The Year of the Loner

It was the year of the loner, and especially the year of the rich or well-financed loner.

Money, computers, polls and image makers continued to change the face of American politics into something that would have been unrecognizable to the candidates of even a few years ago.

Because of a Supreme Court interpretation of the 1974 campaign finance law, individuals are not limited in terms of the amount of their own money they may spend on an election. This has led to a proliferation of very rich candidates.

In Manhattan's silk stocking district, William Green, an heir to the Grand Union supermarket chain, retained his seat in Congress by defeating Democrat Carter Burden, a scion of the Vanderbilt family. The pair spent $850,000 on the race, about half from their own fortunes, seeking a job that pays $57,500 a year.

Although the new rules have stopped the huge fat-cat giving of the past, the rich have other ways of affecting political campaigns. They can contribute up to $5,000 to any of the 1,828 political action committees (PACs), which in turn can hand that sum on to candidates. Corporations, by soliciting their employees and stockholders, can form PACs too. Since the mid-'70s, companies and their trade associations have formed some 1,200 of these committees. PACS contributed more than $60 million to the 1978 election campaigns for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives alone. The apparent impact thus far has been not to strengthen conservatives as such but simply to strengthen incumbents, since the PACS tend to give to officeholders who offer some political clout in Congress. Despite highly visible turnovers in Congress, 96% of the House members were returned to Washington.

Even candidates with no serious opposition get PAC money. Chicago Representative Dan Rostenkowski, for example, received more than $69,000 because he happens to chair a subcommittee dealing with health problems. His contributors included the American Dental PAC, the American Medical PAC and the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery PAC.

New direct-mail techniques advanced by George McGovern in 1972 have enabled fund raisers to reach prospects classified according to their feelings about specific and often emotional issues. The undisputed champion of this technique is Richard Viguerie who last year raised $30 million for antiabortion, anti-gun-control, anti-ERA and other activists.

The computer has changed not only the way politicians campaign but also the way they raise money. Incumbents often keep detailed lists on their own computers and can send mailings to constituents who feel strongly about one issue. Detailed opinion polls subjected to computer analysis enable challengers to find their opponents' weaknesses and plan their own stands accordingly. Democrat Alex Seith did that in Illinois, and then ran as more conservative than Republican Moderate Senator Charles Percy. He might have beaten Percy except for last-minute reaction to some of his tactics, such as a radio advertisement implying that Percy is a racist.

Along with the computerized attitude study, the modern candidate often hires a top-flight image maker, who concocts an advertising campaign selling whatever he finds voters are buying. "The new Democratic chairman of New York is David Garth,' says Sidney Frigand, once an aide to former Mayor Abraham Beame. Garth is the campaign consultant who masterminded Governor Hugh Carey's victory, as well as several other Democratic campaigns.

Garth's Republican counterpart is John Deardourff, who worked unsuccessfully for Carey's opponent but helped win eight races in seven states. Deardourff estimates that television now claims 60% to 70% of most candidates' funds and that costs for such advertising time have escalated 50% in the past four years. "There is no better way to spend money," he says. Television lets candidates reach large numbers of people easily, but even Deardourff acknowledges that "it turns people into spectators rather than participants." This feeds voter lack of interest and contributes to the eroding of party affiliation.

Taken together, the money, the media, the managers and the computers may be turning American politics into a strangely lonely process. Candidates now buy what they need, pick their positions knowing in advance what is popular, and then spread those views widely on television and selectively by direct mail. Vanishing are the hosts of volunteers, the massive get-out-the-vote operations, and the need for help from established party organizations.

Fortunately, this wizardry doesn't always work. In Michigan, for example, Democrat Carl Levin was outspent 2 to 1 and was slightly more liberal than the computerized polls would have told him to be, but still won by almost 150,000 votes over two-term Incumbent Robert Griffin.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.