginia
tend
to
come from corporations on the one hand, trade and professional organisations on
the
other;
they provide the substantial
sums.
Unlike the position at federal level, corporations in
Wxginia
can
contribute
directly
to
a
campaign
from their
treasury
and
they
do
not necessarily
need to set
up
a
PAC
to
solicit money from employees and shareholders. PACs
are
extensively
used
though by professional organisations (medid doctors, dentists,
uid
lawyers, architects,
bankers, salesmen in
real
estate, automobiles and insurance). ‘Cause’ groups use PACs exten-
sively, such
as
those on either side of the abortion issue, also one set up by the National
Organisation
of
Women and the National Rifle Association’s
‘victory
Fund‘, which is active
but
is
not registered in
the
state
because
it
operates
from
Washington,
DC.
The State Board of
Elections
keeps
a list
of
PACs which had
182
entries in
April,
1985,
some
local
in connota~on
but many statewide.
The pattern
of
funding for candidates in the
state
legislature can
be
detected by inspection
of
the returns made
to
the State
Board
of Ele&ons. Looking
at
the
1983
returns
for those elected
to the
State
Senate and House of Delegates (not the unsuccessful candidates), one
can
see
a
similar
reaction of PACs and
other
donors to candidates to that
seen
elsewhere in
the
American
system.
Likely winners
are
prefemd over evident
losers,
incumbents (unless they
look
vulnerable) rather than challengers. One
Vi
PAC
admits
that
‘conhibutimrr
an
tatgeted
so
i9~jha.Ci.r
support
isgim
to
those
candidates
most
likely
to
win
thc
slsction,
(VA
Legal,
1985,
To continue reading
Request your trial