Lawmakers’ Generous Alliance Unmatched in Congress : Campaign funds: Critics say Reps. Howard L. Berman, Mel Levine and Henry A. Waxman buy influence by dividing up money among other Democrats, although it is perfectly legal.

WASHINGTON —  Between floor votes, committee sessions and meetings with constituents, Reps. Henry A. Waxman, Howard L. Berman and Mel Levine recently huddled behind closed doors in Waxman’s spacious, high-ceilinged office to engage in a political ritual unique on Capitol Hill.

Working from handwritten prep sheets, the three Los Angeles-area Democrats discussed how to jointly dispense about $50,000 of their own campaign funds to other Democrats in Congress and Democratic challengers in competitive races around the country.

Berman then called the lawmakers’ shared campaign treasurer and instructed her to issue $1,000 checks from each of their campaign committees to various candidates, including fellow Reps. George E. Brown Jr. (D-Colton), Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and Jim Jontz (D-Ind.). It is a practice well-honed by the trio over the years.

Their cumulative generosity is unmatched in Congress, according to a computer-assisted study of congressional campaign spending for 1989-90 conducted by The Times. In addition to congressional contests, Waxman, Berman and Levine routinely provide hefty support in state legislative, gubernatorial and local races as well as to various Democratic campaign organizations.

Despite its informality, this process is at the heart of one of the most effective and unusual Democratic alliances on Capitol Hill, where proximity generally breeds competition rather than cooperation.

It is also controversial. Critics contend that the practice amounts to influence-buying within Congress, although it’s perfectly legal.

“It buys something--if not votes, then compromises and bills introduced or bills not introduced, voice votes instead of recorded votes, actions not taken,” said Ellen S. Miller, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. “It has the same kind of corrosive impact on the system as direct contributions from corporate PACs,” or political action committees.

In the current election cycle, the trio distributed a total of $110,611 to other candidates from their respective campaign committees, through the Oct. 15 campaign reporting deadline. Waxman gave an additional $85,000 from his own political action committee.

Since the close of the reporting period, they have contributed at least another $100,000. This includes $75,000 to California Democratic gubernatorial nominee Dianne Feinstein, given after a federal district judge overturned state contribution limits.

All told, they have given to a total of 50 congressional candidates, of which 18 have received contributions from all three.

Nationally, Berman ranks sixth among all members of Congress in contributing to other candidates, Waxman is 11th and Levine is 12th, The Times found. In the full 1987-88 election cycle, the three combined made 256 contributions totaling $453,320.

Many other lawmakers make similar contributions. But what sets Waxman, Berman and Levine apart is that they pool at least some of their giving to maximize its electoral impact. Not incidentally, distributing the funds jointly also multiplies the benefits of the giving in an institution where campaign money is often the coin of the realm and members rarely forget who filled their coffers.

“This is the political equivalent of the sum being greater than the parts,” said Rep. Robert G. Torricelli (D-N.J.), a prolific fund-raiser himself. “They are heard out of all proportion to their numbers because they represent real political strengths.”

That is not to say that dispersing campaign dollars is the sole key to the clout wielded by Waxman, who represents the 24th Congressional District, Berman of the 26th District, and Levine from the 27th District. Each is respected for his legislative abilities and Waxman has been called the most effective liberal in the House.

The three lawmakers insist they attach no strings to their contributions. But they acknowledge that the money helps them pursue their legislative agendas.

“It clearly builds relationships with colleagues to help them in their elections just as it builds relationships with colleagues to help them with their legislative activities,” Waxman said unabashedly. “And those relationships are important because ultimately, to do anything around here, you have to have coalitions and support.”

Waxman, Berman and Levine are longtime friends and charter members of a progressive political alliance based in Los Angeles’ affluent Westside and southern San Fernando Valley. They like to describe the operation--which includes state and city officeholders and political consultants--as friends who share political goals.

Others call it the Waxman-Berman machine.

Among the alliance’s unofficial allies are fellow Rep. Julian C. Dixon (D-Los Angeles), state Sen. Herschel Rosenthal (D-Los Angeles), Assemblymen Burt Margolin (D-Los Angeles) and Terry B. Friedman (D-Los Angeles), and City Controller Rick Tuttle. Los Angeles political consultants Michael Berman, Howard’s brother, and Carl D’Agostino represent the alliance’s savvy, take-no-prisoners campaign arm.

The lawmakers have been raising large amounts for like-minded candidates since their days in the California Assembly. Their ideological agenda is headed by support for Israel, first and foremost, as well as environmental protection and a woman’s right to an abortion. Friends, fellow Californians and allies on specific issues get special consideration.

The threesome and their associates are able to function, in effect, like a self-contained political party because they have a loyal base of donors--particularly among Jewish supporters--and face little election threat themselves. Waxman last had his own campaign headquarters when he first ran for the Assembly in 1968; Berman when he first ran for Congress in 1982.

“It’s assumed that they’ll help other people,” said Marc Nathanson, a longtime fund-raiser for the three lawmakers and chief executive officer of Falcon Holding Group Inc., a cable television company based in Westwood. “It goes beyond their campaign.”

In their efforts to help others as well as themselves, Waxman has raised $413,009, and Berman has raised $452,919, during the current two-year legislative cycle. Levine, who is eyeing a 1992 U.S. Senate bid and enjoys the demands of fund raising more than the others, garnered $1,119,669, one of the highest figures for a House member.

Beyond their shared base, Waxman, a congressional leader on health issues, generates 20% of his money from health-related PACs; Berman, a former labor lawyer, is a favorite of organized labor; and Levine, the scion of a wealthy Beverly Hills developer and old California family, gets significant support from family and personal friends.

Waxman also has his own PAC, which allows him to exceed the $1,000 maximum on contributions from his own campaign committee and to give another $5,000 to candidates he supports in primary and general elections. Such “leadership PACs” help advance or solidify their organizer’s House or Senate leadership aspirations or can be used to pay the costs of an unannounced presidential bid.

At the same time that Waxman, Berman and Levine give unto others, they spend relatively little directly on their own campaigns. Berman spent 17% of his campaign committee funds on his own election activities, Waxman, 19%, and Levine, 35%, The Times survey found.

“I don’t see a line to be drawn between the political process and the legislative process,” Waxman said. “I think they’re all one and part of the same. Those people who are here in Washington, voting on bills, are elected through the political process. And whether I get my legislation passed depends on who’s here.”

Waxman, in fact, in 1978 helped pioneer the tactic of steering campaign dollars to colleagues to advance one’s goals within the House. As a two-term member, he decided to challenge Rep. Richardson Preyer, a senior and respected Democrat from South Carolina, for the vacant chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s health and environment subcommittee.

Preyer’s bid was hurt by his ownership of pharmaceutical stock, which he had inherited, and his sympathy for the home-state tobacco industry. At the same time, drawing on lessons learned as a state lawmaker in Sacramento, Waxman dispensed $24,000 in campaign funds to fellow members of the subcommittee. Some colleagues and observers criticized the contributions as a brazen bid to buy votes. Nevertheless, he won the chairmanship in a stunning upset.

Since that time, Waxman has continued giving campaign money to subcommittee allies as part of his effort to win a tougher clean-air law, expanded health insurance and more money for AIDS treatment and research.

Panel members Gerry Sikorski (D-Minn.), Jim Bates (D-San Diego) and Cardiss Collins (D-Ill.) have been among the beneficiaries of Waxman, Berman and Levine.

Waxman’s assistance goes beyond such contributions. He said that when Collins faced a primary challenge, he scheduled subcommittee hearings in her Chicago district “to let people back there know what she’s doing.” He has also attended fund-raisers there for her.

On occasion, the lawmakers individually or collectively hold fund-raisers or ask major donors in Los Angeles to help gather money for another candidate. Berman and Levine raised more than $75,000 for their House Foreign Affairs Committee ally Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) during Reid’s victorious Senate race in 1986.

“The strength of the machine is how much money they can raise for other people,” said a Democratic strategist with close ties to “the boys,” as their friends often call them. “And you can never track that.”

Equally difficult to determine are the benefits that accrue from the contributions. But congressional insiders and observers agree that such assistance engenders goodwill.

“When something comes up that is no big deal to you one way or another, you’re going to be cognizant of your friends,” said political scientist Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. “The people who succeed in politics over the longer haul tend to be those who build their base of friends.”

Berman said that when he waged an uphill fight to win a coveted spot on the House Budget Committee in 1989, “the fact that I was the kind of Democrat who helped other Democrats was a help.”

At the same time, he noted that he began his campaign a year early and aggressively wooed members of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, which makes such appointments.

“It’s part of a total picture,” said Berman, a four-term lawmaker who has played central roles on arms control and immigration issues, where institutional power tends to reside.

Some of the recipients of the largess are in positions to be especially helpful. Two examples are Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of an important Appropriations subcommittee dealing with foreign operations, and Rep. Sidney R. Yates (D-Ill.), who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee that plays a major role in determining how much money the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area receives to buy parkland.

Nevertheless, critics of this process--including Common Cause and other groups that support campaign law reform--maintain that it increases the need for special-interest money, provides a way around contribution limits, undermines party discipline and leaves colleagues feeling indebted.

The Los Angeles-area lawmakers disagree.

Recipients of their campaign funds are less beholden to them than they would be to corporate PACs, which would prefer to give to candidates directly, in any case, the lawmakers maintain. And they portray themselves as filling a partisan vacuum left by a Democratic Party unable to match big Republican donors.

“We never suggest that any response is appropriate,” Levine said. “If you have helped somebody, they are going to be more willing to listen to you. But I don’t think that buys you anything.”

RECIPIENTS OF 1989-90 CAMPAIGN FUNDS

List of Democratic candidates and committees to which Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City) and Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica) have contributed in 1989-90 election cycle. Many, but not all, of the contributions were made jointly. Virtually all of the recipients have used or will use the funds in hotly contested races.

Congress Recipient: George Brown Jr. (D-Colton) Total Amount: $9,000 Special Reason for Giving: California neighbor in tough race Recipient: Pete Geren (D-Tex.) Total Amount: $9,000 Special Reason for Giving: Targeted special election, 1989 Recipient: Jill Long (D-Ind.) Total Amount: $9,000 Special Reason for Giving: Freshman in GOP-leaning district Recipient: Jolene Unsoeld (D-Wash.) Total Amount: $9,000 Special Reason for Giving: Liberal freshman in tough race Recipient: Howard Wolpe (D-Mich.) Total Amount: $9,000 Special Reason for Giving: Foreign Affairs Committee ally of Berman and Levine on Israel, etc. Recipient: Cardiss Collins (D-Ill.) Total Amount: $8,000 Special Reason for Giving: Waxman ally on health and environment subcommittee Recipient: Gary Condit (D-Calif.) Total Amount: $8,000 Special Reason for Giving: California special election, 1989 Recipient: Butler Derrick (D-S.C.) Total Amount: $8,000 Special Reason for Giving: Second-ranking Democrat on Rules Committee; on Democratic leadership Steering and Policy Committee Recipient: Peter Hoagland (D-Neb.) Total Amount: $8,000 Special Reason for Giving: Freshman targeted by Republicans Recipient: Jim Jontz (D-Ind.) Total Amount: $4,000 Special Reason for Giving: Targeted race Recipient: Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) Total Amount: $4,000 Special Reason for Giving: Member of powerful Rules Committee; friend in tough race Recipient: James Clarke (D-N.C.) Total Amount: $3,000 Special Reason for Giving: Foreign Affairs Committee member Recipient: Ben Jones (D-Ga.) Total Amount: $3,000 Special Reason for Giving: Freshman targeted by Republicans Recipient: Harley Staggers Jr. (D-W.Va.) Total Amount: $3,000 Special Reason for Giving: Judiciary Committee member with Berman Recipient: Dick Swett (D-N.H.) Total Amount: $3,000 Special Reason for Giving: Son-in-law of California Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Burlingame) Recipient: John Vinich (D-Wyo.) Total Amount: $3,000 Special Reason for Giving: Targeted special election, 1989 Recipient: Sidney Yates (D-Ill.) Total Amount: $3,000 Special Reason for Giving: Chairman of key Appropriations interior subcommittee Recipient: David Obey (D-Wis.) Total Amount: $2,500 Special Reason for Giving: Chairman of key Appropriations foreign operations subcommittee OTHER OFFICES

Recipient: Dianne Feinstein, Gubernatorial nominee Total Amount: $80,000+ Special Reason for Giving: Vital importance to California as well as to House through redistricting Recipient: Kathleen Brown (D-Calif.), State treasurer nominee Total Amount: $3,000 Special Reason for Giving: Competitive statewide race; longtime friend Recipient: Ruth Galanter, Los Angeles City Council Total Amount: $1,500 Special Reason for Giving: Westside ally Recipient: Diane Martinez Assembly primary candidate Total Amount: $3,000 Special Reason for Giving: Daughter of Rep. Matthew G. Martinez (D-Monterey Park), a close ally CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP COMMITTEES Recipient: IMPAC 2000 Total Amount: $105,000 Special Reason for Giving: Campaign to defeat June reapportionment ballot initiatives in California that Democrats viewed as a threat to congressional seats Recipient: Wright Appreciation Fund Total Amount: $9,000 Special Reason for Giving: Support for then-Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) Total: $307,000+ Sources: Candidates’ campaign reports and interviews