Packwood Raising 95 Percent of Re-election Funds Outside Oregon

By Parker L. Payson

During his third re-election battle in 1986, Senator Bob Packwood (R-OR) had a public relations problem. With the help of special-interest political action committees (PACs), Packwood, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, had amassed a huge $6.7 million campaign chest. People throughout the state of Oregon began referring to him as "Senator PAC-wood."

To deflect criticism, Packwood, halfway through the campaign, swore off PAC money, and now supports a ban on all PAC contributions. Like the majority of his congressional peers, however, he is no great supporter of comprehensive campaign reform. He is against public funding of elections, and, in 1990, he voted against a Senate bill to set population-based funding limits, which would have restricted campaign spending for Packwood's upcoming Senate race to $1,990,848.

Packwood's opposition to the bill establishing spending limits came as no surprise. By 1990, he had already raised more money for his 1992 race than Oregon's other senator, five-term incumbent Mark Hatfield (R-OR), who was seeking re-election in 1990. As of May 1991, Packwood had raised over $3.2 million, more than any other incumbent seeking office in 1992.

According to Senate records, over 95 percent of Packwood's itemized donations (those over $200) have come from out-of state donors. In April, Packwood estimated that an even higher percentage of his nonitemized contributions, which analysts predict may be as high as 98 percent of Packwood's entire re-election fund, came from out of state. A Packwood aide said Oregonians should not worry, however, because the senator's out-of-state contributions average less than $30 a person. They come from people "who will not be knocking on our doors," the aide said, "people whom we will never ever see."

Public-interest analysts disagree. "You can make the argument that as members of Congress increasingly go out of state to raise their campaign money, they become less and less responsive to voters back home," explains Michael McCauley, political analyst for Public Citizen's Congress Watch. "When winning an election is based on one's strength as a fund-raiser primarily from raising money from out of state, you've got to begin to wonder how that affects a lawmaker's responsiveness to the voters in that state."

"It stinks," says attorney Harry Lonsdale from Bend, OR, who challenged Hatfield in 1990 and who is considering a race against Packwood in 1992. "The guy is supposed to represent Oregonians, but where is he getting his $3 million from? Not from us, but from people all across the country who don't give a damn about Oregon or Oregonians ... It's a corruption of the process ... With Packwood's money, Thomas Jefferson wouldn't be able to beat him.

Junk Mail King

Approximately 75 percent of Packwood's donations have come from nationwide mailings primarily targeted to two groups, pro-choice Republicans and supporters of Israel's Likud government. As of June 1990, at least 1.5 million unsolicited fund-raising letters had been mailed to one million people from around the country, which, according to the Oregonian newspaper, brought in over 51,000 individual donations to Packwood's 1992 campaign.

According to Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), who at one time considered running against Packwood, Packwood's donations are not free of PAC influence. "It is true that he doesn't take small contributions, i.e. $5,000 contributions, from PACs anymore," says DeFazio. "But what he does is go to PACs and say, 'I want you to put on a fund-raiser with the people who give money to your PAC,' or he asks them to send out letters on his behalf to their membership.

"He's found a way to beat PAC limits [that prohibit each candidate from taking more than $5,000 per PAC each election], raise more money and still attempt to be holier than thou .... He's not limited by the $5,000 contributions because he'll ask them to send out letters to their entire membership. He'll ask them for the list, and he'll mail it."

An Urgent Appeal

Packwood's fund-raising letters usually begin with dire predictions that Israel's future is at risk from members of Congress and the Bush administration who are considering cutting aid or "imposing" themselves on the Arab-Israeli peace process. "Dear Friend," one letter begins. "Please forgive the informal nature of this letter, but it is late in the evening, and my secretary already has gone home. What I want to discuss with you is Israel's future. It simply could not wait until morning."

In another letter, Packwood, stretching the limits on creative license, writes: "Over the years, I've become a kind of 'lightning rod' for the political opposition! Each time I run for re-election, I attract powerful, well financed opponents determined to bring about my defeat. " The last time Packwood ran, in 1986, his main Democratic opponent was Rep. James Weaver, who withdrew from the race in August after a House Ethics Committee investigation against him. The eventual Democratic nominee, 36-year-old Rick Bauman, who had received less than 14 percent of the primary vote, was outspent by Packwood more than 100 to 1. In Packwood's previous election campaign, in 1980, he raised over $1.5 million, nearly 10 times more than his opponent.

"As a United States Senator, and a staunch friend of Israel, I have waged many, many legislative battles on Israel's behalf during the past 20 years," Packwood writes in another fund-raising letter. "I share your determination to do whatever I possibly can to help guarantee Israel's security and freedom—now and forever. But to do that, I'm going to need your immediate help."

And why does he need donor help? Because, "instead of spending all my time raising money for my own re-election campaign, I'd prefer to devote my time and energies to protecting and defending the security of Israel."

Packwood's remarks have not gone unnoticed. Last year Nick Khoury, former director of the Portland chapter of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), told the Oregonian newspaper that Packwood "speaks as if he is in the Israeli senate instead of in the US Senate," and that he had avoided meeting with members of the ADC from Oregon. "The fact [Packwood] raises so much money out of state tells me he could be very liable to represent interests outside of Oregon rather than inside. In this case, it's a foreign nation outside Oregon."

Khoury told the Washington Report that Packwood, who subsequently met with members of the ADC, was "hopping mad" about Khoury's statement to the Oregonian.

In fact, rather than ignoring the remarks, Packwood printed them in large, bold letters on the outside of the envelope of his latest fund-raising appeal. The four-page letter calls on supporters of Israel from across the country to help "fend off these attacks in Oregon," which include "an incumbent congressman from Oregon, who is thinking of running against me. " The un-named congressman reportedly said "we need a senator whose first and only allegiance is to the people of Oregon. That's not a description of Bob Packwood. "

The irony of sending a fund-raising letter outside of the state to protest charges of not serving in-state interests has not been lost on Pete DeFazio, the "un-named congressman" who made those remarks. The message Packwood chose to reprint on the envelope "says it all," DeFazio told the Washington Report. "Apparently Senator Packwood thinks that should be a true statement-that before the timber workers of Oregon, before the communities of Oregon, before any of the interests of his home state should come the interests of Israel."

Packwood's fund-raising letter quotes DeFazio, correctly, as saying, "Money directed to foreign countries has gone out of control. . . "and "Last year, we spent more on foreign aid than we did on education in this country. Why are we spending so much money on other countries when we have so many needs at home?"

DeFazio, who has pledged support for a 1992 challenge to Packwood by eight-term Congressman Les AuCoin (D-OR), told the Washington Report that Packwood's "war of words and sentiments" in his nationwide solicitations will not go over well in Oregon. "We've got a tremendous problem in my state with the spotted owl and the timber problems. We are scrambling to get a few million dollars to help our counties and our mill workers and here's Packwood saying, 'Well, I got $650 million for Israel, but we need another $20 billion.' Well, how 'bout a few million for the people of Oregon?"

In another fund-raising appeal, Packwood has written that "Your help now—whether you can give $20 or $200—will enable me to focus on the real work to be done: helping Israel raise the funds she desperately needs. " In the appeal Packwood estimates this at over $20 billion. Current US aid to Israel, more than $4 billion in 1991, roughly equals one third of the total US foreign aid budget.

Will Packwood's reliance on out-of-state funding, and his unabashed concentration on a foreign interest, rather than Oregon's interest, become significant campaign issues?

Standing Up For Oregon

Oddly enough, it was once before. In 1844, when Britain and the United States were bitterly disputing the northern demarcation of America's Oregon Territories, James K. Polk became the youngest candidate to win the US presidency by campaigning with the slogan "54' 40'or fight." It remains to be seen whether or not in 1992 a candidate for Senate in Oregon will raise a similar call.

Parker L. Payson is the news editor for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.