WHERE POWER GOES ...

By NANCY GIBBS

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the Republicans in Congress have just completed the most successful six months of fund raising in their history, having thrilled their corporate friends with all their talk about melting down government, dismantling the welfare state and rinsing regulations out of everything from cable TV to salvage timber. More striking than the millions they have raised are the tactics they have been using to get them. As though the natural urge of money to follow power were not enough, the G.O.P. leaders have set about stiffening the rules of influence peddling. The goal is not only to keep their coffers full but to drain the opposition's as well.

It used to be that prudent lobbyists would spread their contributions across both parties, which helps explain why even during their years out of power, the Republicans did at least as well as, and often better than, the incumbent Democrats. But under the G.O.P.'s new, scorched-earth policy, a lobbyist who works both sides of the aisle risks being denounced as the enemy by Republican leaders. "There are liberal Democrats in this town who are trying to destroy the revolution, and I'm not going to be their friend," declares House majority whip Tom Delay. "I'm their enemy; I'm their most deadly enemy."

Though Delay is not bashful about his agenda, the actual tactics may be more subtle, according to Don Fowler, the soft-spoken national chairman of the Democratic National Committee. "You're a lobbyist," he says. "So you call up a subcommittee chairman and ask for an appointment. They take your name and number, but the congressman's assistant tells you to call back a day later. And when you do, they tell you that you haven't been doing your part."

Lest any newcomers to the House be confused about which lobbyists they can dance with, the Republican leadership prepared a handy guide for 73 freshmen G.O.P. lawmakers, identifying "friendly" and "unfriendly" political-action committees. The secret 150-page Tactical PAC Project lists the groups that supported "senior committee members last cycle," and whether they gave more to the Democrats, the Republicans, or to both equally. Among those groups receiving an "unfriendly" rating were some that would appear to be natural ideological allies of the g.o.p. revolution, like agri-giant Archer Daniels Midland and pacs for Wall Street firms like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. When word of the guide leaked, furious lobbyists denounced it as "an enemies list," a violation of the Washington custom that you can do the fandango with just about anybody if it will help your cause.

Given the Republicans' dominance this year, there actually wasn't much need to bully contributors. According to the figures provided to TIME, the party and its various committees took in an astonishing $60 million in the first two quarters of 1995, compared with $36 million in 1993, the last nonelection year. That's an increase of 66%-well beyond even G.O.P. chairman Haley Barbour's expectations.

If the Republicans are applying leverage, the Democrats have also been pretty heavyhanded. A D.N.C. memo turned up by the Chicago Sun Times offers donors of $100,000 a chance to eat and speak with the President and Vice President as well as "participate in foreign trade missions." So far this doesn't seem to be working as well as the G.O.P.'s approach: by the end of last week the party raised $37 million, up from $26 million over the same period in 1993, but well below the size of, and growth in, the G.O.P.'s take.

All this comes on top of another effort to cut off the revenue flow to the enemies of the revolution. For months now, liberal lobbyists and nonprofit organizations have been charging that the Republicans are trying to "defund the left" by challenging the tax-exempt status of organizations that both receive tax subsidies and lobby Congress. Such reform might be thought to hit conservative groups like the N.R.A. just as hard as Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club, but conservative groups actually tend to rely more on private donations and are not so dependent on government funds as liberal groups.

None of these assaults seem to be having much effect on the Democrats' Fund Raiser in Chief, Bill Clinton. Although his approval rating has gone no higher than around 45%, the Clinton-Gore '96 campaign last week reported receipts of more than $9 million in contributions, much of it from small donors. Still, Senate leader Bob Dole's campaign has also raised $9 million in the past three months. And even Clinton's success is one more sign that he and his party in Congress are sailing in different directions.

--Reported by Nina Burleigh and Michael Duffy/Washington