Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
323153333
label
Princeton University 5/10/91 [OA 8323] [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323153333
contentType
document
title
Princeton University 5/10/91 [OA 8323] [1]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13756-001
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Backup Chronological Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323153333
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
9fcb8b75ec283b9b
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Backup Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13756
Folder ID Number:
13756-001
Folder Title:
Princeton University 5/10/91 [OA 8323] [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
21
4
2
CHAIRMAN
JERRY LEWIS, M.C.
House Republican
35TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA
VICE CHAIRMAN
BILL McCOLLUM, M.C.
****
5TH DISTRICT, FLORIDA
Conference
SECRETARY
VIN WEBER, M.C.
2ND DISTRICT, MINNESOTA
ROOM 1618 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
202-225-5107
FAX 225-0809
B. ROBERT OKUN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
5-1-91
To: CArol Blymire
From: Dave RAmey
Re: Congress's expansion
/ hope the enclosed Are
useful. / suggest that you
discuss this with Don Wolfansberger,
the Republican Chiefof Stnff on the
Rules Committee. He is An expert on
the subject. He's At 225-9191
Please let me know when the
speech will be MAde. Good Luck.
:
...
CRS
Congressional Research Service
The Library. of Congress
Washington, D.C. 20540
Congressional Office Operations
IP 151C
The enclosed reports have been prepared by the Congressional Research
Service to assist the Members of Congress and their staffs in the organization
of their congressional offices. Information is included on office management
and constituent services.
Members of Congress who want further information on this topic may
contact CRS at 7-5700. Additional CRS Reports may be identified by looking
in the current Guide to CRS Products (for congressional use only) under
"Congress--Members and Offices" and in the latest Update under "Government
and Politics."
Constituents may find additional information on this topic in a local
library through the use of Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature, Public
Affairs Information Service Bulletin (PAIS), and various newspaper indexes.
Books on this subject may be identified through the library's catalog or the
most recent edition of Subject Guide to Books in Print.
We hope this information will be helpful.
Congressional Reference
Division
420
PREJUDICE
THE PRESIDENCY / PRESIDENTS
421
There are few liberals who have not a well-furnished
Deep-rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten
compartment of race prejudice, even if it is usually sup-
thousand recollections by the blacks of the injuries they
pressed.
-Gunnar Myrdal
have sustained
will divide us into parties, and
will probably never end but in the extermination of ... the
Everyone is a prisoner of his own experiences. No one can
one or the other race.
eliminate prejudices-just recognize them.
-Edward R. Murrow
-Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
South. I am bigoted enough to believe in white supremacy in the
-George Deatherage
There are only two ways to be quite unprejudiced and
impartial. One is to be completely ignorant. The other is
to be completely indifferent. Bias and prejudice are atti-
I deplore the fact that throughout the South today sub-
tudes to be kept in hand, not attitudes to be avoided.
versive elements are attempting to convince the Negro that
-Charles P. Curtis
he should be placed on social equality with white people.
-Martin Dies
One may no more live in the world without picking up
the moral prejudices of the world than one will be able to
Given a thimbleful of facts we rush to make generaliza-
-H. L. Mencken
tions as large as a tub.
go to hell without perspiring.
-Gordon W. Allport
Prejudice not being founded on reason cannot be removed
THE PRESIDENCY / PRESIDENTS
by argument.
-Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
In the matter of therapy, humanity is in the highest degree
would therefore have given more power to the President
irrational, so that there is no prospect of influencing it by
and less to the Senate.
You are apprehensive of monarchy; I, of aristocracy. ]cetn
reasonable arguments
Against prejudice one can do
-John Adams (1735-1826), to Thomas Jefferson
nothing.
-Sigmund Freud
I should like to be known as a former President who
minded his own business.
-Calvin Coolidge
Ignorance is less remote from truth than prejudice.
Nothing is easier than spending public money. It does not
-Denis Diderot (1713-1784)
appear to belong to anybody. The temptation is over-
The people who are the most bigoted are the people who
whelming to bestow it on somebody.
]seth
have no convictions at all.
-G. Chesterton
-Calvin Coolidge
Politics should be the part-time profession of every citizen.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
It is time to turn from quarrels and to build our White
(The President of today is the postage stamp of tomorrow.)
ramparts again. The alliance with foreign races means
nothing but death for us.
-Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr.
Once upon a time my political opponents honored me as
possessing the fabulous intellectual and economic power
The chief cause of human errors is to be found in the
by which I created a world-wide depression all by myself.
prejudices picked up in childhood.
-Herbert Hoover
-René Descartes (1596-1650)
The destruction of our State governments or the an-
nihilation of their control over the local concerns of the
IP 339C (GO)
Congressional Research Service
N
81/2-13,
Washington, D.C. 20540
The Library 2,4,5,6 of Congress
CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT: AN OVERVIEW OF KEY ELEMENTS
DRAWN FROM THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE
Walter J. Oleszek
Specialist in American National Government
Government Division
January 6, 1986
CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT: AN OVERVIEW OF KEY ELEMENTS
DRAWN FROM THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE
"What is a constitution?" asked Supreme Court Justice William Patterson
in a 1795 court opinion. "It is a form of government," he said, "delineated
by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of
fundamental law are established." 1/ The objective of this brief report is to
describe some of these "first principles" through the prism of the American
experience. The principles to be examined include limited government,
separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and a bill of rights. 2/
Before embarking on this assignment, it is worth recounting at least three
conditions that permeate democratic constitutional systems.
First, the constitutions of free societies reflect the basic values, ideas,
experiences, and political roots of the body politic. The Framers of the U.S.
Constitution, for instance, drew heavily on English law, a huge body of thought
that was part of the intellectual environment of the time, and their practical
experiences with colonial governments, state constitutions, and the Articles of
Confederation. Notions such as personal and property rights, for example, were
basic to the civic consciousness.
1/ Cited in Congressional Record, Daily Edition, V. 131, Sept. 24, 1985,
P. S1T987.
2/ There are nations, notably Great Britain and Israel, with unwritten
constitutions. Although they have no single document labeled a "constitution,"
their fundamental governing principles are recorded in numerous other sources,
such as the 1215 Magna Charta in the case of Great Britain.
CRS-2
By comparison, there are authoritarian regimes with written constitutions
that articulate admirable political values. These "showcase" constitutions,
however, mask stark realities. The Soviet Constitution, for example, provides
for freedom of the press, of meetings, demonstrations, and speech, but Article
126 of their constitution makes these freedoms contingent upon their being
used "in accordance with the interests of the toilers and with the aim of
strengthening the Socialist order." 3/ The "interest of the toilers," however,
is determined by the Communist Party and is not derived from broad-based public
debate and petition. Or as a political joke told in the Soviet Union reveals:
What is the difference between the Soviet Constitution
and the American Constitution?
The Soviet Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and
freedom of gathering. The American Constitution guarantees
freedom after speech and freedom after gathering. 4/
Another condition associated with "constitutionalism" is informal change.
More than written words define a nation's fundamental law. "Living" constitutions,
in brief, evolve in response to changing conditions, different interpretations of
the document's meaning and intent, and simply day-to-day developments in governing
practice. The U.S. Constitution, for example, refers neither to political parties,
congressional committees, nor the president's cabinet. Yet each are important
extraconstitutional developments. As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
wrote in Missouri V. Holland (252 U.S. 416, 1920):
(W)hen we are dealing with words that also are a constituent act,
like the Constitution of the United States, we must realize that
they have called into life a being the development of which could
3/ Nove, Alec. The Constitution, Governmental Organization, and Political
Practice. In Inkeles, Alex and Kent Geiger, eds. Soviet Society, A Book of
Readings. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1961. p. 174.
4/ Wall Street Journal. Nov. 21, 1983. p. 14.
CRS-3
not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters.
It was enough for them to realize or to hope that they had created an
organism; it has taken a century and has cost their successors much
sweat and blood to prove that they created a nation.
The brevity and generality of the U.S. Constitution facilitated adaptation of its
phrases to changing times and events.
Finally, constitutions are generally intended to reflect the popular will
and to outline the framework and functions of government. They cannot eliminate
divisions and pressures inherent in society. Nor can they guarantee that
governmental principles will withstand serious domestic or international
challenges. Instead, constitutions secure individual rights and liberties in
the hope that the free interplay of ideas within democratic procedures will
enable governing systems to resolve future problems. These procedures include
such notions as free and frequent elections, guarantees for public participation
in government, and protections for governmental critics, such as opposition
parties.
Principles of Constitutional Government
Limited Government. Constitutions are basically created to limit the
authority of the central government so that "rulers may not arbitrarily do
whatever they please, whenever and however they please." 5/ Constitutions,
however, frequently speak of the powers accorded the national government
(to coin money, levy taxes, raise armies, and so forth) rather than
limitations. Interpretations of constitutions can also enhance governmental
5/ Diamond, Martin. The Founding of the Democratic Republic. Itasca,
Ill., F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1981. p. 98.
CRS-4
authority. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the landmark 1819 case
of McCulloch V. Maryland (4 Wheat. 316), which dealt with the authority of
Congress to establish a national bank:
Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the
Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are
plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but
consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are
constitutional.
Which ends are "legitimate" often depends on whether the interpreter holds a
broad or narrow view of the appropriate scope of governmental power. Suffice
it to say that constitutional evolution in the United States reveals significant
expansions in the national government's size and reach. Wars, economic
depressions, and public demand were among the factors that contributed to
governmental growth.
Still, the Framers understood that constitutional arrangements and
structures could restrain the arbitrary exercise of governmental authority
either by majorities or by minorities. Limitation of government could be
achieved by dividing power among three branches of government and between
the nation and states. The division of power assured both policy conflicts
and cooperation because it made officials in the several branches responsive
to different constituencies, responsibilities, and perceptions of the public
welfare.
The Framers believed that the "accumulation of all powers, legislative,
executive, and judiciary, in the same hands
may justly be pronounced
the very definition of tyranny." 6/ As people of practical experience,
they had witnessed firsthand the abuses of King George III and his royal
6/ Ford, Paul L., ed. The Federalist, A Commentary on the Constitution
of the United States by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay.
New York, Henry Holt and Co., 1898. p. 319.
CRS-5
governors. They also wanted to avoid the possible "elective despotism" of
their own State legislatures. 7/ Wary of excessive authority in any branch
of government, the Framers stressed such concepts as separation of powers
and checks and balances.
Separation of Powers. The Framers combined their practical experience
with a theoretical outlook and established three independent branches of
national government, none having a monopoly of governing power. It is
interesting to note that the Constitution does not explicitly make reference
to the "separation of powers." Instead, its functional equivalent is found
in provisions that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in
a Congress of the United States," that "The executive Power shall be vested
in a President of the United States of America," and that "The judicial Power
of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior
Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
The Framers held a strong bias in favor of lawmaking by representative
assemblies, and so viewed Congress as the prime national policymaker. The
Constitution names Congress the first branch of government, assigns it all
legislative power, and grants it explicit powers and implied responsibilities
through the so-called "elastic clause" (Section 8 of Article I). This clause
empowers Congress to make "all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution" its enumerated or specific powers.
In sharp contrast, Articles II and III, creating the executive and judicial
branches, describe only briefly the framework and duties of these governmental
units. Although separation of powers implies that Congress "enacts" the laws,
7/ Jefferson, Thomas. Notes on Virginia. In Mason, Alpheus Thomas,
ed. Free Government in the Making. New York, Oxford University Press,
1965. p. 164.
CRS-6
the president "executes" them, and the Supreme Court "interprets" them, such a
rigid division of labor was not intended by the Framers. The Constitution, in
short, creates a system, not of separate institutions performing separate
functions, but of separate institutions sharing functions. The Framers did
grant certain unique responsibilities to each branch and ensured their
separateness by, for example, prohibiting any officer from serving in more
than one branch simultaneously.
Jurists, scholars, and political commentators differ over the fundamental
intent of the separation of powers system. Some have argued that its ultimate
purpose is to prevent the arbitrary exercise of power. Supreme Court Justice
Louis Brandeis is frequently credited with popularizing this theme in a 1926
decision (Myers V. United States, 272 U.S. 53, 293). "The doctrine of the
separation of powers," he wrote, "was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not
to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power."
Others challenge the singular emphasis of Brandeis. They argue that the
Framers, mindful of the inefficiencies of the Articles of Confederation, wanted
both an efficient government and one that protected individual liberties. 8/
As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson remarked in a 1952 case (Youngstown
Co. V. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635): "While the Constitution diffuses power
the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that the practice will
integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon
its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity."
Checks and Balances. An essential corollary of separation of powers
is checks and balances. The Framers of the Constitution realized that
individuals in each branch might seek to aggrandize power at the expense
8/ See Fisher, Louis. The Efficiency Side of Separated Powers.
Journal of American Studies, August 1971. pp. 113-131.
CRS-7
of the other branches. Inevitably, conflicts would develop. In particular, the
Constitution provides an open invitation to struggles for power by Congress and
the President.
To preserve the separation of powers, the Framers devised a system of checks
and balances that mixed the powers of the branches in important areas. As James
Madison explained, unless the three branches "be so far connected and blended as
to give each a constitutional control over the others, the degree of separation
which the maxim requires, as essential to a free government, can never in practice
be duly maintained." 9/ The laws Congress passes, for example, may be vetoed by
the President. To overturn a Presidential veto, a two-thirds vote is required in
each chamber of Congress. Treaties, high-level presidential appointments, and
judicial nominations require the approval of the Senate. And decisions and actions
of Congress and the President are subject to review by the Federal judiciary.
Congress's own legislative power was effectively "checked" by establishing a
bicameral body consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. If
parliamentary tradition recommended the two-house formula, the politics of the
era commanded it. The larger States preferred the "nationalist" principle of
popularly based representation, while the smaller States insisted on a "federal"
principle ensuring representation of States. The ultimate settlement, commonly
called the Great Compromise, provided for equal representation of states in the
Senate and popular election of House members. 10/
9/ Wright, Benjamin Fletcher, ed. The Federalist. Cambridge, Mass.,
The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1961. p. 343.
10/ Because the House and Senate differ in fundamental ways-terms of
office (two years VS. six years), constituencies (districts VS. states),
manner of election (popular election VS. selection by state legislatures
until the 1913 ratification of the 17th Amendment providing for popular
election of senators), and number of members (in 1985, 435 VS. 100)--the
Framers expected the two houses to serve different purposes. The House
was to reflect popular opinion and the Senate to promote stability and
continuity in policymaking.
CRS-8
Bicameralism is perhaps the most conspicuous organizational feature of the
U.S. Congress. Each chamber has a distinct process for considering legislation
and each determines its own rules of procedure. In addition, the Constitution
assigns unique duties to each chamber. The Senate ratifies treaties and approves
presidential appointments, as noted earlier. The House must originate all
revenue measures. The two houses jealously guard their prerogatives and resist
intrusions by "the other body." Despite claims that one or the other chamber
is more important, the two houses staunchly defend their equal places.
In sum, checks and balances have a dual effect. They encourage cooperation
and accommodations among the branches, and they introduce the potential for
conflict. And since 1789 Congress and the President have indeed cooperated with
each other and protected their own powers. Each branch depends in various ways
on the other. Conflicts that occur are resolved most frequently by negotiation,
bargaining, and compromise.
Federalism. Some scholars believe that the Framers developed a new governing
concept--federalism--when they divided political power between the national
government and the state governments. "The most remarkable single achievement of
the Federal Convention was the invention of modern federalism," wrote Professor
Benjamin Wright. 11/ That achievement produced a political system mid-way between
confederation (the central government is the agent of the states) and the unitary
state (all governing power resides in the central government).
The relationship between the States and national government in the United
States is not equal. The "supremacy clause" of the Constitution insures that,
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
11/ Wright, The Federalist, p. 41.
CRS-9
Pursuance Thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." The
clause goes on to add that State judges must uphold the national constitution
and national laws "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding." Still, the boundaries between the two governments
are often overlapping (both share the power to tax, for example), subject to
change over time (witness the modern growth of the national government), and
the source of tension and strife (the Civil War is the most prominent example).
The Supreme Court is the arbiter for many of the boundary conflicts that
involve the two levels of government, including the scores of local governing
units. The Court's decisions, for instance, have required State and local
governments to follow national rules and laws in such diverse areas as public
education, police procedures, and employment. The Court's role is important
because the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which highlights the federalism
principle, is not self-executing. That Amendment, designed to restrict the
authority of the national government, states: "The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In brief, while "the people" delegated enumerated powers to the national
government, they reserved an unspecified portion to the States while retaining
some residual authority for themselves. Little surprise that the interplay of
national and State relations is a pervasive feature of the American political
landscape. The terrain is constantly changing as new territorial configurations
affect the pattern of relationships among national, state, and local governments.
Like the separation of powers, the complexities and clashes inherent in the
CRS-10
Federal system are usually worked out through practical accommodations, laws,
and day-to-day collaboration in resolving public problems. 12/
Bill of Rights. When the Framers submitted their Constitution to the
States for ratification, the document contained no bill of rights--safeguards
that limit governmental power and accord individuals protection against
capricious governmental actions. The bill of rights is commonly understood
to mean the first ten constitutional amendments. The ten were passed by
Congress in September 1789 and took effect in two years upon ratification by
three-fourths of the States.
The Framers did not include a bill of rights in their original plan for
two reasons. First, the various States contained these guarantees of basic
citizen rights in their constitutions and that was thought to provide
sufficient protections for the citizenry. Second, James Wilson, a delegate to
the Constitutional Convention, pointed out that his colleagues found a bill of
rights "not only unnecessary, but it was found impracticable-for who will be
bold enough to enumerate all the rights of the people?--and when the attempt is
made it must be remembered that if the enumeration is not complete, everything
not expressly mentioned will be presumed to be purposely omitted."
13/
12/ Whether federalism is practicable in deeply divided societies is a
subject of some debate. While States are accorded equal representation and
large political power in the United States Senate, some nations might be
unable to agree on what should constitute the constituent parts. Scholars
have debated the concept of "consociation" for such states. The main
components of consociationalism include government by grand coalition,
minority veto rights to each member of the coalition, and proportionality
in the allocation of political representation, governmental appointments,
and money to the separate entities that comprise the nation. Some scholars
believe consociational forms can reduce political tensions in segmented
societies; others see them as a prescription for deadlock and political
strife. See Federalism and Consociationalism: A Symposium. Publius.
The Journal of Federalism. Spring 1985. PP. 1-112.
13/ Kelly, Alfred H. and Winfred A. Harbison. The American Constitution,
Its Origins and Development. New York, W.W. Norton and Co., 1963. p. 152.
CRS-11
When opponents launched attacks against the new plan of government because
it lacked a bill of rights, proponents pledged during the ratification fight to
win enactment of such guarantees when the new government was launched. That
pledge, as noted above, was fulfilled by the First Congress. The States quickly
ratified those amendments which, in the main, provide substantive and procedural
protections.
Substantively, the First Amendment states the fundamental freedoms of speech,
press, religion, assembly, and petition for redress of grievances. The First
Amendment declares that "Congress shall make no law" abridging these freedoms.
The Supreme Court has expanded the applicability of these freedoms to State and
local governments as well. Many jurists and scholars believe that the matrix of
rights articulated in the First Amendment embraces the fundamental conditions
for self-government. These rights are not absolutes, however. As Supreme Court
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in the 1919 Schenck V. United States case
(249 U.S. 47):
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a
man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic
The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such
circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present
danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress
has a right to prevent.
Procedurally, the Bill of Rights protects individuals from, among other
things, arbitrary arrest, searches, and imprisonment. The Fourth Amendment,
for example, declares:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized.
CRS-12
These procedural protections are not mere "legal technicalities." They are
fundamental to the operation of a free society. "The history of liberty,"
wrote Justice Felix Frankfurter, "has largely been the history of observance
of procedural safeguards." 14/
Concluding Observations. There are numerous legacies of American constitu-
tional development. One of these is the concept of limited government. The
Constitution is filled with implicit and explicit "auxiliary precautions"
(Madison's phrase), such as separation of powers, checks and balances,
federalism, and a bill of rights, to prevent the concentration of absolute
political power in any individual, institution, or group. Another legacy is
protection of individual liberties, especially for those who challenge the
established power structure, hold unorthodox views, or "belong to a minority
religious, racial, political, or cultural group." 15/ A third legacy worth
noting is that the Constitution begins with "We the People." In brief,
government rests on the consent of the governed, and it is they who are the
ultimate source of sovereignty in the polity and give form, shape, and purpose
to the representative republic. Since 1787, numerous other nations have
employed the constitutional convention model to establish new governments.
Perhaps the most important legacy of any constitution is whether it can
meet the challenges of each new era. For 200 years the American constitution
has survived momentous national and international changes and challenges.
The constitutional system's capacity to adapt and adjust to new circumstances
through judicial interpretation and other means was noted earlier. Another
important explanation for the Constitution's longevity involves the basic
14/ McNabb V. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 347 (1943).
15/ Emerson, Thomas I. The Bill of Rights Today. Public Affairs
Pamphlet No. 489. February 1973. p. 3.
CRS-13
well-being of the underlying political, social, economic, and cultural fabric
of which it is a part. Concepts such as equality of opportunity, public
participation in policymaking, and due process of law are embedded in America's
political tradition.
No single provision of the Constitution nor all combined can guarantee
the continued vitality of the political system. As Madison said in 1788:
"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness
without virtue in the people is a chimerical idea." 16/ Or as Woodrow Wilson
phrased somewhat the same notion more than one hundred years later:
Liberty is not something that can be created by a document;
neither is it something which, when created, can be laid
away in a document, a completed work. It is an organic
principle, --a principle of life, renewing and being renewed.
Democratic institutions are never done; they are like living
tissue, always a-making. It is a strenuous thing, this
living the life of a free people; and our success in it
depends upon [appropriate forms of conduct], not upon clever
invention. 17/
16/ Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates of the Several State Constitutional
Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. Washington, Taylor and
Maury. 1836. III. p. 489.
17/ Wilson, Woodrow. Character of Democracy in the United States. The
Atlantic Monthly, November 1889. p. 582.
WO/mb
CRS-35
POLITICAL
One area of public relations that no Member can afford to neglect is
that dealing with his political party. Although most Members have only
limited dealings with their State and national party apparatus, almost
every Member is careful not to alienate party personnel--especially
those party officials who are responsible for the Member's nomination or
renomination, and for marshaling party forces to work for his reelection.
Most Members pay a minimal amount of attention to the national party
committee. Aside from occasional speaking engagements, there is little
need for contact. The party's Congressional Campaign Committee, which
supplies funds to House candidates, and the party's Senate Campaign
Committee, which supplies funds to Senatorial candidates, is not active
except at election time; there is little need for contact with this body
at other times.
A major political consideration in the House and Senate is a Member's
relationship with his colleagues. Great pains are often taken, especially
in the Senate, to ensure that political differences do not affect long term
working relations.
A Member's political function, perhaps more than any other duty, is
truly a matter of style. Some Members are naturally extroverted in all
surroundings from a neighborhood party to a White House dinner; others are
reserved and aloof. The staff must take into account the Member's strengths,
desires and moods in scheduling political events.
CRS-36
In essence, the political function is an amalgam of all other functions
in that each has a political aspect. Each Member of Congress must operate
within his or her individual political philosophy, his/her party, his/her
State or Congressional District, and within the confines of Congress as
well. In the introduction to Congressional Behavior, Nelson Polsby wrote:
The puzzles of the election are nothing compared to the
mysteries of the congressional community. Congressional behavior
is determined more by the contours of this community, and by
where congressmen and senators locate themselves and are located
with respect to it, than by any other single thing. Who the
congressman or senator is, where he comes from, what he stands for,
his party, his prior life experiences, his ambitions and hopes,
his alliances and enemies, all play a part in locating him, and
of course, his location determines what and how much he can do. 20/
20/ Polsby, Nelson W., ed. Congressional Behavior. New York, Random
House, 1971. P. xii.
JC/eg
81-116 GOV
CRS Report for Congress
A Functional Analysis of Congressional
Member Office Operations
Judy Carlile
Analyst in American National Government
Government Division
May 14, 1981
CRS
Congressional Research Service . The Library of Congress
The Congressional Research Service works exclusively for the Congress. conducting re-
search, analyzing legislation, and providing information at the request of committees,
Members, and their staffs.
The Service makes such research available, without partisan bias, in many forms includ-
ing studies, reports, compilations, digests, and background briefings. Upon request,
CRS assists committees in analyzing legislative proposals and issues, and in assessing the
possible effects of these proposals and their alternatives. The Service's senior specialists
and subject analysts are also available for personal consultations in their respective fields
of expertise.
ABSTRACT
This report presents a general analysis of personal staff functions in a
congressional office. Because there is little specific information from Congress
and other sources regarding staff job descriptions and because congressional
office organization patterns vary significantly, this report focuses on the
staff functions that are common to all offices regardless of organizational
structure or job title: office management; mail; projects; casework;
legislation; scheduling and personal services; press and public relations; and
political functions.
blank
CRS-v
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
iii
INTRODUCTION
1
OFFICE MANAGEMENT
3
MAIL
9
PROJECTS
15
CASEWORK
17
LEGISLATION
23
SCHEDULING AND PERSONAL SERVICES
27
PRESS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS
31
POLITICAL
35
A FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF CONGRESSIONAL MEMBER OFFICE OPERATIONS
INTRODUCTION
Much of the growing body of literature on congressional staff focuses on
committee rather than personal staff personnel. The literature provides little
that is systematic or specific about the role, purpose, and function of these
personal staff members.
Yet, in 1979, there were over three (3.5) times more personal staff than
committee staff (10,679 to 3,290); the ratio on the House side was (3.3 to 1;
7,067 personal staff aides compared to 2,073 committee staffers). The ratio
on the Senate side was about 3 to 1. (3,612 personal staff persons to 1,217
committee staffers).
The few students of political science and public administration who have
attempted to study congressional staff organization have been hampered by the
lack of specific information from Congress and from other sources. 2/ The lack
of job descriptions, the lack of job uniformity, and the variation among offices
in the duties of the persons having the same job title contribute to the
difficulty in studying the personal staffs of Congress.
A review of certain common job titles within the House and Senate
illustrates this problem. Most Members have Administrative Assistants who
1/ Malbin, Michael J. Unelected Representatives. New York, Basic Books,
1980. P. 252.
2/ Fox, Harrison W., Jr. and Susan Webb Hammond. Congressional Staffs:
the Invisible Force in Lawmaking. New York, The Free Press, 1980. P. 5-6.
CRS-2
are usually the most important and influential staff persons. Their duties
may include those of staff director, political advisor, and speech writer.
Some also play an active role in press relations and project work. But they may
share all these duties with other staffers titled Executive Assistant, Personal
Secretary, Legislative Aide, and Press Secretary; or they may not. The absence
of centralized job descriptions and the autonomy of each Member in structuring,
titling, and assigning duties to his or her staff assures this variation in the
Congress.
This variation is more of an obstacle to the student of Congress than it
is the operation of each Senate or House office where it is consistent with
the general minimization of institutional guidelines, standards, and regulations.
One way to avoid the analytical problem resulting from title variation is
to focus on the functions each staff performs rather than the structure
(titling) utilized. A difficulty with this approach is the overlap and
interrelationship among these functions. Although Congressional office
operations do not neatly separate, this report has divided these functions into
the following eight categories:
-- office management
-- mail
-- projects
- casework
- legislation
-- scheduling and personal services
-- press and public relations
--- political functions
CRS-3
OFFICE MANAGEMENT
Office management consists of a number of smaller functions which
contribute to the operation and administration of each Congressional office.
Among the major items within the general category of office management to be
discussed in this paper are staff recruitment, coordination with District and
State offices, the work flow, equipment and space, allowances, and efficiency
and innovation.
As the Congress has increased its staffing resources, greater emphasis
has had to be placed on staff organization and management functions. Personal
staffs of Representatives, paid from clerk-hire funds, are limited to 18
permanent staff and as many as four part-time or temporary employees. On the
average, personal staff of Senators number between 20 and 40 persons. There is
no limit on the number of staff a Senator may hire, but the amount of staffing
funds available to Senators varies with State population. 3/ Staffs are
organized differently according to the individual Member's legislative,
representative, and political goals, and his or her personal preferences.
3/ In the House of Representatives, Members are authorized a sum of money
(an annual clerk-hire allow allowance of $336,384 with no month-to-month carry
over) with which they are permitted to employ no more than 18 permanent persons
at any one time. They are additionally authorized $1,620 per year to employ an
LBJ intern for a two-month period, in addition to the above named employees. In
the Senate, on the other hand, a Member is authorized a staff allowance according
to the size of his State's population. Currently these allowances range from
$592,608 to $1,190,724 per year. There are no restrictions on the number of staff
which a Senator may hire, and there are no restrictions on the carryover of unused
funds from one month to the next. Senators also receive a legislative assistance
allowance of $183,801 per fiscal year. In the case of a committee chairman or
ranking minority member of a Committee the allowance is automatically reduced by
$61,267 for each such leadership position. Other Senators authorized to appoint
committee staff receive reduced legislative assistance funds as well.
CRS-4
Staff Recruitment
A major office management function is recruitment of staff. This
assignment usually falls to the Administrative Assistant, though. others may
also play a role.
Recruitment for professional staff positions, according to one observer,
is "based primarily on informal, non-routinized contacts and 'who knows
whom. 4/ Immediately following an election, the newly elected Members are
deluged with applications for employment. And throughout one's congressional
career, there is hardly a week that will go by without at least one person
dropping off a resume. However, few of these persons are hired.
Assuming his or her predecessor was of the same party, an incoming Member
may hire (retain) much of the former's staff. An incoming Member may also
consult with other Members from his or her State on staffing. Incoming
Members who have served in another elective office (e.g., state legislator)
may well bring some of their staff to Washington with them.
Some Members make an effort to hire staffers from their home State or
District; others do not. It seems generally agreed that the need and
opportunity for State people on a Member's staff decreases as seniority
increases. Hiring people from the State may create at least three problems:
(1) it may prove difficult to fire someone with ties to the constituency;
(2) it may not be advantageous for a home State person with ties to the
constituency to be privy to all that transpires in the Member's office; and
(3) occasionally staff persons from the home State have their own political
ambitions which may at least partially influence their efforts in the
4/ Fox and Hammond, P. 49.
CRS-5
Congressional office. On the other hand, home State staffers may be
especially attuned to the problems of the congressional constituency.
Sometimes staffers are hired to fill specific roles, and in these cases
Congressional offices seek out persons having the appropriate qualifications,
skills, and experience. In other instances, persons are hired for their
general capabilities; and duties may be assigned as they arise.
Duties may seem to be randomly assigned, but many congressional staffers
now considered experts in their field can point out that their expertise
began just because someone was needed to cover a certain subject area.
Expertise grew post facto.
Coordination with District and State Offices
Another office management function is coordination with the Congressman's
District office(s) or the Senator's State office(s). Representatives are
authorized and charged for rental space for District offices in post offices
and Federal buildings on a square footage basis (or funds to pay for equivalent
private office space). Senators are authorized rental space in post offices
and Federal buildings (or funds to pay for equivalent private office space by
square footage, according to state population, not exceeding the highest
rate per square foot charged Federal Agencies by GSA). In addition, each Senator
or Representative is authorized to lease a mobile office.
Although State or District offices may perform varying functions, all of
these functions must be coordinated with those done in Washington. A current
trend seems to be the assignment of most casework (with the usual exception of
military cases) to these offices. Certain form letters (congratulatory, new
resident, and sometimes legislative) are also done in State or District offices.
CRS-6
These offices are often involved in scheduling the Member's time when he or she
is back home, and, of course, Congressional offices are normally involved in
local political affairs, and in project work.
Work Flow: Production, Filing, and Retrieving
Other office management functions include the physical production and
filing of the large quantity of work produced by office staffers. Congressional
office deadlines are perhaps more important than deadlines in any comparable
office in the private sector. Letters, press releases, speeches, position
papers and other documents often need to be produced by a certain time.
Successfully coordinating these events is no small achievement. Similarly, the
ability to retrieve materials previously produced and filed is equally important.
The press releases, speeches, and position papers of a few years previous may
prove very important to ensure that Members' positions are consistent over time-
and if they are not, to explain why a change in position was necessary and
proper. Accordingly, retrieval of information is especially important; a
consistent' and efficient filing system is a must.
Office Equipment and Space
Lastly, an important part of office management deals with equipment and
space. A variety of office machines, with differing applications and
capabilities, are available to Members. It is a function of office management
to be aware of the office's specific needs, and to make sure that the office
equipment meets those needs.
CRS-7
With regard to space, often-but especially at the beginning and
end of each Congress-various offices suitable for "annex space" become
available (this also occurs as the Senate and House Office Buildings increase
in number and new offices are created); those charged with office management
need to be aware of these so as to place applications. Personal staff in
the House and Senate has increased by more than 50 percent in the last 10
years, 5/ and additional office space has been needed and acquired to house
these persons. A Congressional office that does not acquire conveniently
located space as it acquires staff might well find itself severely cramped
and operating inefficiently.
Efficiency and Innovation
Efficiency in office operations is always desirable, but often difficult
to achieve. The quality level of each staff person's work-as well as that
of the office as a whole-varies according to a number of different factors.
Each of the components discussed above contributes to the work level of
each employee. It is not always possible in the context of each Congressional
office to supply each staff with optimal working conditions. Space limitations
may force many staffers to work in an environment they consider-and perhaps
rightly so-less than satisfactory. This may well impinge upon productivity.
In an attempt to overcome the problem of space limitation, a small number of
offices have experimented with innovative space-efficient furniture. A
component of office management is to be aware of such opportunities when they
arise, and also to be able to evaluate how well such options will fare in the
5/ Fox and Hammond, P. 24-25.
CRS-8
particular office. There may well be resistance among tradition-oriented
staffers to substantial innovation. And innovation in office operations
is not necessarily going to be beneficial in every case.
A final note about many of these office management operations the
responsible personnel in each Congressional office must keep abreast of the
ever-changing allowances that pertain to staff, equipment, stationery, travel,
etc. These are compiled in the Congressional Handbook (prepared and regularly
updated by the Committee on House Administration, in the House, and the Committee
on Rules and Administration in the Senate), but the responsible staff persons
may need to track changes in office allowances on a more immediate basis.
CRS-9
MAIL
An element of office management is the function of receiving, routing, and
responding to congressional mail. Members often feel that responding to mail
promptly and expeditiously is as important a function as any. 6/
The volume of mail varies from office to office and from week to week,
but responding to the flood of correspondence can require large amounts of time
and effort. Even though "the huge volume of mail today is impossible to handle
in any way other than mechanization," 7/ the simple tasks of opening and
categorizing incoming correspondence can consume significant staff time. Each
letter must be routed to the appropriate staff person, and legislative mail on
new issues must be researched and the Member's position must be established and
confirmed.
It is an axiom in Congress that the importance of each constituent letter
should not be underrated. A Member of the House once stated why he believed that
each letter must be written as if it were for publication. "One
thing I
think applies to every new member [is] to realize that you are now big news in
your home district; and don't ever write anything to a constituent that you
wouldn't be willing to see on Page One of the local newspaper. If you can
6/ Consider this advice given freshman Representative Estes Kefauver
(Tenn.) by Speaker Bankhead in 1939: "Give close and prompt attention to your
mail. Your votes and speeches may make you well known and give you a reputation,
but it is the way you handle your mail that determines your reelection." Quoted
in Kefauver, Estes, and Jack Levin. A Twentieth-Century Congress. New York,
Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1947. p. 171.
71 Stuart, Peter C. Write a Congressman--and Get a Machine Reply.
Christian Science Monitor, June 2, 1975. P. 2.
CRS-10
remember that as rule number one, it will keep you out of an awful lot of
trouble.' 8/ Such a warning is probably doubly true for Senators, whose views
appear to receive more media attention in both their home States and Washington,
D.C., than those of most Representatives.
The incoming mail represents much of the total office operation in
microcosm. There are letters dealing with legislation, casework, scheduling
of the Member's time, State, District, and national politics, and visitors
coming to Washington. In addition are the printed or automatically typed
("Dear Colleague") letters circulated by other Members soliciting cosponsorship
of legislation, regarding the introduction of amendments, or concerning other
House or Senate matters.
It appears virtually impossible to keep track of all incoming
correspondence. Although some, though probably not most, House offices use
tracking systems by which each incoming letter is assigned a number and
systematically processed through the congressional office, such systems can
become overloaded in "high mail" offices. More time and effort would be
expended in tracking the letter than can be afforded. In the Senate, some
Members are using the correspondence management system in which most inquiries
requiring a written response are tracked and categorized by subject.
8/ Tacheron, Donald G., and Morris K. Udall. The Job of the Congressman.
Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., New York, 1970. p. 76.
CRS-11
Each office, however, does have a system by which mail is distributed and
assigned to office personnel for a response. The actual method of receiving and
routing constituent correspondence varies from office to office and depends on
the amount of mail received, the size of the staff, the structure and orientation
of the staff, and the inclinations of the Member as to how much detail he or she
prefers in his or her responses.
Generally, incoming mail can be categorized into three main groupings:
legislative, requests, and special.
Legislative Mail
Legislative mail deals with substantive issues. Much of this mail can be
processed by automatic typewriters which provide responses with an appearance of
having been personally prepared. There are a number of types of automatic
typewriters, and the more sophisticated models allow for the splicing of selected
issue components into one letter if, for example, a constituent comments on the
economy and the environment.
Letters requiring a more detailed response, or dealing with a subject not
covered by a form response, need to be answered on an individual basis. The
assignment of such letters varies from office to office. In some offices, only
the most sensitive letters will reach the Administrative Assistant or the Member
(see Special Mail, below). Other Members take a more active role with regard
to the mail. In all cases, Members are kept apprised of general trends in the
mail (for more detail, see section on Legislation).
CRS-12
Request Mail
Request mail covers all correspondence in which a constitutent is
requesting a favor-which can range from a public works project in the State
to a military case to a free copy of a Department of Agriculture or Department
of Human Resources pamphlet. Virtually every office responds to these letters
personally, although mechanized typewriters can be utilized at certain stages.
Different staffers handle different aspects of this job; the exact
distribution of duties will vary from office to office. The receptionist may
handle simple document requests while caseworkers handle the routine problems
or "cases" with other staffers' assistance, depending on the expertise needed
(covered in more detail on "Casework" section).
Special Mail
Special mail includes those letters that reach the desk of the Member,
personal secretary, or Administrative Assistant directly. Although in a typical
office these are relatively few in number, they are quite important.
Those items included in this category will vary from office to office.
Some Members may want to see most letters from other Members. Most Members also
want to see politically sensitive correspondence, relating to the home State
and national politics; others prefer that these matters be handled by the
Administrative Assistant or another politically expert staff person.
CRS-13
In most offices, Members and staffers would agree that due to the Member's
extensive time demands, the mail categorized as special and channelled to the
Senator or Representative should be kept at an absolute minimum. However, equally
compelling, no correspondence that needs to be brought to the Member's attention
should be handled by staff instead.
Review and Response
As important as receiving, routing, and responding to mail, is the final
function of review and sending the mail out. Those letters sent to the Member
or the Administrative Assistant for review will vary, not only from office
to office, but also from staffer to staffer within each office. Some staffers
may want a more comprehensive review of their work, others may not. Any
sensitive letter may require the approval of the A.A. or a senior legislative
assistant before being mailed.
Although some offices attempt to keep within three days of the incoming
mail (that is, each letter must be responded to within three days), other
offices find that a full week or two is often a more realistic time frame.
Correspondents expect a prompt response, and incoming letters that consistently
go unanswered for several weeks can adversely affect constituent relations.
CRS
14
Blank
CRS-15
PROJECTS
The project function of a Congressional office is probably one of the
least understood and one of the easiest to overlook. Basically, it is the
steering of Federal funds to those persons, organizations, and communities
seeking to participate in a federally sponsored program.
There are an estimated 1,600 9/ different types of grant available from
the various Federal departments and agencies. In fiscal year 1981 Federal
grant-in-aid outlays totaled $95.3 billion - funds that will be
available to State and local governments. An additional $34 billion was
made available for research and development, 11/ funds that will include those
made available mainly to university and private research groups.
In addition, there are those Federal funds, not dispensed through grants
but nevertheless much sought after, that are used for defense procurement
and construction of Federal installations, e.g., military bases, Federal
office buildings and Federal projects (such as flood control and highway
construction).
9/ A Congressional Research Service budget analyst explains that it is
difficult to provide an exact number, since there is wide disagreement about
the definition of "grant programs".
10/ U.S. Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and
Budget. Budget of the United States Government Fiscal Year 1982. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. P. 239.
11/ Ibid. P. 306.
CRS-16
Because the State, local, or private unit is frequently either unaware
of available moneys or uncertain of how to go about obtaining them,
a
Congressional office can be of assistance in these endeavors.
Staff members seek to monitor department and agency activities
in the field of grant disbursements, and, when possible, notify the
appropriate persons in the State of what funds are available. Staffers can
contact agency personnel to determine their interest in certain projects, and
relay their findings to the local authorities. Once a grant application is
filed, office staffs-and the Senator or Representative, at times--can keep
in touch with agency people and indicate their support for the project. This
is especially effective if the Member is of the same party as the Administration
or serves on a committee with jurisdiction over the specific department.
Contact can be maintained by letter, phone, or in person; the approach will
most likely vary according to the situation and the persons involved. But
concerted action on the part of the staff can result in more Federal funds
being spent in the State or district, and provide greater services to the
constituency (for example, a Veterans' hospital, Social Security office, or a
better funded and more fully equipped medical school).
CRS-18
devote at least 50 percent of all staff hours to casework, and 71.5 percent of
the offices spend in excess of 25 percent of their time on casework. 12/
Casework is rarely self-initiated; it most often stems from a constituent
letter. The definition of casework varies. Some use the term to apply to the
whole range of constituent problems and inquiries, others restrict it to areas
such as social security and veterans' benefits, housing and military problems,
immigration and unemployment, and the like. 13/ One Senator explained that he
viewed casework as "requests for a wide variety of services requiring me to go
to bat for citizens with the administrative agencies of the Federal
Government." 14/
Casework is handled rather routinely. The incoming constituent letter is
judged for validity (there are a few, usually easy-to-spot, crank letters), and
then assigned to a caseworker. Caseworkers are generally assigned certain
subject areas and receive all letters within their specific areas. In this way,
they gain expertise and develop contacts with agency personnel.
Upon receiving a new case, the caseworker decides which Federal department
or agency has jurisdiction and makes a determination as to whether the case can
best be handled by telephone or letter. In some cases referral to State or
municipal government, or to the Member's State or District office is appropriate.
If the case lends itself to being handled on the phone, the agency is
contacted, usually via the Congressional Liaison Office.
12/ Klonoff, Robert. The Congressman as Mediator Between Citizens and
Government Agencies: Problems and Prospects. Harvard Journal on Legislation,
V. 16, Summer 1979. P. 708.
13/ Butler, Warren H. Administering Congress: the Role of the Staff.
Public Administration Review, V. 26, March 1966. P. 6.
14/ Clark, Joseph S. Congress: the Sapless Branch. Harper & Row,
New York, 1964. P. 63.
CRS-17
CASEWORK
Lesser projects are, of course, not neglected. The importance of the
communication task called casework is reflected in a 1977 questionnaire survey,
by Robert Klonoff, whose results are given in the table below.
Percentage of Time Spent On Casework
(Percent of Responding Offices a/)
Percentage of time
spent on casework
By staff assistants
By Members
0-4
0.0 %
45.6 %
5-15
8.9 %
36.0 %
16-25
19.5 %
13.6 %
26-50
38.2 %
4.0 %
51-100
33.3 %
0.8 %
100.0 %
100.0 %
123 responses
125
responses
a/ Figures do not add up to 100 percent because of rounding.
b/ Includes district staff.
Klonoff's findings show that while most Members devote little of their own time
to casework, 33.3 percent of the offices responding to the 1977 questionnaire
CRS-19
If the case is to be handled by letter, the caseworker makes a photocopy
of the constituent letter and forwards it to the appropriate agency, sometimes
with a personally written letter, but more often with an appropriate inquiring
"buck slip." A letter is sent to the constituent over the Member's signature
assuring the correspondent that the Member is looking into the matter.
The executive branch department or agency can normally be counted on to
respond to the "case" within a week or two, and a copy of that response is
forwarded to the constituent with observations, suggestions, or sentiments as
fit the circumstances.
Few empirical data exist on the number of times a constituent's complaint
and the accompanying congressional inquiry actually effect a change in case
status. More often than not, the agency in question will simply include in
its letter a recitation of the facts and the applicable regulations as a means
of explaining why the constituent's problem cannot be favorably resolved.
One study, in which 198 Members and staff participated, estimated that
congressional casework resulted in favorable determinations by the agencies
in approximately 37 percent of the cases. 15/ It should be noted, however,
that seventeen years ago, some Members claimed a success rate of one-fifth to
one-third. 16/ Greater congressional attention to casework may contribute to
a higher current success rate. But, one reason for the disparity may also
be the measurement of success. In some cases, the Federal agency, upon a
Member's request, will grant the complainant an additional interview and explain
in greater detail why the particular claim must be disallowed. Although not a
15/ Johannes, John R. Congressional Caseworkers: Attitudes, Orientations,
and Operations. Prepared for delivery at the 1978 meeting of the Midwest
Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 20-27. p. 26.
16/ Clapp, Charles L. The Congressman; His Work as He Sees It. Brookings
Institution, Washington, 1963. P. 78.
CRS-20
Total success, it is a plus for the Member and often the constitutent is
In certain instances, a Member may do more for constituents and may, on
rare occasions, intervene personally. However, in general, Members and their
statfs are reluctant to become heavily involved especially in those cases in
which potential conflict of interest questions could arise.
One common, though not frequent, practice in casework dealing primarily with
immigration cases is the introduction of a private bill. Although private bills
have dealt with claims against Government, patents, military affairs, and other
items, most have concerned one aspect or another of immigration. The major
categories within the broad heading of immigration are: 1) permitting aliens
residing abroad to immigrate to the United States although otherwise they may
not legally be able to do so; 2) permitting aliens in the United States to remain
in the U.S. despite legal requirements to the contrary; and 3) granting
citizenship to aliens who would not otherwise be eligible. Private bills can be
enacted for the benefit of one person or for a number of persons.
Members should be aware of the difference in House and Senate consideration
of the second category given above. The Immigration and Naturalization Service
has different agreements with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees involving
stays of deportation for persons not legally in the United States. In the House,
deportation proceedings will "not be stayed upon the introduction of a private
bill
unless the House Committee on the Judiciary addresses some formal
communications to the service to stay proceedings."
In the Senate, however, deportation will "be stayed in the case of any
alien concerning whom a private immigration bill is pending in the Senate
CRS-21
on which no unfavorable action has been taken by the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary by the end of the current session of Congress." 17/
Casework is undoubtedly an important Congressional function. In encouraging
constituents to take advantage of their service, many Members are acting on the
supposition that a satisfied constituent is a vote gained in the next election;
the corollary is that a dissatisfied constituent may well be a vote irretrievably
lost.
17/ Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the Congress of the United States.
Washington, Congressional Quarterly Services, 1971. p. 338.
CRS
22
Blank
CRS-23
LEGISLATION
Perhaps the key word in a discussion of a Senator's or Representative's
legislative function is "coordination." The legislative function encompasses
various activities in different arenas: the House floor, the Senate floor,
the House committees, the Senate committees, and each Member's personal office
(where he or she formulates position papers and often researches issues on
which he/she will later introduce legislation). All staff members, both in
the personal office and on the various committee and subcommittee staffs,
who are responsible to the Member, are best served by maximum possible
awareness of the Member's position-- and other staff member's activities--
on all related issues.
All actions, from answering the simplest constituent letter to casting
an important vote on the floor, need to be coordinated.
The most time-consuming legislative task for staff is responding to
constituent correspondence (see P. 10 for additional information on how a
staff responds to legislative mail). Constituent mail is not necessarily
important as a determinant of how a Representative or Senator will vote, but
it can be used as a means for measuring constituents' views on legislation
the Member must vote upon. 18/ Legislative mail is treated with respect.
18/ Kingdon, John W. Congressmen's Voting Decisions. New York,
Harper and Row, 1973. P. 57.
CRS-24
In addition, it is often in response to constituent letters that Members,
with the assistance of their staffs, first research various issues and draw
up position papers, which are then used as the basis for form letters.
In addition to responding to correspondence, the basic staff- legislative
function can be summed up in one word: preparation. A Member of Congress
needs to be prepared for the numerous legislative forums in which he operates,
and it is the staff role to ensure that such preparation is adequate.
In the 96th Congress, for example, there were 1,276 roll call votes in the
House and 1,055 roll call votes in the Senate; and Members needed to be prepared
for each. It is a staff function to be familiar with the content and committee
report of each bill, to be aware of major lobbying efforts for and against the
legislation, to know which colleagues might be offering amendments and the merits
of these amendments, and to keep abreast of possible parliamentary maneuvers by
other Members (staff expertise in parliamentary procedure can be very helpful).
A Member may also want to be apprised of the party leadership, administration
positions, constituent opinion, and any press reaction-thus necessitating
coordination with those who perform the press, mail, and political functions.
Senators and Representatives generally develop a degree of expertise in
those subjects with which they deal on a continuing basis as a result of
committee membership. Accordingly, Members need a more comprehensive preparation
for committee hearings and meetings. It is a staff function to ensure that
Members have an in-depth familiarity with subjects to be covered in upcoming
committee and subcommittee hearings. This will include not only the relative
pros and cons on each issue, but each committee (or subcommittee) colleague's
point of view, the position of related interest groups, and generally the
specific impact a certain position might have on the Member's constituency.
CRS-25
Staff must be sure that the Member has not enunciated a position on a
particular issue in the past (or if he has, that the two positions are
consistent or can be justified), and that no other person on the same staff is
working on the same issue toward an opposite conclusion. Again, coordination
is paramount.
Coordination with those who track State interests must also be considered.
This staff work might be done in either the Washington, District or State
office; but, wherever it is performed, such input is often needed.
In researching legislation, drafting bills, writing speeches, etc., the
staff role is considerable, always keeping in mind the Member's political
philosophy and personal inclinations (for example, some Members introduce much
legislation, others little--there is no best way of operating). Different
aspects of these tasks can be fulfilled by personal staff (in Washington,
District or State), committee staff, other House or Senate staff (e.g.,
Legislative Counsel), other Government staff (an executive department, the
Congressional Research Service), outside organizations (interest groups,
consulting firms), or any other available resource. Coordination between staff
working on similar subjects-coupled with effective office management--
contributes to efficient legislative operation.
The staff legislative function is closely tied to all other functions.
The Member is first and foremost a legislator. Other staff activities need to
be carried out in that context.
CRS
26
Blank
CRS-27
SCHEDULING AND PERSONAL SERVICES
Another item that also needs to be coordinated with the components of the
legislative function is the scheduling function. A Congressman or Senator may
often be called upon to be in more than one place at the same time. The staff
personnel must perform a two-fold function with regard to the Member's schedule:
one, the staff must assist in the evaluation of simultaneous events to deter
their importance and worth; and two, the staff must see to it that the logistics
of the Member's day are well enough planned to enable him to move easily from
one scheduled event to the next.
In the 96th Congress, a Member of the House usually belonged to at least
two committees (standing, joint, and select) and five or more subcommittees.
A Senator usually served on three or more committees (standing, joint and
select) and eight subcommittees. When some of these meet simultaneously, it
is the Senator or Representative, with the advice of his staff, who must
weigh the pros and cons of each meeting. Staff can evaluate the relative
importance of each hearing, but the Member also considers other commitments,
such as those made to interest group representatives or colleagues in the
House or Senate with regard to the attendance at committee meetings. Often
staff people keep abreast on a nearly minute-by-minute basis of activities
in those meetings not attended by the Member, so that should an especially
important vote or other matter arise, the Member's proxy can be voted or his
attendance effected.
CRS-28
There are other obligations to constituents and interest groups. Members
can leave committee meetings or the floor of the House or the Senate at slow
moments to greet constituents. Members also schedule meetings throughout the
day with constituents and lobbyists, knowing that many will be delayed and
others may never occur (generally staff aides fill in at these times). Those
charged with scheduling duties (generally an appointments secretary, sometimes
a personal secretary or an executive assistant) must judge the relative
importance of constituents, lobbyists, and so forth.
Scheduling also entails initiative on the part of staffers so that good
relations are fostered with those interest groups active in the Member'
fields of interest. Invitations to workshops and conferences that generate
national attention are highly sought after; oftentimes organizations may make
final decisions on keynote speakers and such on a more or less arbitrary basis--
and personal contacts cannot be overrated.
With regard to logistics, each Member has a different idea of what sort
of support services his staff ought to supply. Members may use the staff for
total transportation having one or several staffers pick the Member up in the
morning, provide transport to any functions that occur during the day, and,
finally, ensure that the Member arrives at whatever evening activity is
scheduled. Transportation home is provided as well.
Although the foregoing situation does not occur in every office, staff
in many House and Senate offices do perform transportation duties for their
Member. At the very least, in a typical office the staffers in charge must be
sure that transportation is available for the Member throughout the day, and
occasionally on weekends.
CRS-29
In some offices, transportation and scheduling are also provided the
Member's husband or wife. The role of the congressional spouse varies-some
play an active role in the office and in the congressional District or State
office; others concentrate on family and careers and do little related to the
political world. Whatever the situation, the office staff needs to be able
to provide services needed by the spouse as the Member desires.
A last, but certainly not least, personal aide is the Member's Personal
Secretary. In many offices, this position entails significant duties and
responsibilities. The Personal Secretary has perhaps the most frequent personal
contact with the Member. Her or his duties often include all or most of the
following: scheduling, transportation logistics, screening phone calls, personal
dictation, especially sensitive correspondence, and whatever else the Member
decides ought to be done in a hurry. The Personal Secretary often has
administrative responsibilities over other secretaries and the final mailing
activities.
CRS
30 Blank
CRS-31
PRESS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS
As a practical matter, many Members employ a person for press
responsibilities, though that staff person may handle other duties as well. In
a Senator's office it is important for her or him to communicate effectively to
the newspapers and other media outlets with circulation in the home State, or
nationally. Often this will include a few newspapers and radio and television
stations from adjoining States which serve "media markets" in the Senator's State.
The emphasis in a Representative's office is usually on "local" press; it appears
that few Representatives have found pursuit of national media coverage fruitful.
It is very important for a Member to communicate effectively to the daily and
weekly newspapers and other media outlets with circulation in his congressional
district. Often this will include at least a few newspapers and radio and
television stations from adjoining districts. These are the sources from which
constituents get their news and formulate their views. Press aides often
cultivate personal relationships with newspaper and electronic media personnel.
Some deliver press releases personally if the newspaper has a Washington
correspondent or bureau. Press aides are mindful of the deadlines for the various
media outlets and take care to see that access to material is easy and prompt.
The House and Senate maintain studios for the production of radio and television
material, and press aides need to know what the electronic media can best use.
Media outlets in different areas have different capabilities and different
emphases. Accordingly, efforts to utilize these different media outlets will
vary. Some outlets may be prone to cover national news; others focus more on
CRS-32
Local) On important matters, a Member may tailor his activities to coincide
with the needs of the media outlet in which he desires coverage.
Attention to the national media is a different task. The national
electronic networks, the "national newspapers" (e.g. the New York Times,
the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal among others, and the wire
services are important to those Members of the House and Senate wishing to build
a national reputation. Not all Members have such desires. For those who do,
events can be organized in such a way as to maximize media exposure. For
example, afternoon hearings have virtually no chance of being included
on the early evening news shows; important events are therefore scheduled
in the morning. At all times, advance copies of press releases and text of
speeches should be handled in such a way as to achieve maximum coverage and
foster good working relationships with the press.
Some offices reserve an hour or two a week when any interested journalist
(almost always from the "local" or home State press) can come and talk with
the Member, either on or off the record. Such sessions can produce an
increased rapport with the press and can provide insights for the press into
the Member's accomplishments.
Other offices provide the press with many of the small but helpful
perquisites that are part of a Congressional office operation. Each Hot se
cifice is allocated eight indexed copies and twenty-five plain copies of the
Congressional Directory. Senate offices are provided with fifty plain copies.
Some can be distributed to press personnel.
Different executive branch departments have information programs that can
be staged throughout the country in cooperation with a Member. These programs
are aimed at different groups. For example, the Department of Commerce will
CRS-33
hold workshops for local Chambers of Commerce on how to compete for Federal
contracts; the Department of the Interior will present programs for school
children on pollution and outdoor safety; the Social Security Administration
will produce brochures-with room for adding the Member's name--for
distribution to recipients.
Almost all Members send out newsletters. Many offices maintain more
than one list, using a different newsletter for respective sectors of the
constituency. Up to six times a year, Members of the House can also utilize
a postal patron system to ensure that newsletters reach every household in
the Congressional District. Senators do not have this system available to
them. It should be noted that all Members of Congress are forbidden from
sending mass mailings during the 28-day period before the day of any election
in which the Member is a candidate for public office (39 U.S.C. 3210(a)(5)(D)).
In addition, the House Commission on Mailing Standards has issued a number of
guidelines regarding what is and is not permissible material in House
newsletters. 19/ Furthermore, regulations promulgated by the Select Senate
Committee on Ethics state that newsletters may contain only five references to
the Senator, including use of the pronoun "I", on any one page.
19 / These are listed in the Publication, "Regulations on the Use of the
Congressional Frank By Members of the House of Representatives and Rules of
Practice in Proceedings Before the House Commission on Congressional Mailing
Standards," prepared by the Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards,
House of Representatives. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979.
CRS
34
Blank
L. GORDON CROVITZ
ASSISTANT EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR,
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL,
"RULE OF LAW" COLUMNIST
SPEECH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
LAW SCHOOL,
SPONSORED BY THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY
APRIL 11, 1991
TITLE:
"CONSTITUTIONAL WAR POWERS:
LESSONS FROM THE PERSIAN GULF"
Constitutional War Powers: Lessons From the Persian Gulf
Who controls foreign policy: The President, Congress, the courts
or precisely which combination of all the above? I think the recent
experience in the Persian Gulf has some very interesting lessons for
us, and is a reminder that the Founders of the Constitution knew
exactly what they were doing when they assigned very different
institutional functions and powers to the various branches of the
federal government.
Let me start with the concept that will be familiar to the
Federalist Society, that the United States was built on the idea
that there is no greater political danger or political temptation
than the exercise of power without accountability. The Founders
would not have been surprised that in recent years Congress
routinely yields to this temptation as the Federalist Papers said,
Congress is the impetuous vortex of power. Congress now tries to
micromanage those affairs most foreign policy for which its
members are held individually responsible least.
More than any other government program, foreign policy has since
the Founding of the Republic been the clearest duty and burden of
Presidents. But ever since sensing the opportunities for expanding
congressional power after Vietnam and during the Nixon
administration, legislators have made unprecedented incursions into
the ability of the executive branch to set and administer foreign
3
policy. This trend helps explain the sometimes ambiguous or
irresolute role of the U.S. abroad.
I am delighted by this apparent break after nearly two decades
of micromanagement by Congress, which taught that Congress has one
great power in foreign policy: With enough meddling and constraints
on executive-branch discretion to act, Congress can eventually drain
the energy of the executive branch. Congress can then exercise an
effective veto over action. What Congress cannot do, by and large,
is mandate affirmative action of its own. This relationship between
the political branches was very convenient for liberal Congresses
that favored a more passive foreign policy confronted with
conservative Presidents who have been more willing to pursue
aggressive foreign policies. The typical result, though, had been
that we did not have presidential policy, we did not have
congressional policy---we had no policy, only paralysis. The Persian
Gulf may have changed all that.
We have recently seen a war fought to restore the international
rule of law by ejecting the occupiers of Kuwait, which I will argue
also restored the rule of the Constitution at home. A review of the
domestic battle plans shows how Mr. Bush deftly deployed legal
arguments backed by political force to prevail over congressional
claims that he lacked power to make war. In the process, the
revisionist idea that Congress runs wars has imploded into so much
Scud shrapnel.
The received wisdom after Vietnam taught that presidents must no
4
longer have the discretion to commit troops. This being the U.S.,
the straitjacket was not political or moral, but purely "legal" -the
War Powers Resolution. It's not widely understood, but Mr. Bush
violated this law back in August when he sent troops to Saudi Arabia
without first consulting Congress. This is because the terms of the
resolution say that without congressional approval, presidents can
dispatch troops on their own only to defend U.S. territory or armed
forces. Neither of these was threatened until we transferred troops
to Saudi Arabia.
By the way, Robert Bork now says he wishes he had given
President Nixon somewhat different legal advice from the Justice
Department when the War Powers Resolution was passed by Congress. It
eventually was passed over President Nixon's veto, but Mr. Bork has
said recently that he wished he'd told President Nixon to treat the
resolution as something less than a law. He says that President
Nixon should have neither signed nor vetoed the resolution, instead
simply sending a message to Congress that read: "Thank you for your
essay on your understanding of my constitutional powers. When time
permits, I will send you my essay on the question." That is, since
this is hardly a resolution that complies with the constitutional
distribution of powers, Presidents should treat it as not legally
binding on them.
The burial of the War Powers Resolution in the sands of the
Persian Gulf was only the first step to regaining the constitutional
powers previous presidents have used to order U.S. force abroad more
than 200 times in as many years. After Mr. Bush decided to send an
additional 150,000 troops to the region in November to prepare to
liberate Kuwait, he had an interesting conversation with congressmen
visiting the White House. When some claimed that only Congress could
authorize such a large deployment, he pulled a copy of the
Constitution out of his suit pocket. True, only Congress can
"declare" war, Mr. Bush said, but "It also says I'm the commander in
chief."
So President Bush's handling of the Gulf may mean we are
returning to a very different period. I'd like to do is reflect on
how we have got ourselves into the kind of debate we now have over
the war powers. The standard legal view is almost a cliche. This is
that the Constitution is an "invitation to struggle" between the
executive and legislative branches. My view is somewhat different,
that in foreign affairs more than in domestic affairs the
Constitution sets out different powers and duties in accordance with
the different institutional skills.
So, for example, the Constitution gives the President the power
to negotiate treaties, send and receive ambassadors, recognize other
countries and command the armed forces. As the Federalist Papers
says, only the executive branch is capable of "speed, dispatch,
energy and secrecy. " These are obviously more important attributes
in national defense than, say, in distributing pork-barrel projects
among congressional districts. Congress, an agglomeration of 535
members, moves more slowly, with no real possibility of secrecy. So
6
Congress's powers in foreign affairs are largely indirect. Congress
funds the armed forces, the Senate must ratify treaties and Congress
has the power to "declare" war.
It is this distinction between the congressional authority to
"declare" a formal state of war versus the Commander in Chief's
power to "make" war that clarifies the different powers. This is a
real distinction, as the Founders themselves noted when Art. I, Sec.
8 was redrafted at the Constitutional Convention. The clause
originally gave to Congress the power to "make" war. This was
changed because it overly restrained the President. Congress has the
power to declare war, which in the 18th Century especially was
significant in international law as the indication of a full, no-
holds-barred war. Meanwhile, the President as commander in chief has
the power to make war.
of some 200 uses of force overseas since the Founding of the
country, there have only been five declared wars, and none since
World War II. In about two-thirds of the cases, there was no prior
congressional approval, by resolution or treaty. Yet despite this
history and Korea and Vietnam, leaders in Congress claimed before
the Iraq war began that a President may not use force "offensively,"
whatever that word means, without prior congressional approval.
What I would like to do is compare the common assumptions today
about constitutional powers with the assumptions in years past. I
want to do this partly to show how far the common assumptions have
changed in ways that I believe improperly bind the President. My
7
thought is that Presidents need to do a better job of defending
their prerogatives, especially in foreign affairs.
Let me start by reading an exchange from the Congressional
Record of Dec. 27, 1922. The debate was whether all the troops
should be withdrawn from Germany after their deployment in World War
I. In it a freshman senator, James Reed, was dissuaded from
proposing any legislation that purported to order the President to
bring the troops back. Interestingly, the senator who defended
presidential powers was William Borah, the well-known isolationist.
Listen to this exchange, which I can't imagine in today's Congress:
MR. REED: Does the senator think and has he not thought
that the American troops in Germany ought to be brought
home?
MR. BORAH: I do.
MR. REED: So do I
Would it not be easier to bring the
troops home than it would to have the proposed
[disarmament] conference?
MR. BORAH: You can not bring them home, nor can I.
MR. REED: We could make the President do it.
MR. BORAH: We could not make the President do it. He is
the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States, and if in the discharge of his duty he wants to
assign them there, I do not know of any power that we can
exert to compel him to bring them home. We may refuse to
create an Army, but when it is created he is the commander.
8
MR. REED: I wish to change my statement. We cannot make him
bring them home
[B]ut I think if there were a resolution
passed asking the President to bring the troops home where
they belong, the President would recognize that request
from Congress.
We have the same Constitution we had in 1922, yet now it is a safe
bet that few congressmen would endorse the view of the relative
powers of the two branches held even by a Senator Borah.
Among the differences between then and now are Vietnam,
Watergate and the era of a Democrat-controlled Congress that
generally preferred inaction squared off against a Republican-
controlled White House pursuing a more aggressive foreign policy.
Another difference is in the legal debate over presidential
powers. A group of law professors filed an amicus brief in the case
of Dellums V. Bush, which sought an injunction against the President
using force in the Persian Gulf on the ground that prior
congressional authorization was constitutionally mandated.
The lawsuit claimed there could be no "offensive" use of troops
without prior congressional authorization. The argument was that
even if Mr. Bush had the constitutional power to order the initial
deployment, the power to declare war meant that Congress had to
approve any larger-scale deployment. But the Constitution does not
distinguish between defensive deployments and larger-scale offensive
deployments. (If it did, the Founders presumably would have
preferred the Westmoreland incrementalist war in Vietnam to the
9
Schwarzkopf get-the-job-done war.) Federal Judge Harold Greene
dismissed the lawsuit by saying the issue wasn't ripe for a court,
but in nonbinding parts of his opinion also accepted the
unprecedented argument that Congress must act before troops attack.
He did not define what an "offensive" war might mean; surely it is
not a term of constitutional art.
Judge Greene, no shrinking violet, is perhaps most famous as the
unofficial chairman of AT&T in his continuing role in the AT&T
breakup. He said in Dellums V. Bush that "an injunction may issue at
the request of members of Congress to prevent the conduct of war
which is about to be carried on without congressional
authorization." He instructed Congress that before issuing an
injunction against Mr. Bush, all he needed was a sign that the case
is "ripe," which he defined as proof that "the plaintiffs in an
action of this kind be or represent a majority of members of
Congress."
This seems to mean that Judge Greene would have issued an
injunction against war if half plus one of all congressmen joined as
plaintiffs to the lawsuit. Or he would have issued the injunction if
Congress passed a resolution claiming sole power to start war.
A few words about the merits of this case. The power to declare
war--with all the formalities this has entailed since Grotius
invented international law in 1625 belongs to Congress, but we
also know the Founders were careful to give the president the power
to make war. There is no constitutional requirement of a formal
10
declaration; Korea and Vietnam are leading examples of recent
undeclared wars. Even if the Founders wanted a. president to consult
Congress before launching a true offensive war an imperial war to
gain territory, for example it was Iraq that started these
hostilities.
The larger point is that of all the people to debate the
constitutional tug between Congress and the president, federal
judges may be the least appropriate. Indeed, this was the deciding
factor in an opinion issued the same day as Judge Greene's by
another judge in the same federal district court in Washington.
Judge Royce Lamberth dismissed a case brought by a National
Guard reservist who claimed Mr. Bush didn't have the power to order
troops to the Persian Gulf. He wrote, "The court lacks the
expertise, resources and authority to explore" issues such as what
"constitutes 'war,' 'imminent hostilities' or even the prelude to
offensive war. " Which branch can order troops to battle should be
resolved politically, not by courts. Separation of powers requires,
Judge Lamberth wrote, that "the far-reaching ramifications of those
decisions should fall upon the shoulders of those elected by the
people to make those decisions."
Judge Lamberth added that Congress has plenty of powers, lacking
only the will to use them. He said, "Congress can itself declare
war, exercise its appropriations power to prevent further offensive
and/or defensive military action in the Persian Gulf or even impeach
the president."
If the battle here between Judges Greene and Lamberth ever gets
to the appeals courts, I'd bet on Judge Lamberth. Even some of the
liberal judges on the federal appeals court in Washington have
expressed doubts about judges issuing orders where Congress fears to
tread.
District of Columbia Circuit Court Judge and former Congressman
Abner Mikva, for example, has said that "Questions of military
deployment are best settled by the interplay of the political
branches. " He said, "When the two political branches have not
exhausted their own powers to settle the matter, the courts are well
advised to take a page from Congress and do nothing. " Judge Mikva
noted that judges quickly dismissed all but one of the 20 legal
challenges to the Vietnam War.
By the way, if Judge Greene had issued an injunction, it would
not have been the first time a judge claimed the power to stop a
war. For a few hours one day in 1973, Justice William O. Douglas
barred the dropping of bombs on Cambodia. Court was in summer
recess, but at the instigation of Justice Marshall the other
justices unanimously reversed him by the same afternoon.
Here's what happened: At 9:30 the morning of August 4, 1973,
Justice Douglas issued an order stopping the U.S. "from
participating in any way in military activities in or over Cambodia
or releasing any bombs which may fall on Cambodia." Justice Douglas
said his injunction was urgent because this was a death penalty
case. The dead, he wrote, "may be Cambodian farmers whose only 'sin'
12
is a desire for socialized medicine to alleviate the suffering of
their families and neighbors," he wrote from his summer house in
Yakima, Washington.
The Supreme Court was in a pre-FAX era recess, but by 3 the same
afternoon Justice Marshall managed to reach the other seven justices
by telephone. When he explained the bizarre situation, the other
justices unanimously agreed that Justice Douglas had gone too far.
They nullified his order. Commander in Chief Nixon was able to
continue the pullout of troops without having to halt the air cover
that saved many U.S. lives. This story is worth recounting for more
than Justice Douglas's assessment of Vietnam as a war over
socialized medicine. We are now again on notice that a federal judge
thinks he has the power to issue a legal writ to reverse a decision
by the president on how to command the troops. Maybe one day Judge
Mikva will get a chance to play Justice Marshall, with Judge Greene
re-creating the role of Justice Douglas.
Now of course Congress retains enormous powers in foreign
affairs. It can withhold funding. Congress could, for example, have
passed a Persian Gulf resolution that specified that no funding can
be used by the military in the Persian Gulf. or it could say that no
funds could be spent for a deployment of more than, say, 150,000
troops. This would be a direct and constitutional way to establish
the policy of defense-only that some members of Congress said they
preferred. Of course, there is a problem with this kind of
resolution. This is that it would give Congress clear responsibility
for the outcome of the policy.
It is to me high irony that instead of passing a resolution
based on its clear constitutional powers, Congress debated a
resolution that in effect would order the rules of engagement in the
Persian Gulf: such as, no firing unless fired upon. This seems to me
to be a core Commander-in-Chief power, one that only the President
can use. In other words, instead of passing a resolution that is
based on an invocation of its constitutional powers, Congress
debated a resolution that would usurp the constitutional powers of
the Commander-in-Chief.
President Bush's handling of the legal war at home was a model
for future clashes between the branches. It's worth noting that
unlike President Reagan, who refused to veto the Boland amendments,
President Bush came to the presidency with a sense that Congress had
placed unwise and unconstitutional fetters. In a 1987 speech to the
Federalist Society, then-Vice President Bush asked:
"What kind of wacky world is this where the President is
taken to court every time he moves our troops around in the
national interest? Sometimes a President must take risks
for peace, and he doesn't need to be blocked every step of
the way. "
Indeed, in a sense the debate over whether the President could
engage in "offensive" as opposed to merely "defensive" actions
without congressional approval was settled the week before Congress
took its vote. President Bush announced that he was going to use
14
force to drive Iraq out of Kuwait no matter what Congress did or
did not do, whatever resolutions it passed or failed to pass.
Secretary Dick Cheney told Senator Sam Nunn's anti-war hearings
that Mr. Bush had all the constitutional authority he needed to
launch a battle; Secretary of State James Baker promised only to
"consult" with leading members of Congress before the first bombs
burst. We now know that Gen. Colin Powell and his aides were already
planning to liberate Kuwait with massive forces encircling Iraqi
troops.
By mid-January, Mr. Bush made clear that he was going to use
force if necessary to free Kuwait. If Congress wanted to approve his
decision, fine, but either way he seemed to say, the die was cast.
Several congressmen proposed a resolution demanding economic
sanctions alone with no use of force. Rep. Richard Gephardt proposed
using Congress's clear constitutional power of the purse to cut off
funds to block an attack. The resolution that finally passed (by the
partisan 52 to 47 in the Senate) approved the use of force while
noting that only Congress can "declare" war. But of course Congress
did not declare war, it only approved what President Bush said he
was going to do.
In the process, President Bush created a new rule of thumb in
the battle over legal constraints on the President's foreign affairs
power: If a President deploys troops, then tells Congress the
country is going to war regardless of whether or not Congress
approves, then he can be sure that Congress will vote and will
approve what he has already said he would do.
After the vote, Mr. Bush made it clear that he appreciated
Congress's vote as a signal to Saddam Hussein that the country was
united, but that it didn't much matter as a constitutional point.
"As I made clear to congressional leaders at the outset," Mr. Bush
wrote in his signing statement, "my request for congressional
support did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute
any change in the longstanding positions of the executive branch on
either the president's constitutional authority to use the armed
forces to defend vital U.S. interests or the constitutionality of
the War Powers Resolution."
Finally, if the Vietnam/War Powers Resolution/Watergate specter
is truly gone, the next time a president feels obliged to deploy
U.S. troops his first test won't be running the constitutional
gauntlet at home. We are now back to where we were when Jefferson
dispatched forces to rout the Barbary pirates, when FDR transferred
warships to Britain before World War II despite neutrality laws and
when Truman sent the troops to Korea. The Constitution gives
presidents the authority to act first, consult Congress later.
At the same time, Congress always has the last word, which is
why as a political matter it's often wise to force Congress to vote
as early as possible on a deployment. If Congress decides a war is
unwise it can withdraw funding, as it eventually did in Vietnam.
It's worth noting, however, that in its zeal to solicit other
countries to pay for our troops in the Persian Gulf, Congress this
16
time delegated its power of the purse.
This distribution of power under the Constitution reflects the
Founders' understanding that accountability is the key to
constitutional democracy. It's a political truism that only
presidents are ever elected for their foreign-policy views. Indeed,
far from holding them accountable, it's considered dirty pool even
to remind voters of the congressmen who voted that economic
sanctions would succeed against a regime that gouged out the eyes of
Kuwaitis, beat up POWs, torched oil wells and now massacres its own
people.
Congress will keep trying to micromanage most in this area---
foreign policy in which voters are least able to hold its members
responsible. Mr. Bush risked his presidency on this war. In the
process, it seems to me, he won an important victory at home for the
powers of his office, the Constitution and accountable government.
F: UFRAI FI CTION
ELECTION
TEDEPAL
COMMISSION
COMMISSION
Press Office
999 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Phone: Local 376-3155
Toll Free 800-424-9530
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
CONTACT: FRED EILAND
FEBRUARY 22, 1991
SHARON SNYDER
SCOTT MOXLEY
1990 CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION SPENDING DROPS TO LOW POINT
WASHINGTON -- Congressional election spending fell to its lowest
point in six years to $445 million for 1990 races, according to the
Federal Election Commission.
This overall spending decline was fueled by a drop of
$21 million, or 10.3 percent, in Senate campaigns while House
campaigns increased $9 million, or 3 percent, an FEC compilation of
final 1989-90 cycle reports shows.
While comparisons of Senate activity are difficult because
different states participate each cycle, generally the average
spending per voter is higher in smaller states. In 1990, however,
spending per voter increased in larger population states and
decreased in smaller ones. The most spent per voter, $5.77, was in
Rhode Island, and the lowest, 21 cents, in Arkansas. (See chart,
page 10).
Spending by House campaigns, $265.1 million, increased only
slightly, but dropped in close races. In 1990, there were more
candidates whose races were within 10 voting percentage points and
whose median spending declined compared to the previous election.
(See chart, page 11).
Reliance on individual (53 percent) and political action
committee (32 percent) contributions remained the same as in past
cycles, based on the percentage of total campaign receipts. Senate
and House campaigns received $249.4 million from individuals and
$150.6 million from PACs.
Following a 12 percent growth in 1988, PAC contributions
increased two percent. Fluctuation was also apparent in the
direction of PAC contributions. Senate campaigns of both parties,
House Democratic challengers, and House open seat candidates relied
less on PAC money than in 1988. Overall, PAC contributions
comprised 38 percent of total receipts in House campaigns compared
to 22 percent in Senate races.
-more-
Summary Financial Activity - All Congressional Campaigns
1989-90 1987-88 1985-86 1983-84 1981-82 1979-80 1977-78
Raised
$471.2
$477.6
$472.0
$397.2
$354.7
$248.8
$199.4
Spent
$445.2
$459.0
$450.9
$374.1
$342.4
$239.0
$194.8
No. of Candidates
1764
1792
1873
2036
2240
2288
1909
Financial Activity of Winning Congressional Candidates
Senate
1989-90
1987-88
1985-86
1983-84
1981-82
1979-80
19
77-78
1975-76
Raised
$121.5
$121.7
$106.8
$100.9
$70.7
$41.7
$43.0
$21.0
Spent
$115.4
$123.6
$104.3
$97.5
$68.2
$40.0
$42.3
$20.1
PAC $
$31.1
$31.8
$28.4
$20.0
$15.6
$10.2
$6.0
$3.1
House
1989-90
1987-88
1985-86
1983-84
1981-82
1979-80
1977-78
1975-76
Raised
$197.6
$191.0
$172.7
$144.8
$123.1
$86.0
$60.0
$42.5
Spent
$178.4
$171.0
$154.9
$127.0
$114.7
$78.0
$55.6
$38.0
PAC $
$91.6
$86.4
$72.8
$59.5
$42.7
$27.0
$17.0
$10.9
-2-
FOOTNOTES
1. Figures in the first two Tables and the detailed listing of candidates cover from January 1, 1989, or
whenever the campaign registered during the election cycle, through December 31, 1990, or the last
report filed by the campaign, as indicated.
2. Net receipt and net disbursement figures are total receipts and total disbursements, as reported by the
campaigns, minus any money transferred between committees of the same campaign.
3. Columns entitled "Other Committees" (also "Other Cmte's) are monies received, as reported by the
campaigns, that are comprised mostly of PAC funds, but also include contributions by other candidates'
committees and some unregistered entities. On the Senate listings, the column "Non Party
Contributions" contains PAC contributions for 1986 and 1988, as reported by the PAC's, and "Other
Committee" data for 1990.
4. Open seat races are those in which the incumbent did not seek reelection. As such, both general
election candidates in Ohio's 8th district are classified as challengers because the incumbent lost in a
primary. Districts where special elections have been held at times separate from the regular election
calendar (AL/3, CA/15, FL/18, IN/4, MS/5, NY/14, NY/18, TX/12, TX/18, WY) have been divided into two
races. Special election activity appears in tables referring to all campaigns and is included in the open
seat category. Regular election activity of winners of the specials appear in the incumbent category, and
their activity begins with the first report following the Post Special filing. The district in which a special
election is being held in conjunction with the general (HI/2) is classified as open seat and has not been
divided.
5. Percentage figures in Tables covering several election cycles represent the percentage of net
receipts from each source and will not sum to 100, since not all sources of receipts are listed.
6. On the Senate listings, the column titles "Candidate Support" includes contributions by the candidate,
as well as loans made or guaranteed by the candidate. The column titles "Trans from other auth" includes
monies transferred from House committees of candidates for the Senate, as well as proceeds from joint
fundraising activity among several candidates or committees. Contributions from individuals and PAC's
made through these joint fundraising efforts are NOT included in the "Individual Contributions" or "Non
Party Contributions" columns.
7. Detailed listings of candidates include all those participating in the November 6th general election,
along with those candidates in Louisiana who received at least 50% of the vote in the primary and were
therefore declared the winner of the seat.
8. Some House members who are or were running for the Senate in '90 changed their former House
campaign committees into their Senate campaign committees. Financial activity related solely to their
Senate campaigns cannot be isolated. (See Akaka and Saiki [HI], Craig [ID], Schneider [RI], Tauke [IA]).
9. One incumbent Senator has carried debts from previous elections which continue to be reflected in
the "Debts Owed" column of the detailed listing and in Top 50 listings. See Warner [VA]..
10. Marguerite Chandler [NJ/12] has reported significant roll over of debt during the 1990 campaign.
Loans from banks were repayed with newly borrowed money. The reporting of this activity inflates
receipts and disbursements by approximately $430,000.
11. Figures for Senate Republican Challengers are significantly affected by the campaign of James
Rapaport in Massachusetts. Loans from the Candidate totalling $4,200,000 in this single campaign
represent 58% of all candidate loans in Senate general election campaigns.
12. Activity of House Other Party candidates primarily reflects the campaign of Bernard Sanders in
Vermont.
13. Party abbreviations in the listing of House campaigns are:
DEM - Democrat
DFL - Democrat/Farmer/Labor (Minnesota)
REP - Republican
LIB - Libertarian
PAF - Peace and Freedom
IND - Independent
RTL - Right to Life
LBL - Liberal
-3-
1989-90 Financial Activity of Senate and House Campaigns 1/
(January 1, 1989 - December 31, 1990)
Campaign
Number of
Net
Individual
Other
3
THE
Candidate
Loans from
Other
Net
2/
Latest Cash
Type
Candidates
Receipts
Contributions
Committees
Contributions
Candidate
Loans
Disbursements
on Hand
Senate
179
$186,272,486
$119,571,192
$40,989,723
$2,383,093
$9,958,214
$956,972
$180,090,531
$19,075,401
Democrats
82
$89,563,911
$58,547,676
$20,651,489
$2,042,664
$3,595,994
$750,722
$87,620,191
$9,748,691
Incumbents
17
$63,580,949
$43,118,949
$17,014,316
$0
$0
$0
$61,505,136
$9,542,547
Challengers
56
$21,330,456
$13,217,660
$3,015,301
$1,523,867
$2,408,145
$733,972
$21,506,074
$163,439
Open Seats
4/
9
$4,652,506
$2,211,067
$621,872
$518,797
$1,187,849
$16,750
$4,608,981
$42,705
Republicans
69
$96,699,138
$61,021,562
$20,331,861
$340,339
$6,362,220
$206,250
$92,470,340
$9,326,710
Incumbents
15
$55,182,311
$38,346,448
$12,180,597
$0
$0
$15,500
$52,005,070
$8,227,825
Challengers
47
$33,545,502
$18,972,307
$5,287,054
$338,459
$6,108,2981
$190,750
$33,130,083
$453,528
Open Seats
4/
7
$7,971,325
$3,702,807
$2,864,210
$1,880
$253,922
$0
$7,335,187
$645,357
Others
28
$9,437
$1,954
$6,373
$90
$0
$0
$0
$0
Challengers
22
$9,437
$1,954
$6,373
$90
$0
$0
$0
$0
Open Seats
4/
6
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
House
1585
$284,895,593
$129,880,621
$109,573,293
$4,626,804
$20,953,605
$1,248,896
$265,144,263
$78,382,067
Democrats
705
$163,181,085
$66,082,988
$72,794,849
$1,499,329
$11,604,405
$762,330
$150,842,210
$50,584,111
-4-
Incumbents
249
$111,351,969
$42,290,109
$58,605,991
$59,940
$1,722,717
$328,538
$99,698,932
$49,756,060
Challengers
314
$20,001,449
$9,849,978
$4,840,291
$801,893
$3,755,484
$70,588
$19,630,034
$422,481
Open Seats
4/
142
$31,827,667
$13,942,901
$9,348,567
$637,496
$6,126,204
$363,204
$31,513,244
$405,570
Republicans
669
$120,647,498
$63,187,852
$36,694,594
$2,932,301
$9,275,773
$476,681
$113,226,241
$27,791,068
Incumbents
160
$70,046,989
$35,618,572
$28,810,266
$32,449
$362,831
$78,650
$63,271,973
$27,174,244
Challengers
377
$26,525,770
$14,734,924
$2,740,919
$2,371,421
$4,966,809
$214,066
$26,127,630
$408,398
Open Seats 4/
132
$24,074,739
$12,834,356
$5,143,409
$528,431
$3,946,133
$183,965
$23,826,638
$208,426
Others
12
211
$1,067,010
$609,781
$83,850
$195,174
$73,427
$9,885
$1,075,812
$6,888
Challengers
172
$966,354
$580,854
$83,850
$175,002
$22,687
$9,885
$975,994
$4,968
Open Seats 4/
39
$100,656
$28,927
$0
$20,172
$50,740
$0
$99,818
$1,920
Summary
Democrats
787
$252,744,996
$124,630,664
$93,446,338
$3,541,993
$15,200,399
$1,513,052
$238,462,401
$60,332,802
Republicans
738
$217,346,636
$124,209,414
$57,026,455
$3,272,640
$15,637,993
$682,931
$205,696,581
$37,117,778
Others
239
$1,076,447
$611,735
$90,223
$195,264
$73,427
$9,885
$1,075,812
$6,888
Incumbents
441
$300,162,218
$159,374,078
$116,611,170
$92,389
$2,085,548
$422,688
$276,481,111
$94,700,676
Challengers
988
$102,378,968
$57,357,677
$15,973,788
$5,210,732
$17,261,423
$1,219,261
$101,369,815
$1,452,814
Open Seats
4/
335
$68,626,893
$32,720,058
$17,978,058
$1,706,776
$11,564,848
$563,919
$67,383,868
$1,303,978
Grand Total
1764
$471,168,079
$249,451,813
$150,563,016
$7,009,897
$30,911,819
$2,205,868
$445,234,794
$97,457,468
1989-90 Financial Activity of Senate and House General Election Campaigns 1/
(January 1, 1989 - December 31, 1990)
Campaign
Number of
Net 2 /
Individual
Other 3
Candidate
Loans from
Other
Net 2/
Latest Cash
Type
Candidates
Receipts
Contributions
Committees
Contributions
Candidate
Loans
Disbursements
on Hand
Senate
78
$178,325,656
$115,956,890
$40,622,401
$1,662,783
$7,174,327
$894,576
$172,516,631
$19,024,369
Democrats
34
$85,674,965
$56,960,383
$20,341,189
$1,509,368
$2,211,450
$725,326
$83,782,504
$9,715,570
Incumbents
17
$63,580,949
$43,118,949
$17,014,316
$0
$0
$0
$61,505,136
$9,542,547
Challengers
14
$19,262,355
$12,283,969
$2,800,411
$1,475,681
$1,585,101
$709,326
$19,469,648
$142,934
Open Seats
4/
3
$2,831,661
$1,557,465
$526,462
$33,687
$626,349
$16,000
$2,807,720
$30,089
Republicans
33
$92,649,461
$58,995,277
$20,281,212
$153,415
$4,962,877
$169,250
$88,733,672
$9,308,025
Incumbents
15
$55,182,311
$38,346,448
$12,180,597
$0
$0
$15,500
$52,005,070
$8,227,825
Challengers
15
$30,043,499
$17,232,068
$5,236,405
$153,415
$4,962,877 11 /
$153,750
$29,931,987
$443,414
Open Seats
4/
3
$7,423,651
$3,416,761
$2,864,210
$0
$0
$0
$6,796,615
$636,786
Others
11
$1,230
$1,230
$0
$0
$0
$0
$455
$774
Challengers
8
$1,230
$1,230
$0
$0
$0
$0
$455
$774
Open Seats
4/
3
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
House
971
$249,735,341
$112,710,219
$103,950,975
$2,910,597
$12,494,024
$744,772
$230,368,984
$77,932,695
Democrats
413
$142,827,710
$56,573,317
$69,037,586
$561,116
$6,718,964
$522,101
$130,696,867
$50,256,600
-7-
Incumbents
249
$111,351,969
$42,290,109
$58,605,991
$59,940
$1,727,717
$328,538
$99,698,932
$49,756,060
Challengers
132
$14,609,174
$6,977,515
$4,417,025
$376,680
$2,245,189
$64,227
$14,348,438
$236,752
Open Seats
4/
32
$16,866,567
$7,305,693
$6,014,570
$124,496
$2,746,058
$129,336
$16,649,497
$263,788
Republicans
394
$105,945,641
$55,546,294
$34,829,539
$2,195,457
$5,745,252
$212,786
$98,698,521
$27,671,330
Incumbents
159
$69,996,183
$35,596,683
$28,801,266
$32,449
$341,300
$78,650
$63,219,411
$27,168,821
Challengers
206
$22,953,012
$12,940,163
$2,589,058
$2,124,804
$3,701,382
$133,136
$22,621,154
$351,518
Open Seats
4/
29
$12,996,446
$7,009,448
$3,439,215
$38,204
$1,702,570
$1,000
$12,857,956
$150,991
Others
12/
164
$961,990
$590,608
$83,850
$154,024
$29,808
$9,885
$973,596
$4,765
Challengers
144
$939,391
$577,594
$83,850
$151,924
$22,687
$9,885
$950,139
$4,432
Open Seats
4/
20
$22,599
$13,014
$0
$2,100
$7,121
$0
$23,457
$333
Summary
Democrats
447
$228,502,675
$113,533,700
$89,378,775
$2,070,484
$8,930,414
$1,247,427
$214,479,371
$59,972,170
Republicans
427
$198,595,102
$114,541,571
$55,110,751
$2,348,872
$10,708,129
$382,036
$187,432,193
$36,979,355
Others
175
$963,220
$591,838
$83,850
$154,024
$29,808
$9,885
$974,051
$5,539
Incumbents
440
$300,111,412
$159,352,189
$116,602,170
$92,389
$2,069,017
$422,688
$276,428,549
$94,695,253
Challengers
519
$87,808,661
$50,012,539
$15,126,749
$4,282,504
$12,517,236
$1,070,324
$87,321,821
$1,179,824
Open Seats
4/
90
$40,140,924
$19,302,381
$12,844,457
$198,487
$5,082,098
$146,336
$39,135,245
$1,081,987
Grand Total
1049
$428,060,997
$228,667,109
$144,573,376
$4,573,380
$19,668,351
$1,639,348
$402,885,615
$96,957,064
Financial Activity of General Election Congressional Campaigns - 1986-1990
No. of
Net
2
Individual
Other 3 /
Candidate
Candidate
Other
Net
2
TXTX
Cash on
Candid
Receipts
Contrib
Pct5
Cmte's
Pct
Contrib
Pct
Loans
Pct
Loans
Pct
Disburse
Hand
Senate
1990
67
$178.31
$115.96
65.03%
$40.62
22.78%
$1.65
0.93%
$7.17
4.02%
$0.89
0.50%
$172.51
$19.02
1988
66
$182.61
$118.36
64.82%
$44.40
24.31%
$6.39
3.50%
$4.13
2.26%
$0.74
0.41%
$184.97
$9.51
1986
69
$191.90
$125.33
65.31%
$44.57
23.23%
$0.29
0.15%
$9.75
5.08%
$0.50
0.26%
$189.67
$10.10
Democrats
1990
34
$85.67
$56.96
66,49%
$20.34
23.74%
$1.50
1.75%
$2.21
2.58%
$0.73
0.85%
$83.78
$9.71
1988
33
$96.52
$59.69
61.84%
$23.20
24,04%
$6.30
6.53%
$2.26
2.34%
$0.71
0.74%
$96.97
$5.70
1986
35
$83.52
$50.93
60.98%
$19.85
23.77%
$0.26
0.31%
$7.98
9.55%
$0.15
0.18%
$80.83
$4.00
Incumbents
1990
17
$63.58
$43.12
67.82%
$17.01
26.75%
$0.00
0.00%
$0.00
0.00%
$0.00
0.00%
$61.50
$9.54
1988
15
$51.00
$32.56
63.84%
$15.27
29.94%
$0.00
0.00%
$0.33
0.65%
$0.10
0.20%
$51.86
$5.03
1986
9
$26.30
$17.50
66.54%
$7.31
27.79%
$0.13
0.49%
$0.37
1.41%
$0.00
0.00%
$24.41
$3.13
Challengers
1990
14
$19.26
$12.28
63.76%
$2.80
14.54%
$1.47
7.63%
$1.58
8.20%
$0.71
3.69%
$19.47
$0.14
1988
12
$26.18
$19.34
73.87%
$4.55
17.38%
$0.01
0.04%
$0.84
3.21%
$0.58
2.22%
$25.93
$0.24
1986
19
$37.04
$20.39
55.05%
$7.82
21.11%
$0.13
0.35%
$6.50
17.55%
$0.04
0.11%
$36.48
$0.63
Open Seats
4
/
1990
3
$2.83
$1.56
55.12%
$0.53
18.73%
$0.03
1.06%
$0.63
22.26%
$0.02
0.71%
$2.81
$0.03
-8-
1988
6
$19.34
$7.79
40.28%
$3.38
17.48%
$6.29
32.52%
$1.09
5.64%
$0.03
0.16%
$19.18
$0.43
1986
7
$20.18
$13.04
64.62%
$4.72
23.39%
$0.00
0.00%
$1.11
5.50%
$0.11
0.55%
$19.94
$0.24
Republicans
1990
33
$92.64
$59.00
63.69%
$20.28
21.89%
$0.15
0.16%
$4.96
5.35%
$0.16
0.17%
$88.73
$9.31
1988
33
$86.09
$58.67
68.15%
$21.20
24.63%
$0.09
0.10%
$1.87
2.17%
$0.03
0.03%
$88.00
$3.81
1986
34
$108.38
$74.40
68.65%
$24.72
22.81%
$0.03
0.03%
$1.77
1.63%
$0.35
0.32%
$108.84
$6.10
Incumbents
1990
15
$55.18
$38.35
69.50%
$12.18
22.07%
$0.00
0.00%
$0.00
0.00%
$0.01
0.02%
$52.00
$8.23
1988
12
$47.25
$31.63
66.94%
$13.42
28.40%
$0.00
0.00%
$0.10
0.21%
$0.00
0.00%
$49.34
$2.84
1986
18
$64.00
$43.59
68.11%
$16.38
25.59%
$0.00
0.00%
$0.00
0.00%
$0.10
0.16%
$64.88
$5.73
Challengers
1990
15
$30.04
$17.23
57.36%
$5.24
17.44%
$0.15
0.50%
$4.96
11
16.51%
$0.15
0.50%
$29.93
$0.44
1988
15
$23.13
$17.47
75.53%
$3.12
13.49%
$0.09
0.39%
$1.52
6.57%
$0.02
0.09%
$23.21
$0.34
1986
9
$16.92
$13.01
76.89%
$1.89
11.17%
$0.02
0.12%
$1.18
6.97%
$0.06
0.35%
$16.88
$0.05
Open Seats
4/
1990
3
$7.42
$3.42
46.09%
$2.86
38.54%
$0.00
0.00%
$0.00
0.00%
$0.00
0.00%
$6.80
$0.64
1988
6
$15.71
$9.57
60.92%
$4.66
29.66%
$0.00
0.00%
$0.25
1.59%
$0.01
0.06%
$15.45
$0.63
1986
7
$27.46
$17.80
64.82%
$6.45
23.49%
$0.01
0.04%
$0.59
2.15%
$0.19
0.69%
$27.08
$0.32
(in Millions of Dollars)
Financial Activity of General Election Congressional Campaigns - 1986-1990
No. of
Net 2,
Individual
Other 3/
Candidate
Candidate
Other
Net 2
Cash on
Candid
Receipts
Contrib
Pct 5
Cmte's
Pct
Contrib
Pct
Loans
Pct
Loans
Pct
Disburse
Hand
House
1990
807
$248.78
$112.12
45,07%
$103.86
41.75%
$2.75
1.11%
$12.46
5.01%
$0.73
0.29%
$229.40
$77.93
1988
813
$242.46
$113.36
46.75%
$99.10
40.87%
$1.57
0.65%
$11.58
4.78%
$1.19
0.49%
$222.25
$64.55
1986
810
$228.24
$113.10
49.55%
$85.24
37.35%
$2.03
0.89%
$12.59
5.52%
$1.51
0.66%
$210.24
$49.02
Democrats
1990
413
$142.83
$56.57
39.61%
$69.03
48.33%
$0.56
0.39%
$6.72
4.70%
$0.52
0.36%
$130.70
$50.26
1988
429
$137.38
$56.16
40.88%
$65.35
47.57%
$0.69
0.50%
$5.74
4.18%
$1.04
0.76%
$123.06
$41.36
1986
427
$123.89
$55.52
44.81%
$53.33
43.05%
$1.26
1.02%
$5.92
4.78%
$1.25
1.01%
$112.97
$28.76
Incumbents
1990
249
$111.35
$42.29
37.98%
$58.60
52.63%
$0.06
0.05%
$1.73
1.55%
$0.33
0.30%
$99.70
$49.76
1988
248
$102.53
$40.46
39.46%
$53.36
52.04%
$0.05
0.05%
$1.44
1.40%
$0.81
0.79%
$88.85
$40.67
1986
235
$83.51
$35.50
42.51%
$40.97
49.06%
$0.31
0.37%
$0.98
1.17%
$0.59
0.71%
$73.10
$28.17
Challengers
1990
132
$14.61
$6.98
47.78%
$4.42
30.25%
$0.38
2.60%
$2.24
15.33%
$0.06
0.41%
$14.35
$0.24
1988
154
$22.50
$10.79
47.96%
$7.34
32.62%
$0.53
2.36%
$2.58
11.47%
$0.09
0.40%
$22.14
$0.39
1986
147
$21.32
$10.92
51.22%
$6.41
30.07%
$0.47
2.20%
$2.42
11.35%
$0.16
0.75%
$21.10
$0.28
Open Seats 4
/
1990
32
$16.87
$7.30
43.27%
$6.01
35.63%
$0.12
0.71%
$2.75
16.30%
$0.13
0.77%
$16.65
$0.26
-9-
1988
27
$12.35
$4.91
39.76%
$4.65
37.65%
$0.11
0.89%
$1.72
13.93%
$0.14
1.13%
$12.07
$0.30
1986
45
$19.06
$9.10
47.74%
$5.95
31.22%
$0.48
2.52%
$2.52
13.22%
$0.50
2.62%
$18.77
$0.31
Republicans
1990
394
$105.95
$55.55
52.43%
$34.83
32.87%
$2.19
2.07%
$5.74
5.42%
$0.21
0.20%
$98.70
$27.67
1988
384
$105.08
$57.20
54.43%
$33.75
32.12%
$0.88
0.84%
$5.84
5.56%
$0.15
0.14%
$99.19
$23.19
1986
383
$104.35
$57.58
55.18%
$31.91
30.58%
$0.77
0.74%
$6.67
6.39%
$0.26
0.25%
$97.27
$20.26
Incumbents
1990
159
$70.00
$35.60
50.86%
$28.80
41.14%
$0.03
0.04%
$0.34
0.49%
$0.08
0.11%
$63.22
$27.17
1988
164
$72.46
$37.97
52.40%
$28.68
39.58%
$0.09
0.12%
$0.77
1.06%
$0.06
0.08%
$67.11
$22.74
1986
160
$65.78
$35.38
53.79%
$24.83
37.75%
$0.11
0.17%
$0.54
0.82%
$0.08
0.12%
$58.98
$19.73
Challengers
1990
206
$22.95
$12.94
56.38%
$2.59
11.29%
$2.12
9.24%
$3.70
16.12%
$0.13
0.57%
$22.62
$0.35
1988
194
$19.83
$11.82
59.61%
$2.17
10.94%
$0.72
3.63%
$3.44
17.35%
$0.05
0.25%
$19.48
$0.22
1986
182
$20.06
$11.60
57.83%
$2.34
11.67%
$0.55
2.74%
$4.20
20.94%
$0.13
0.65%
$19.97
$0.27
Open Seats/
/
1990
29
$13.00
$7.01
53.92%
$3.44
26.46%
$0.04
0.31%
$1.70
13.08%
$0.00
0.00%
$12.86
$0.15
1988
26
$12.79
$7.41
57.94%
$2.90
22.67%
$0.07
0.55%
$1.63
12.74%
$0.04
0.31%
$12.60
$0.23
1986
41
$18.51
$10.60
57.27%
$4.74
25.61%
$0.11
0.59%
$1.93
10.43%
$0.05
0.27%
$18.32
$0.26
(in Millions of Dollars)
Senate Campaigns Spending and State Voting Age Population - 1986-1990
Voting Age Pop
Senate
Spend per
Voting Age Pop
Senate
Spend per
Voting Age Pop
Senate
Spend per
1986
Spending
VAP 1986
1988
Spending
VAP 1988
1990
Spending
VAP 1990
Alabama
2,904,000
$6,884,595
$2.37
2,966,000
3,010,000
$5,058,029
$1.68
Alaska
351,000
$1,801,130
$5.13
354,000
362,000
$1,274,954
$3.52
Arizona
2,312,000
$2,907,100
$1.26
2,467,000
$2,879,019
$1.17
2,575,000
Arkansas
1,713,000
$2,611,774
$1.52
1,741,000
1,756,000
$368,579
$0.21
California
19,525,000
$22,819,023
$1.17
20,362,000
$19,957,156
$0.98
21,350,000
Colorado
2,367,000
$7,552,779
$3.19
2,422,000
2,453,000
$5,667,333
$2.31
Connecticut
2,418,000
$2,743,658
$1.13
2,454,000
$5,130,681
$2.09
2,479,000
Delaware
465,000
482,000
$4,177,437
$8.67
504,000
$2,128,815
$4.22
Florida
8,830,000
$12,897,392
$1.46
9,319,000
$8,896,491
$0.95
9,799,000
Georgia
4,318,000
$7,898,546
$1.83
4,486,000
4,639,000
$882,336
$0.19
Hawaii
764,000
$1,071,763
$1.40
797,000
$527,905
$0.66
825,000
$4,159,800
$5.04
Idaho
681,000
$5,358,153
$7.87
693,000
710,000
$2,196,951
$3.09
Illinois
8,436,000
$2,780,055
$0.33
8,547,000
8,678,000
$12,578,127
$1.45
Indiana
3,993,000
$2,106,748
$0.53
4,061,000
$3,330,033
$0.82
4,133,000
$4,795,977
$1.16
lowa
2,111,000
$2,768,992
$1.31
2,102,000
2,132,000
$10,323,672
$4.84
Kansas
1,875,000
$1,517,585
$0.81
1,825,000
1,854,000
$424,014
$0.23
Kentucky
2,703,000
$1,260,196
$0.47
2,731,000
2,760,000
$8,001,811
$2.90
Louisiana
3,126,000
$8,924,773
$2.86
3,145,000
3,109,000
$7,604,788
$2.45
Maine
860,000
884,000
$1,487,917
$1.68
917,000
$3,203,089
$3.49
Maryland
3,295,000
$3,756,597
$1.14
3,410,000
$2,129,272
$0.62
3,533,000
Massachusetts
4,458,000
4,519,000
$3,290,188
$0.73
4,576,000
$11,412,688
$2.49
Michigan
6,605,000
6,740,000
$3,826,542
$0.57
6,829,000
$9,347,967
$1.37
-10-
Minnesota
3,054,000
3,135,000
$7,883,278
$2.51
3,224,000
$7,562,041
$2.35
Mississippi
1,824,000
1,833,000
$5,761,199
$3.14
1,852,000
$567,446
$0.31
Missouri
3,702,000
$9,773,916
$2.64
3,794,000
$4,873,155
$1.28
3,854,000
Montana
592,000
585,000
$2,414,632
$4.13
588,000
$3,156,923
$5.37
Nebraska
1,158,000
1,171,000
$6,872,509
$5.87
1,187,000
$3,802,420
$3.20
Nevada
716,000
$4,744,218
$6.63
755,000
$5,965,653
$7.90
833,000
New Hampshire
745,000
$1,138,858
$1.53
791,000
828,000
$1,702,074
$2.06
New Jersey
5,700,000
5,841,000
$14,914,912
$2.55
5,903,000
$10,365,602
$1.76
New Mexico
1,002,000
1,053,000
$3,468,283
$3.29
1,074,000
$1,963,567
$1.83
New York
13,414,000
$9,794,788
$0.73
13,464,000
$5,338,798
$0.40
13,600,000
North Carolina
4,666,000
$9,356,753
$2.01
4,786,000
4,929,000
$21,166,856
$4.29
North Dakota
488,000
$3,177,931
$6.51
485,000
$2,933,424
$6.05
481,000
Ohio
7,871,000
$1,976,934
$0.25
7,947,000
$16,778,886
$2.11
8,090,000
Oklahoma
2,377,000
$5,817,947
$2.45
2,379,000
2,371,000
$1,512,926
$0.64
Oregon
1,976,000
$6,587,429
$3.33
2,038,000
2,123,000
$3,836,157
$1.81
Pennsylvania
8,976,000
$9,891,247
$1.10
9,085,000
$5,678,348
$0.63
9,199,000
Rhode Island
743,000
757,000
$5,723,126
$7.56
767,000
$4,423,737
$5.77
South Carolina
2,425,000
$2,818,131
$1.16
2,484,000
2,558,000
$1,922,934
$0.75
South Dakota
502,000
$6,776,971
$13.50
513,000
519,000
$2,988,111
$5.76
Tennessee
3,531,000
3,604,000
$3,682,036
$1.02
3,685,000
$1,637,490
$0.44
Texas
11,572,000
11,805,000
$10,182,706
$0.86
12,038,000
$11,476,191
$0.95
Utah
1,031,000
$766,153
$0.74
1,051,000
$3,844,856
$3.66
1,076,000
Vermont
395,000
$3,207,403
$8.12
408,000
$1,426,785
$3.50
425,000
Virginia
4,262,000
4,444,000
$3,163,895
$0.71
4,615,000
$1,284,865
$0.28
Washington
3,229,000
$5,202,614
$1.61
3,369,000
$5,042,778
$1.50
3,545,000
West Virginia
1,420,000
1,407,000
$1,214,993
$0.86
1,394,000
$2,673,224
$1.92
Wisconsin
3,491,000
$4,740,572
$1.36
3,537,000
$10,345,442
$2.92
3,612,000
Wyoming
349,000
342,000
$1,835,230
$5.37
339,000
$1,006,705
$2.97
Median Disbursements of House General Election Candidates by Candidate Status and Electoral Margin
1981 -82
1983 84
1985 -86
1987 -88
1989 -90
#of can. Amount #of can. Amount #of can. Amount #of can. Amount #of can. Amount
Won - 60%
or more
Incumbent
268
$164,409
315
$194,107
333
$239,341
353
$287,996
294
$295,405
Challenger
5
$191,200
2
$385,482
1
$375,663
1
$516,737
1
$732,765
Open Seat 4/
22
$323,885
12
$301,874
15
$487,797
10
$453,913
12
$649,133
Won - 55%-59%
Incumbent
52
$310,727
48
$368,549
33
$541,453
30
$640,539
62
$499,785
Challenger
5
$211,030
2
$527,876
1
$854,616
1
$385,402
4
$437,938
Open Seat 4/
13
$274,613
7
$428,244
8
$578,334
4
$515,266
5
$565,410
Won - less than 55%
Incumbent
38
$356,699
32
$458,241
23
$592,313
23
$581,888
37
$575,637
Challenger
21
$266,401
17
$421,870
5
$435,435
5*
$600,114
11
$465,160
Open Seat 4/
15
$366,711
11
$444,445
20
$425,307
13
$569,830
13
$541,960
Lost - more than 45
Incumbent
22
$460,353
13
$389,043
5
$565,374
3
$1,069,699
8
$581,395
Challenger
27
$200,138
22
$384,712
22
$361,065
13
$378,469
26
$205,287
Open Seat 4/
11
$288,924
8
$438,183
13
$418,486
8
$489,937
12
$484,419
Lost - 41%-45%
Incumbent
5
$313,299
4
$466,803
1
$788,795
2
$723,638
6
$805,787
Challenger
53
$161,532
47
$241,122
32
$251,068
27
$355,016
37
$134,772
Open Seat
11
$101,798
7
$342,678
11
$316,033
6
$463,725
2
$228,828
Lost - 40% or less
Incumbent
2
$407,832
- -
- -
1
$696,301
1
$688,907
Challenger
168
$41,431
187
$44,207
208
$45,777
230
$44,205
163
$36,124
Open Seat 4/
27
$107,343
11
$116,447
17
$63,467
11
$80,675
12
$236,018
Note: Includes only Major Party Candidates who raised or spent at least $5,000
* Includes Tom Campbell in California 12th district where the incumbent lost in the primary
** John Boehner in Ohio 8th district where the incumbent lost in the primary
-11-
Individual
Non Party 3/ Candidate 6/Trans from
Ending Cash
Closing
Candidate
Receipts
Contributions
Contributions
Support
Other Auth.
Disburse
on Hand
Debts
ALABAMA
Howell Heflin
Dem
84
Inc
$484,533
$0
1985-86
$95,976
$13,574
$8,700
$0
$0
$112,924
$467,585
$0
1987-88
$487,368
$233,398
$178,650
$0
$0
$136,899
$818,054
$0
1989-90
$3,422,129
$1,810,620
$1,320,755
$0
$0
$3,204,160
$1,036,023
$0
William Cabaniss
Rep
1987-88
Chl
$112,850
$111,850
$1,000
$0
$0
$11,798
$101,052
$0
1989-90
$1,757,312
$1,424,131
$77,246
$112,000
$73,500
$1,853,869
$4,544
$109,291
ALASKA
Ted Stevens
Rep
84
Inc
$184,675
$0
1985-86
$63,469
$5,944
$29,236
$0
$0
$227,758
$29,709
$0
1987-88
$230,467
$115,958
$104,550
$0
$0
$132,078
$128,099
$0
1989-90
$1,380,780
$402,133
$751,450
$0
$135,177
$1,273,954
$234,997
$0
Michael Beasley
Dem
1989-90
Chl
$1,000
$0
$0
$1,000
$0
$445
$555
$0
ARKANSAS
David Pryor
Dem
84
Inc
$174,188
$10,000
-12-
1985-86
$66,512
$23,030
$5,300
$0
$0
$179,376
$65,285
$0
1987-88
$205,879
$72,633
$106,332
$0
$0
$125,965
$145,200
$0
1989-90
$1,228,545
$614,196
$485,067
$0
$0
$368,579
$1,005,464
$0
COLORADO
Hank Brown
Rep
1989-90
Opn
$4,179,746
$2,008,702
$1,389,784
$0
$412,412
$3,723,911
$455,834
$12,650
Josephine Heath
Dem
1989-90
Opn
$1,953,120
$1,206,831
$314,413
$400,295
$0
$1,943,422
$9,697
$185,000
DELAWARE
Joseph Biden
Dem
84
Inc
$24,489
$251
1985-86
$737,278
$690,234
$12,200
$0
$0
$340,144
$421,624
$0
1987-88
$183,705
$111,289
$14,625
$0
$0
$422,550
$182,779
$0
1989-90
$1,898,297
$1,064,609
$690,816
$0
$0
$1,888,146
$190,151
$49,000
Jane Brady
Rep
1989-90
Chl
$244,788
$218,936
$0
$0
$9,107
$240,669
$4,117
$17,378
Individual
Non Party 3/ Candidate 6 / Trans from
Ending Cash
Closing
Candidate
Receipts Contributions Contributions Support Other Auth.
Disburse
on Hand
Debts
GEORGIA
Sam Nunn
Dem
84
Inc
$676,199
$0
1985-86
$88,607
$401
$17,666
$0
$0
$194,063
$570,743
$0
1987-88
$52,083
$0
$0
$0
$0
$168,653
$454,173
$0
1989-90
$1,978,221
-
$1,171,569
$627,010
$0
$0
$882,336
$1,550,058
$0
HAWAII
Daniel Akaka 8/
Dem
1989-90
Inc
$1,764,875
$859,896
$854,107
$0
$0
$1,760,839
$161,134
$253,196
Patricia Saiki 8/
Rep
1989-90
Chl
$2,570,035
$1,279,699
$902,829
$0
$128,713
$2,398,961
$195,614
$0
IDAHO
Larry Craig
8/
Rep
1989-90
Opn
$1,734,617
$747,943
$811,026
$0
$73,500
$1,652,532
$91,834
$0
Ron Twilegar
Dem
1989-90
Opn
$544,516
$156,470
$212,049
$137,991
$0
$544,419
$96
$230,070
ILLINOIS
Paul Simon
Dem
84
Inc
$4,784
$413,750
-13-
1985-86
$985,043
$768,401
$232,530
$0
($300)
$974,286
$15,543
$43,677
1987-88
$196,632
$100,481
$59,510
$30,000
$0
$174,140
$38,036
$0
1989-90
$8,462,209
$6,698,373
$1,480,221
$0
$15,760
$7,656,514
$843,731
$0
Lynn Martin
Rep
1989-90
Chl
$4,986,730
$3,056,751
$1,193,942
$0
$578,976
$4,921,613
$65,116
$0
INDIANA
Dan Coats
Rep
1989-90
Inc
$4,082,803
$2,404,943
$1,113,664
$0
$440,268
$3,718,903
$363,900
$0
Baron Hill
Dem
1989-90
Chl
$1,082,402
$544,189
$488,461
$1,000
$0
$1,077,074
$5,329
$16,194
IOWA
Tom Harkin
Dem
84
Inc
$5,067
$6,594
1985-86
$151,927
$29,466
$76,509
$0
$0
$112,114
$44,882
$0
1987-88
$580,093
$382,913
$183,255
$0
$0
$285,489
$339,487
$0
1989-90
$4,983,819
$3,331,293
$1,546,535
$0
$0
$5,263,568
$59,737
$48,515
Tom Tauke 8/
Rep
1989-90
Chl
$4,941,809
$3,284,974
$1,374,706
$120
$119,865
$5,060,104
$4,960
$30,387
Individual
Non Party 3/ Candidate / Trans from
Ending Cash
Closing
Candidate
Receipts Contributions Contributions Support Other Auth.
Disburse
on Hand
Debts
KANSAS
Nancy L Kassebaum
Rep
84
Inc
$217,804
$0
1985-86
$29,360
$435
($225)
$0
$0
$72,154
$175,010
$0
1987-88
$21,752
$1,550
$1,000
$0
$0
$54,091
$142,671
$0
1989-90
$481,852
$241,307
$187,858
$0
$0
$407,387
$217,135
$0
Dick Williams
Dem
1989-90
Chl
$16,827
$11,507
$500
$4,819
$0
$16,627
$200
$4,017
KENTUCKY
Mitch McConnell
Rep
84
Inc
$27,443
$36,378
1985-86
$869,801
$538,463
$159,881
$0
$0
$198,624
$555,502
$0
1987-88
$764,342
$589,762
$41,250
$0
$0
$126,617
$1,190,977
$0
1989-90
$4,073,583
$2,485,976
$1,076,029
$0
$172,226
$5,074,187
$190,373
$0
Harvey Sloane
Dem
1987-88
Chl
$441,249
$412,049
$29,200
$0
$0
$89,343
$351,905
$0
1989-90
$2,571,559
$1,044,213
$518,688
$527,500
$0
$2,927,624
$7,972
$14,500
LOUISIANA
J Bennett Johnston
Dem
84
Inc
$984,831
$0
-14-
1985-86
$326,123
$8,708
$6,350
$0
$0
$663,881
$1,602,420
$0
1987-88
$323,065
$17,342
$30,432
$0
$0
$157,703
$1,767,782
$0
1989-90
$4,167,111
$2,271,077
$1,416,331
$0
$0
$4,989,521
$945,371
$0
David Duke
Rep
1989-90
Chl
$2,670,311
$2,571,210
$0
$85,650
$0
$2,615,267
$55,044
$31,450
MAINE
William Cohen
Rep
84
Inc
$139,971
$0
1985-86
$35,004
$2,685
$2,250
$0
$0
$30,418
$144,557
$0
1987-88
$24,282
$3,115
$3,500
$0
$0
$31,010
$137,829
$0
1989-90
$1,452,273
$775,382
$549,194
$0
$46,550
$1,572,195
$17,906
$0
Neil Rolde
Dem
1989-90
Chl
$1,653,717
$64,650
$29,647
$1,518,222
$0
$1,630,894
$4,823
$75,000
Individual
Non Party 3/ Candidate 6/ Trans from
Ending Cash
Closing
Candidate
Receipts Contributions Contributions Support Other Auth.
Disburse
on Hand
Debts
MASSACHUSETTS
John Kerry
Dem
84
Inc
$99,770
$403,628
1985-86
$1,299,765
$983,923
($150)
$295,377
$10,642
$1,317,746
($11,245)
$27,172
1987-88
$526,572
$417,966
$1,420
$50,000
$0
$511,300
$33,965
$29,014
1989-90
$6,215,076
$6,085,623
$14,582
$0
$0
$6,234,887
$12,055
$92,765
James Rappaport
Rep
1989-90
Chl
$5,185,061
$666,525
$177,205
$4,220,138
$57,250
$5,177,801
$7,260
$4,342,006
MICHIGAN
Carl Levin
Dem
84
Inc
$55,177
$0
1985-86
$87,125
$35,434
$7,426
$0
$0
$77,802
$64,501
$0
1987-88
$193,733
$161,083
$6,850
$0
$0
$74,100
$184,134
$0
1989-90
$6,948,096
$5,142,095
$1,392,502
$0
$7,760
$6,930,262
$201,966
$106,156
Bill Schuette
Rep
1989-90
Chl
$2,488,958
$1,368,656
$735,932
$245,000
$73,500
$2,417,705
$71,253
$245,000
MINNESOTA
Rudy Boschwitz
Rep
84
Inc
$214,480
$7,448
1985-86
$727,655
$643,870
$14,030
$0
$0
$774,468
$167,665
$14,500
-15-
1987-88
$943,504
$874,801
$12,107
$0
$0
$869,542
$213,815
$0
1989-90
$6,086,588
$4,516,165
$1,211,209
$0
$127,618
$6,221,333
$79,070
$7,060
Paul Wellstone
Dem
1989-90
Chi
$1,403,208
$1,022,075
$294,520
$0
$0
$1,340,708
$62,500
$117,513
MISSISSIPPI
Thad Cochran
Rep
84
Inc
$138,875
$0
1985-86
$95,293
$5,877
$27,986
$0
$0
$59,486
$174,683
$5,000
1987-88
$50,762
$12,135
$6,700
$0
$0
$66,975
$158,470
$0
1989-90
$1,316,810
$520,422
$534,450
$0
$157,588
$567,446
$908,834
$0
MONTANA
Max Baucus
Dem
84
Inc
$46,806
$16,896
1985-86
$38,349
$6,740
$5,450
$0
$0
$82,286
$2,870
$0
1987-88
$369,745
$104,729
$276,405
$0
$0
$116,004
$256,611
$42,411
1989-90
$2,667,328
$1,136,817
$1,377,663
$0
$0
$2,409,262
$505,883
$0
Allen Kolstad
Rep
1989-90
Chl
$748,100
$465,271
$74,898
$80,500
$73,500
$747,661
$439
$60,200
Individual
Non Party3 / Candidate 6/Trans from
Ending Cash
Closing
Candidate
Receipts
Contributions
Contributions
Support
Other Auth.
Disburse
on Hand
Debts
NEBRASKA
James Exon
Dem
84
Inc
$51,762
$36
1985-86
$22,784
$50
$4,475
$0
$0
$33,742
$40,803
$911
1987-88
$14,985
$2,155
$9,250
$0
$0
$34,267
$21,521
$2,141
1989-90
$2,598,356
$1,014,747
$1,503,897
$0
$0
$2,349,739
$270,574
$0
Hal Daub
Rep
1989-90
Chl
$1,461,846
$1,310,066
$0
$1,000
$88,500
$1,452,681
$9,164
$93,511
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Robert C. Smith
Rep
1989-90
Opn
$1,509,288
$660,116
$663,400
$0
$132,665
$1,420,172
$89,118
$0
John Durkin
Dem
1989-90
Opn
$334,025
$194,164
$0
$121,750
$0
$319,879
$20,296
$135,398
NEW JERSEY
Bill Bradley
Dem
84
Inc
$376,495
$92,820
1985-86
$1,354,146
$1,205,250
$114,699
$80,892
$0
$1,050,477
$680,163
$16,731
1987-88
$3,385,815
$2,941,506
$235,433
$410
$0
$1,861,108
$2,205,474
$27,200
1989-90
$8,134,268
$6,502,155
$1,062,309
$0
$0
$9,563,942
$775,770
$83,000
-16-
Christine Whitman
Rep
1989-90
Chl
$827,006
$494,327
$10,782
$288,348
$9,107
$801,660
$13,594
$125,895
NEW MEXICO
Pete Domenici
Rep
84
Inc
$36,616
$121,566
1985-86
$259,492
$109,320
$8,063
$0
$0
$244,892
$51,215
$600
1987-88
$63,824
$50,575
$8,100
$0
$0
$82,440
$32,598
$0
1989-90
$2,110,973
$1,052,037
$773,374
$0
$143,000
$1,925,057
$218,513
$0
Tom Benavides
Dem
1989-90
Chl
$38,643
$6,183
$13,250
$18,210
$0
$38,510
$133
$10,728
NORTH CAROLINA
Jesse Helms
Rep
84
Inc
$22,878
$452,427
1985-86
$2,733,496
$543,919
$154,120
$0
$1,958,495
$2,756,310
$65
$18,993
1987-88
$1,710,893
$1,671,409
$12,112
$0
$0
$1,649,933
$61,024
$20,746
1989-90
$13,306,640
$12,346,429
$835,104
$0
$53,205
$13,355,336
$12,326
$914,288
Harvey Gantt
Dem
1989-90
Chl
$7,859,877
$7,081,114
$695,852
$45,000
$0
$7,811,520
$48,358
$35,235
Individual
Non Party 3/ Candidate 6 Trans from
Ending Cash
Closing
Candidate
Receipts Contributions Contributions Support Other Auth.
Disburse
on Hand
Debts
OKLAHOMA
David Boren
Dem
84
Inc
$52,468
$0
1985-86
$33,881
$30,508
($1,000)
$0
$0
$86,296
$51
$0
1987-88
$429,365
$409,533
$0
$1,500
$0
$152,611
$276,803
$0
1989-90
$1,253,344
$1,156,516
$0
$0
$0
$1,372,014
$158,133
$0
Stephen Jones
Rep
1989-90
Chl
$140,911
$51,050
$0
$79,204
$0
$140,912
$0
$0
OREGON
Mark Hatfield
Rep
84
Inc
$243,511
$0
1985-86
$101,241
$29,979
$28,439
$0
$0
$168,343
$176,410
$0
1987-88
$216,801
$107,161
$60,600
$0
$0
$223,831
$161,251
$0
1989-90
$2,200,139
$1,065,089
$969,720
$0
$62,800
$2,357,058
$4,332
$25,223
Harold Lonsdale
Dem
1989-90
Chl
$1,496,111
$624,769
$0
$813,152
$0
$1,479,099
$3,202
$720,504
RHODE ISLAND
Claiborne Pell
Dem
84
Inc
$338,004
$0
-17-
1985-86
$56,433
$1,000
$0
$0
$0
$21,106
$373,330
$0
1987-88
$66,791
$2
$1,555
$0
$0
$11,936
$428,187
$0
1989-90
$2,138,199
$1,125,436
$885,678
$0
$0
$2,350,128
$216,256
$0
Claudine Schneider 8/ Rep
1989-90
Chl
$1,989,616
$1,026,638
$688,865
$0
$176,333
$2,056,923
$29,279
$8,766
SOUTH CAROLINA
Strom Thurmond
Rep
84
Inc
$364,686
$0
1985-86
$36,370
$2,163
$16,130
$0
$0
$350,926
$50,130
$0
1987-88
$93,675
$25,670
$58,430
$0
$0
$83,121
$60,683
$0
1989-90
$2,077,112
$1,364,044
$562,695
$0
$76,011
$1,916,702
$221,092
$0
Robert Cunningham
Dem
1989-90
Chl
$6,379
$0
$0
$6,379
$0
$6,232
$147
$0
SOUTH DAKOTA
Larry Pressler
Rep
84
Inc
$325,441
$0
1985-86
$83,185
$17,624
$15,250
$0
$0
$178,334
$230,291
$0
1987-88
$302,331
$155,292
$95,250
$0
$0
$294,175
$238,225
$0
1989-90
$1,982,702
$876,549
$861,339
$0
$132,628
$1,664,341
$556,585
$0
Theodore Muenster
Dem
1989-90
Chl
$1,335,356
$812,413
$492,661
$0
$0
$1,323,770
$11,586
$15,914
Individual
Non Party3 Candidate 6/Trans from
Ending Cash
Closing
Candidate
Receipts
Contributions
Contributions
Support
Other Auth.
Disburse
on Hand
Debts
TENNESSEE
Albert Gore
Dem
84
Inc
($14,967)
$4,368
1985-86
$248,533
$91,732
$112,240
$0
$0
$177,014
$69,611
$0
1987-88
$161,878
$40,513
$107,750
$0
$0
$134,439
$97,049
$0
1989-90
$2,241,915
$1,189,705
$931,438
$0
$24,000
$1,630,919
$708,043
$0
William Hawkins
Rep
1989-90
Chl
$8,395
$3,245
$0
$0
$0
$6,510
$61
$0
TEXAS
Phil Gramm
Rep
84
Inc
$353,926
$98,677
1985-86
$1,176,265
$979,341
$75,249
$0
$0
$1,248,729
$281,462
$0
1987-88
$3,465,699
$2,921,478
$306,228
$0
$19,437
$1,427,054
$2,320,105
$0
1989-90
$11,626,377
$9,081,419
$1,426,839
$0
$114,306
$9,799,104
$4,147,378
$0
Hugh Parmer
Dem
1989-90
Chl
$1,674,600
$947,452
$263,762
$124,400
$0
$1,677,087
($2,485)
$100,065
VIRGINIA
John Warner
Rep
84
Inc
$44,416
$0
-18-
1985-86
$81,926
$3,137
$23,134
$0
$64,033
$104,669
$21,672
$400,000
1987-88
$56,947
$6,386
$2,921
$0
$46,995
$54,857
$23,762
$400,000
1989-90
$1,750,032
$824,167
$621,899
$0
$235,951
$1,151,605
$622,138
$400,000 9/
WEST VIRGINIA
Jay Rockefeller
Dem
84
Inc
$36,508
$10,277,965
1985-86
$32,980
$8,859
$4,335
$9,500
$0
$63,030
$6,459
$10,257,500
1987-88
$85,235
$38,443
$46,791
$0
$0
$18,337
$73,356
$0
1989-90
$3,479,161
$1,944,222
$1,425,405
$0
$0
$2,650,320
$902,198
$0
John Yoder
Rep
1989-90
Chl
$22,541
$10,589
$0
$4,332
$0
$22,904
($364)
$4,332
WYOMING
Alan Simpson
Rep
84
Inc
$205,615
$28,270
1985-86
$122,897
$2,795
$7,250
$0
($4,933)
$174,267
$154,246
$65,300
1987-88
$294,383
$128,067
$84,700
$22,000
$28,345
$268,569
$180,059
$1,495
1989-90
$1,253,647
$390,336
$705,773
$0
$87,048
$1,000,462
$433,246
$7,918
Mary K. Helling
1989-90
$6,431
$2,889
$2,500
$1,000
$0
$6,243
$187
$0
1989-90
TOP 50 SENATE - RECEIPTS
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE
PARTY
INC
NET
CHL
RECEIPTS
OPN
1 HELMS, JESSE
NC
REP
I
$13,306,640
2 GRAMM, WILLIAM PHILIP
TX
REP
I
$11,626,377
3 SIMON, PAUL
IL
DEM
I
$8,462,209
4 BRADLEY, BILL
NJ
DEM
I
$8,134,268
5 GANTT, HARVEY B
NC
DEM
C
$7,859,877
6 LEVIN, CARL
MI
DEM
I
$6,948,096
7 KERRY, JOHN F
MA
DEM
I
$6,215,076
8 BOSCHWITZ, RUDY
MN
REP
I
$6,086,588
9 RAPPAPORT, JAMES W
MA
REP
C
$5,185,061
10 MARTIN, LYNN
IL
REP
C
$4,986,730
11 HARKIN, THOMAS R
IA
DEM
I
$4,983,819
12 TAUKE, TOM 8/
IA
REP
C
$4,941,809
13 BROWN, G HANKS
CO
REP
O
$4,179,746
14 JOHNSTON, J BENNETT
LA
DEM
I
$4,167,111
15 COATS, DANIEL R
IN
REP
I
$4,082,803
16 MCCONNELL, MITCH
KY
REP
I
$4,073,583
17 ROCKEFELLER, JOHN D IV
WV
DEM
I
$3,479,161
18 HEFLIN, HOWELL THOMAS
AL
DEM
I
$3,422,129
19 DUKE, DAVID E
LA
REP
C
$2,670,311
20 BAUCUS, MAX S
MT
DEM
I
$2,667,328
21 EXON, J JAMES
NE
DEM
I
$2,598,356
22 SLOANE, HARVEY I MD
KY
DEM
C
$2,571,559
23 SAIKI, PATRICIA FUKUDA 8/
HI
REP
C
$2,570,035
24 SCHUETTE, WILLIAM D
MI
REP
C
$2,488,958
25 GORE, ALBERT JR
TN
DEM
I
$2,241,915
26 HATFIELD, MARK o
OR
REP
I
$2,200,139
27 PELL, CLAIBORNE
RI
DEM
I
$2,138,199
28 DOMENICI, PETE
NM
REP
I
$2,110,973
29 THURMOND, STROM
SC
REP
I
$2,077,112
30 SCHNEIDER, CLAUDINE C 8/
RI
REP
C
$1,989,696
31 PRESSLER, LARRY
SD
REP
I
$1,982,702
32 NUNN, SAMUEL AUGUSTUS
GA
DEM
I
$1,978,221
33 HEATH, JOSEPHINE WARD (JO
CO
DEM
O
$1,953,120
34 BIDEN, JOSEPH R JR
DE
DEM
I
$1,898,297
35 AKAKA, DANIEL K8/
HI
DEM
I
$1,764,875
36 CABANISS, BILL
AL
REP
C
$1,757,312
37 WARNER, JOHN WILLIAM III
VA
REP
I
$1,750,032
38 CRAIG, LARRY E 8/
ID
REP
o
$1,734,617
39 PARMER, HUGH QUAY
TX
DEM
C
$1,674,600
40 ROLDE, NEIL
ME
DEM
C
$1,635,717
41 SMITH, ROBERT C
NH
REP
O
$1,509,288
42 LONSDALE, HAROLD KENNETH
OR
DEM
c
$1,496,111
43 DAUB, HAL
NE
REP
C
$1,461,846
44 COHEN, WILLIAM S
ME
REP
I
$1,452,273
45 WELLSTONE, PAUL DAVID
MN
DEM
C
$1,403,208
46 STEVENS, TED
AK
REP
I
$1,380,780
47 MUENSTER, THEODORE R
SD
DEM
C
$1,335,356
48 COCHRAN, THAD
MS
REP
I
$1,316,810
49 SIMPSON, ALAN K
WY
REP
I
$1,253,647
50 BOREN, DAVID LYLE
OK
DEM
I
$1,253,344
-19-
1989-90
TOP 50 SENATE - - CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE
PARTY
INC
INDIV
CHL
CONTRIB
OPN
1 HELMS, JESSE
NC
REP
I
,346,429
2 GRAMM, WILLIAM PHILIP
TX
REP
I
$9,081,419
3 GANTT, HARVEY B
NC
DEM
C
$7,081,114
4 SIMON, PAUL
IL
DEM
I
$6,698,373
5 BRADLEY, BILL
NJ
DEM
I
$6,502,155
6 KERRY, JOHN F
MA
DEM
I
$6,085,623
7 LEVIN, CARL
MI
DEM
I
$5,142,095
8 BOSCHWITZ, RUDY
MN
REP
I
$4,516,165
9 HARKIN, THOMAS R
IA
DEM
I
$3,331,293
10 TAUKE, TOM 8/
IA
REP
C
$3,284,974
11 MARTIN, LYNN
IL
REP
C
$3,056,751
12 DUKE, DAVID E
LA
REP
C
$2,571,210
13 MCCONNELL, MITCH
KY
REP
I
$2,485,976
14 COATS, DANIEL R
IN
REP
I
$2,404,943
15 JOHNSTON, J BENNETT
LA
DEM
I
$2,271,077
16 BROWN, G HANKS
CO
REP
o
$2,008,702
17 ROCKEFELLER, JOHN D IV
WV
DEM
I
$1,944,222
18 HEFLIN, HOWELL THOMAS
AL
DEM
I
$1,810,620
19 CABANISS, BILL
AL
REP
C
$1,424,131
20 SCHUETTE, WILLIAM D
MI
REP
C
$1,368,656
21 THURMOND, STROM
SC
REP
I
$1,364,044
22 DAUB, HAL
NE
REP
C
$1,310,066
23 SAIKI, PATRICIA FUKUDA 8/
HI
REP
C
$1,279,699
24 HEATH, JOSEPHINE WARD (JO
CO
DEM
O
$1,206,831
25 GORE, ALBERT JR
TN
DEM
I
$1,189,705
26 NUNN, SAMUEL AUGUSTUS
GA
DEM
I
$1,171,569
27 BOREN, DAVID LYLE
OK
DEM
I
$1,156,516
28 BAUCUS, MAX S
MT
DEM
I
$1,136,817
29 PELL, CLAIBORNE
RI
DEM
I
$1,125,436
30 HATFIELD, MARK o
OR
REP
I
$1,065,089
31 BIDEN, JOSEPH R JR
DE
DEM
I
$1,064,609
32 DOMENICI, PETE
NM
REP
I
$1,052,037
33 SLOANE, HARVEY I MD
KY
DEM
C
$1,044,213
34 SCHNEIDER, CLAUDINE C
RI
REP
C
$1,026,638
35 WELLSTONE, PAUL DAVID
MN
DEM
C
$1,022,075
36 EXON, J JAMES
NE
DEM
I
$1,014,747
37 PARMER, HUGH QUAY
TX
DEM
C
$947,452
38 PRESSLER, LARRY
SD
REP
I
$876,549
39 AKAKA, DANIEL K 8/
HI
DEM
I
$859,896
40 DURANT, CLARK
MI
REP
C
$825,266
41 WARNER, JOHN WILLIAM III
VA
REP
I
$824,167
42 MUENSTER, THEODORE R
SD
DEM
C
$812,413
43 COHEN, WILLIAM S
ME
REP
I
$775,382
44 CRAIG, LARRY E 8/
ID
REP
o
$747,943
45 RAPPAPORT, JAMES W
MA
REP
C
$666,525
46 SMITH, ROBERT C
NH
REP
O
$660,116
47 LONSDALE, HAROLD KENNETH
OR
DEM
C
$624,769
48 PRYOR, DAVID HAMPTON
AR
DEM
I
$614,196
49 HILL, BARON
IN
DEM
C
$544,189
50 COCHRAN, THAD
MS
REP
I
$520,472
-20-
1989-90
TOP 50 SENATE - CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PAC'S AND OTHER COMMITTEES
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE
PARTY
INC
OTHER
CHL
CMTE'S
OPN
1 HARKIN, THOMAS R
IA
DEM
I
$1,546,535
2 EXON, J JAMES
NE
DEM
I
$1,503,897
3 SIMON, PAUL
IL
DEM
I
$1,480,221
4 GRAMM, WILLIAM PHILIP
TX
REP
I
$1,426,839
5 ROCKEFELLER, JOHN D IV
WV
DEM
I
$1,425,405
6 JOHNSTON, J BENNETT
LA
DEM
I
$1,416,331
7 LEVIN, CARL
MI
DEM
I
$1,392,502
8 BROWN, G HANKS
CO
REP
O
$1,389,784
9 BAUCUS, MAX S
MT
DEM
I
$1,377,663
10 TAUKE, TOM 8/
IA
REP
C
$1,374,706
11 HEFLIN, HOWELL THOMAS
AL
DEM
I
$1,320,755
12 BOSCHWITZ, RUDY
MN
REP
I
$1,211,209
13 MARTIN, LYNN
IL
REP
C
$1,193,942
14 COATS, DANIEL R
IN
REP
I
$1,113,664
15 MCCONNELL, MITCH
KY
REP
I
$1,076,029
16 BRADLEY, BILL
NJ
DEM
I
$1,062,309
17 HATFIELD, MARK o
OR
REP
I
$969,720
18 GORE, ALBERT JR
TN
DEM
I
$931,438
19 SAIKI, PATRICIA FUKUDA
HI
REP
C
$902,829
20 PELL, CLAIBORNE
RI
DEM
I
$885,678
21 PRESSLER, LARRY
SD
REP
I
$861,339
22 AKAKA, DANIEL K 8/
HI
DEM
I
$854,107
23 HELMS, JESSE
NC
REP
I
$835,104
24 CRAIG, LARRY E 8/
ID
REP
O
$811,026
25 DOMENICI, PETE
NM
REP
I
$773,374
26 STEVENS, TED
AK
REP
I
$751,450
27 SCHUETTE, WILLIAM D
MI
REP
C
$735,932
28 SIMPSON, ALAN K
WY
REP
I
$705,773
29 GANTT, HARVEY B
NC
DEM
C
$695,852
30 BIDEN, JOSEPH R JR
DE
DEM
I
$690,816
31 SCHNEIDER, CLAUDINE C 8/
RI
REP
C
$688,865
32 SMITH, ROBERT C
NH
REP
o
$663,400
33 NUNN, SAMUEL AUGUSTUS
GA
DEM
I
$627,010
34 WARNER, JOHN WILLIAM III
VA
REP
I
$621,899
35 THURMOND, STROM
SC
REP
I
$562,695
36 COHEN, WILLIAM S
ME
REP
I
$549,194
37 COCHRAN, THAD
MS
REP
I
$534,450
38 SLOANE, HARVEY I MD
KY
DEM
C
$518,688
39 MUENSTER, THEODORE R
SD
DEM
C
$492,661
40 HILL, BARON
IN
DEM
C
$488,461
41 PRYOR, DAVID HAMPTON
AR
DEM
I
$485,067
42 HEATH, JOSEPHINE WARD (JO
CO
DEM
O
$314,413
43 WELLSTONE, PAUL DAVID
MN
DEM
C
$294,520
44 PARMER, HUGH QUAY
TX
DEM
C
$263,762
45 TWILEGAR, RON JESSE
ID
DEM
0
$212,049
46 EASLEY, MICHAEL F
NC
DEM
C
$198,925
47 KASSEBAUM, NANCY LANDON
KS
REP
I
$187,858
48 RAPPAPORT, JAMES W
MA
REP
C
$177,205
49 DONCHESS, JAMES W
NH
DEM
O
$84,375
50 CABANISS, BILL
AL
REP
C
$77,246
-21-
1989-90
TOP 50 SENATE DISBURSEMENTS
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE
PARTY
INC
NET
CHL
DISBURSE
OPN
1 HELMS, JESSE
NC
REP
I
$13,
355,336
2 GRAMM, WILLIAM PHILIP
TX
REP
I
,799,104
3 BRADLEY, BILL
NJ
DEM
I
$9,563,942
4 GANTT, HARVEY B
NC
DEM
C
$7,811,520
5 SIMON, PAUL
IL
DEM
I
$7,656,514
6 LEVIN, CARL
MI
DEM
I
$6,930,262
7 KERRY, JOHN F
MA
DEM
I
$6,234,887
8 BOSCHWITZ, RUDY
MN
REP
I
$6,221,333
9 HARKIN, THOMAS R
IA
DEM
I
$5,263,568
10 RAPPAPORT, JAMES W
MA
REP
C
$5,177,801
11 MCCONNELL, MITCH
KY
REP
I
$5,074,187
12 TAUKE, TOM 8/
IA
REP
C
$5,060,104
13 JOHNSTON, J BENNETT
LA
DEM
I
$4,989,521
14 MARTIN, LYNN
IL
REP
C
$4,921,613
15 BROWN, G HANKS
CO
REP
O
$3,723,911
16 COATS, DANIEL R
IN
REP
I
$3,718,903
17 HEFLIN, HOWELL THOMAS
AL
DEM
I
$3,204,160
18 SLOANE, HARVEY I MD
KY
DEM
C
$2,927,624
19 ROCKEFELLER, JOHN D IV
WV
DEM
I
$2,650,320
20 DUKE, DAVID E
LA
REP
C
$2,615,267
21 SCHUETTE, WILLIAM D
MI
REP
C
$2,417,705
22 BAUCUS, MAX S
MT
DEM
I
$2,409,262
23 SAIKI, PATRICIA FUKUDA 8/
HI
REP
C
$2,398,961
24 HATFIELD, MARK o
OR
REP
I
$2,357,058
25 PELL, CLAIBORNE
RI
DEM
I
$2,350,128
26 EXON, J JAMES
NE
DEM
I
$2,349,739
27 SCHNEIDER, CLAUDINE C 8/
RI
REP
C
$2,073,609
28 HEATH, JOSEPHINE WARD (JO
CO
DEM
o
$1,943,422
29 DOMENICI, PETE
NM
REP
I
$1,925,057
30 THURMOND, STROM
SC
REP
I
$1,916,702
31 BIDEN, JOSEPH R JR
DE
DEM
I
$1,888,146
32 CABANISS, BILL
AL
REP
C
$1,853,869
33 AKAKA, DANIEL K 8/
HI
DEM
I
$1,760,839
34 PARMER, HUGH QUAY
TX
DEM
C
$1,677,087
35 PRESSLER, LARRY
SD
REP
I
$1,664,341
36 CRAIG, LARRY E 8/
ID
REP
O
$1,652,532
37 GORE, ALBERT JR
TN
DEM
I
$1,630,919
38 ROLDE, NEIL
ME
DEM
C
$1,630,894
39 COHEN, WILLIAM S
ME
REP
I
$1,572,195
40 LONSDALE, HAROLD KENNETH
OR
DEM
C
$1,479,099
41 DAUB, HAL
NE
REP
C
$1,452,681
42 SMITH, ROBERT C
NH
REP
o
$1,420,172
43 BOREN, DAVID LYLE
OK
DEM
I
$1,372,014
44 WELLSTONE, PAUL DAVID
MN
DEM
C
$1,340,708
45 MUENSTER, THEODORE R
SD
DEM
C
$1,323,770
46 STEVENS, TED
AK
REP
I
$1,273,954
47 WARNER, JOHN WILLIAM III
VA
REP
I
$1,151,605
48 HILL, BARON
IN
DEM
C
$1,077,074
49 SIMPSON, ALAN K
WY
REP
I
$1,000,462
50 RAUH, JOHN
NH
DEM
O
$955,530
-22-
1989-90
TOP 50 SENATE - CASH-ON-HAND
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE
PARTY
INC
CASH
CHL
ON
OPN
HAND
1 GRAMM, WILLIAM PHILIP
TX
REP
I
$4,147,378
2 NUNN, SAMUEL AUGUSTUS
GA
DEM
I
$1,550,058
3 HEFLIN, HOWELL THOMAS
AL
DEM
I
$1,036,023
4 PRYOR, DAVID HAMPTON
AR
DEM
I
$1,005,464
5 JOHNSTON, J BENNETT
LA
DEM
I
$945,371
6 COCHRAN, THAD
MS
REP
I
$908,834
7 ROCKEFELLER, JOHN D IV
WV
DEM
I
$902,198
8 SIMON, PAUL
IL
DEM
I
$843,731
9 BRADLEY, BILL
NJ
DEM
I
$775,770
10 GORE, ALBERT JR
TN
DEM
I
$708,043
11 WARNER, JOHN WILLIAM III
VA
REP
I
$622,138
12 PRESSLER, LARRY
SD
REP
I
$556,585
13 BAUCUS, MAX S
MT
DEM
I
$505,883
14 BROWN, G HANKS
CO
REP
O
$455,834
15 SIMPSON, ALAN K
WY
REP
I
$433,246
16 COATS, DANIEL R
IN
REP
I
$363,900
17 EXON, J JAMES
NE
DEM
I
$270,574
18 STEVENS, TED
AK
REP
I
$234,997
19 THURMOND, STROM
SC
REP
I
$221,092
20 DOMENICI, PETE
NM
REP
I
$218,513
21 KASSEBAUM, NANCY LANDON
KS
REP
I
$217,135
22 PELL, CLAIBORNE
RI
DEM
I
$216,256
23 LEVIN, CARL
MI
DEM
I
$201,966
24 SAIKI, PATRICIA FUKUDA
HI
REP
C
$195,614
25 MCCONNELL, MITCH
KY
REP
I
$190,373
26 BIDEN, JOSEPH R JR
DE
DEM
I
$190,151
27 AKAKA, DANIEL K
HI
DEM
I
$161,134
28 BOREN, DAVID LYLE
OK
DEM
I
$158,133
29 CRAIG, LARRY E
ID
REP
o
$91,834
30 SMITH, ROBERT C
NH
REP
o
$89,118
31 BOSCHWITZ, RUDY
MN
REP
I
$79,070
32 SCHUETTE, WILLIAM D
MI
REP
C
$71,253
33 MARTIN, LYNN
IL
REP
C
$65,116
34 WELLSTONE, PAUL DAVID
MN
DEM
C
$62,500
35 HARKIN, THOMAS R
IA
DEM
I
$59,737
36 DUKE, DAVID E
LA
REP
C
$55,044
37 GANTT, HARVEY B
NC
DEM
C
$48,358
38 DURKIN, JOHN ANTHONY
NH
DEM
o
$20,296
39 COHEN, WILLIAM S
ME
REP
I
$17,906
40 WHITMAN, CHRISTINE TODD
NJ
REP
C
$13,594
41 EASLEY, MICHAEL F
NC
DEM
C
$13,378
42 SCHNEIDER, CLAUDINE C
RI
REP
C
$12,673
43 HELMS, JESSE
NC
REP
I
$12,326
44 KERRY, JOHN F
MA
DEM
I
$12,055
45 MUENSTER, THEODORE R
SD
DEM
C
$11,586
46 HEATH, JOSEPHINE WARD (JO
CO
DEM
o
$9,697
47 DAUB, HAL
NE
REP
C
$9,164
48 SLOANE, HARVEY I MD
KY
DEM
C
$7,972
49 RAPPAPORT, JAMES W
MA
REP
C
$7,260
50 SEAWELL, MALCOLM BUIE
CO
DEM
O
$6,998
-23-
1989-90
TOP 50 SENATE - DEBTS OWED
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE
PARTY
INC
DEBTS
CHL
OWED
OPN
1 RAPPAPORT, JAMES W
MA
REP
C
,342,006
2 HELMS, JESSE
NC
REP
I
$914,288
3 THOMAS, R P (BO)
NC
DEM
C
$722,576
4 LONSDALE, HAROLD KENNETH
OR
DEM
C
$720,504
5 DALY, DANIEL WILLIAM
MA
REP
C
$520,265
6 WARNER, JOHN WILLIAM III9/
VA
REP
I
$400,000
7 AKAKA, DANIEL K
HI
DEM
I
$318,584
8 VORHAUER, BRUCE
MT
REP
C
$298,584
9 CHRISTO, THOMAS K
NH
REP
o
$269,363
10 SCHUETTE, WILLIAM D
MI
REP
C
$245,000
11 TWILEGAR, RON JESSE
ID
DEM
O
$230,070
12 HEATH, JOSEPHINE WARD (JO
CO
DEM
o
$185,000
13 RAUH, JOHN
NH
DEM
o
$148,000
14 DURKIN, JOHN ANTHONY
NH
DEM
o
$135,398
15 BAGERT, BEN
LA
REP
C
$133,355
16 WHITMAN, CHRISTINE TODD
NJ
REP
C
$125,895
17 WELLSTONE, PAUL DAVID
MN
DEM
C
$117,513
18 CABANISS, BILL
AL
REP
C
$109,291
19 LUCERO, CARLOS
CO
DEM
O
$106,282
20 LEVIN, CARL
MI
DEM
I
$106,156
21 PARMER, HUGH QUAY
TX
DEM
C
$100,065
22 DAUB, HAL
NE
REP
C
$93,511
23 KERRY, JOHN F
MA
DEM
I
$92,765
24 EASLEY, MICHAEL F
NC
DEM
C
$86,117
25 BRADLEY, BILL
NJ
DEM
I
$83,000
26 ROLDE, NEIL
ME
DEM
C
$75,000
27 HUSTACE, MARIA M
HI
REP
C
$68,900
28 SCHNEIDER, CLAUDINE C
RI
REP
C
$67,811
29 DOMENECH, JOHN
MT
REP
C
$64,001
30 KOLSTAD, ALLEN C
MT
REP
C
$60,200
31 BIDEN, JOSEPH R JR
DE
DEM
I
$49,000
32 HARKIN, THOMAS R
IA
DEM
I
$48,515
33 SEAWELL, MALCOLM BUIE
CO
DEM
o
$39,510
34 GANTT, HARVEY B
NC
DEM
C
$35,235
35 BERG, THOMAS K
MN
DEM
C
$34,208
36 DUKE, DAVID E
LA
REP
C
$31,450
37 TAUKE, TOM
IA
REP
C
$30,387
38 FARRELL, WILLIAM E
MT
REP
C
$27,210
39 HATFIELD, MARK O
OR
REP
I
$25,223
40 DURANT, CLARK
MI
REP
c
$21,895
41 BRADY, M JANE
DE
REP
C
$17,378
42 HILL, BARON
IN
DEM
C
$16,194
43 MUENSTER, THEODORE R
SD
DEM
C
$15,914
44 SLOANE, HARVEY I MD
KY
DEM
C
$14,500
45 BROWN, G HANKS
CO
REP
O
$12,650
46 SPANNAUS, NANCY B
VA
DEM
c
$12,176
47 THORNTON, CURLY
MT
DEM
C
$10,500
48 BENAVIDES, TOM R
NM
DEM
C
$9,908
49 DASTUGUE, QUENTIN D
LA
REP
C
$9,680
50 SIMPSON, ALAN K
WY
REP
I
$7,918
-24-
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
OPN
CMTE'S
HAND
ALABAMA
1
CALLAHAN, HERBERT L
I
REP
W
100.000
$318,680
$129,153
$169,350
$183,910
$236,511
$0
2
DICKINSON, WILLIAM L
I
REP
W
51.289
$425,127
$171,618
$218,921
$596,096
$250,325
$0
BAGGIANO, FAYE S
C
DEM
L
48.711
$169,109
$38,099
$91,752
$163,663
$5,445
$0
4/
3
BROWDER, JOHN GLEN
I
DEM
W
73.729
$280,234
$78,049
$190,058
$176,550
$119,913
$0
SLEDGE, DON
C
REP
L
26.271
$22,990
$14,842
$100
$22,989
$0
$0
4
BEVILL, TOM
I
DEM
W
100.000
$220,907
$17,730
$106,550
$168,054
$566,499
$0
5
MCDONALD, ALBERT CLY
o
REP
L
32.859
$184,089
$133,069
$27,200
$184,188
$0
$0
CRAMER, ROBERT E JR
0
DEM
W
67.141
$662,457
$326,753
$246,932
$638,361
$20,771
$87,000
6
ERDREICH, BENJAMIN L
I
DEM
W
92.828
$237,722
$32,063
$172,819
$113,168
$364,025
$0
ALVEREZ, DAVID A
C
IND
L
5.967
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
7
HARRIS, CLAUDE JR
I
DEM
W
70.535
$237,577
$73,745
$151,307
$238,466
$77,742
$0
BARKER, MICHAEL DEAN
C
REP
L
29.465
$59,802
$36,630
$0
$58,952
$847
$27,062
ALASKA
0
DEVENS, JOHN
C
DEM
L
47.836
$168,038
$67,726
$13,150
$164,732
$624
$42,632
YOUNG, DONALD E
I
REP
W
51.659
$560,908
$265,345
$277,725
$564,759
$5,543
$100,119
AMERICAN SAMOA
0
TUUFULI, MOA A LII T
C
DEM
L
4.360
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
TAGO, ACE A
C
IND
L
23.271
$61,992
$63,877
$0
$80,399
-$450
$11,317
LUTU, AFOA MOEGA
C
IND
L
17.532
$52,424
$8,401
$0
$52,363
$60
$0
FALEOMAVAEGA, ENI FA
I
DEM
W
54.836
$122,123
$90,122
$13,350
$117,430
$4,369
$22,805
ARIZONA
1
RHODES, JOHN JACOB I
I
REP
W
99.525
$326,640
$154,036
$170,339
$323,328
$9,621
$0
2
UDALL, MORRIS KING
I
DEM
W
65.889
$153,320
$10,816
$135,250
$112,373
$73,749
$0
SWEENEY, JOSEPH D
C
REP
L
34.073
$1,470
$615
$0
$1,445
$25
$0
-25-
3
STUMP, BOB
I
REP
W
56.587
$231,127
$79,863
$132,850
$225,149
$113,651
$0
HARTSTONE, ROGER D
C
DEM
L
43.413
$9,735
$7,060
$2,650
$9,353
$381
$0
4
IVEY, MARK JR
C
DEM
L
38.659
$39,515
$28,011
$4,500
$38,851
$665
$1,495
KYL, JON L
I
REP
W
61.341
$588,180
$373,560
$171,389
$442,366
$335,702
$6,797
5
PHILLIPS, CHUCK
C
DEM
L
35.245
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
KOLBE, JIM
I
REP
W
64.755
$325,457
$185,434
$133,605
$250,642
$81,087
$0
ARKANSAS
1
ALEXANDER, WILLIAM V
I
DEM
W
64.308
$773,016
$282,620
$405,150
$785,626
$4,763
$112,834
HAYES, TERRY OWEN
C
REP
L
35.692
$36,792
$26,311
$2,000
$36,731
$0
$13,719
2
KEET, JAMES HOLLAND
o
REP
L
39.586
$436,883
$292,095
$24,157
$430,932
$5,950
$105,174
THORNTON, RAY
O
DEM
W
60.414
$697,067
$376,229
$242,900
$678,429
$18,638
$42,683
3
HAMMERSCHMIDT, JOHN
I
REP
W
70.505
$266,438
$41,505
$166,500
$105,354
$500,684
$0
IVY, DANNY CHRIS
C
DEM
L
29.495
$15,876
$2,777
$4,000
$15,730
$144
$0
4
ROOD, ROY ELMER
C
REP
L
27.627
$520
$0
$0
$511
$193
$0
ANTHONY, BERYL FRANK
I
DEM
W
72.373
$530,662
$73,054
$374,300
$480,853
$364,662
$0
CALIFORNIA
1
RIGGS, FRANK DUNCAN
C
REP
W
43.334
$257,745
$98,762
$8,000
$251,662
$6,677
$148,055
BOSCO, DOUGLAS H
I
DEM
L
41.895
$408,849
$200,807
$190,421
$413,213
$832
$24,578
COMINGORE, DARLENE G
C
PAF
L
14.771
$9,377
$8,747
$0
$7,291
$81
$516
2
HERGER, WALTER WILLI
I
REP
W
63.665
$616,075
$382,079
$212,749
$515,020
$114,862
$0
CRAIN, ROSS
C
LIB
L
5.135
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
RUSH, ERWIN E "BILL"
C
DEM
L
31.200
$6,118
$1,175
$2,000
$5,951
$167
$0
3
LANDOWSKI, LOWELL PA
C
REP
L
34.757
$4,545
$4,334
$250
$4,628
$50
$0
MCCANN, DAVID M
C
LIB
L
4.928
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
MATSUI, ROBERT T
I
DEM
W
60.315
$1,207,843
$486,852
$582,964
$734,005
$1,128,637
$0
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
OPN
CMTE'S
HAND
CALIFORNIA
C
REP
L
39.314
$40,439
$36,810
$3,500
$40,040
$395
$16,035
4
BAUGHMAN, MARK
BIGWOOD, BRYCE
C
LIB
L
5.999
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
FAZIO, VIC
I
DEM
W
54.687
$845,622
$320,147
$451,245
$1,029,304
$194,935
$533
5
NICHOLS, ALAN H
C
REP
L
22.822
$153,947
$88,313
$5,190
$154,858
-$911
$79,540
PELOSI, NANCY
I
DEM
W
77.178
$462,664
$202,424
$262,900
$440,973
$97,689
$0
6
BOERUM, BILL
C
REP
L
31.928
$32,788
$23,838
$6,000
$32,724
$63
$900
BOXER, BARBARA
I
DEM
W
68.072
$921,666
$542,898
$337,124
$655,402
$499,349
$0
$438,229
$0
7
MILLER, GEORGE
I
DEM
W
60.506
$469,400
$129,790
$262,657
$448,026
PAYTON, ROGER ALLEN
C
REP
L
39.494
$47,918
$36,811
$1,150
$47,912
$6
$0
8
DELLUMS, RONALD V
I
DEM
W
61.297
$790,386
$547,479
$71,935
$840,029
$82,629
$45,000
$0
$0
$0
GALEWSKI, BARBARA
C
REP
L
38.703
$0
$0
$0
9
STARK, FORTNEY
I
DEM
W
58.426
$525,271
$137,760
$270,170
$300,996
$362,004
$0
ROMERO, VICTOR ARNOL
C
REP
L
41.574
$206,798
$75,680
$1,000
$210,089
$753
$106,914
10
EDWARDS, DON
I
DEM
W
62.674
$224,999
$47,880
$171,050
$209,243
$55,464
$0
PATROSSO, MARK STEVE
C
REP
L
37.315
$2,702
$1,495
$0
$2,581
$91
$0
11
GENIS, JUNE R
C
LIB
L
5.345
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
QURAISHI, G M (BILL)
C
REP
L
28.750
$97,638
$55,654
$6,300
$97,030
$714
$38,689
LANTOS, THOMAS P
I
DEM
W
65.905
$788,298
$597,361
$120,550
$620,782
$637,734
$0
12
PALMER, ROBERT
C
DEM
L
33.676
$109,410
$9,560
$27,550
$103,839
$2,723
$56,563
CAMPBELL, THOMAS J
I
REP
W
60.845
$1,286,200
$992,893
$249,581
$658,135
$633,197
$362
OLSON, CHUCK
C
LIB
L
5.479
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
13
SMITH, DAVID ELLIOTT
C
REP
L
35.654
$670
$660
$0
$624
$17
$0
C
LIB
L
6.315
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
WEBSTER, JOHN H
MINETA, NORMAN Y
I
DEM
W
58.031
$666,915
$259,155
$361,274
$644,962
$342,701
$0
14
MALBERG, PATRICIA AN
o
DEM
L
48.481
$222,011
$169,473
$45,911
$220,379
$3,592
$0
-26-
DOOLITTLE, JOHN T
0
REP
W
51.519
$529,813
$289,247
$234,764
$517,668
$12,142
$9,867
4/
15
BURRIS, CLIFF
C
REP
L
33.815
$31,920
$17,493
$0
$30,963
$15
$0
CONDIT, GARY
I
DEM
W
66.185
$234,423
$78,234
$74,970
$212,430
$21,991
$2,425
16
REISS, JERRY M
C
REP
L
22.036
$23,939
$12,789
$0
$23,849
$88
$10,000
PANETTA, LEON EDWARD
I
DEM
W
74.163
$295,399
$137,400
$133,750
$272,710
$204,599
$0
TUCKER, BRIAN H
C
LIB
L
3.802
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
17
PASHAYAN, CHARLES JR
I
REP
L
45.457
$557,949
$265,050
$283,684
$622,184
$6,909
$205
DOOLEY, CALVIN M
C
DEM
W
54.543
$547,763
$291,811
$171,185
$538,354
$9,409
$62,140
18
LEHMAN, RICHARD H
I
DEM
W
100.000
$302,473
$84,240
$201,780
$299,728
$96,145
$0
19
LAGOMARSINO, ROBERT
I
REP
W
54.604
$643,444
$465,444
$145,517
$658,365
$13,120
$32,600
$11,266
$137
$0
LORENZ, MINDY
C
L
0.955
$11,404
$10,904
$0
FERGUSON, ANITA PERE
C
DEM
L
44.441
$243,210
$129,922
$72,875
$241,815
$604
$2,000
20
DILBECK, WILLIAM H
C
LIB
L
5.587
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
REID, LITA MARTIN
C
DEM
L
0.162
$4,605
$2,618
$0
$5,276
$134
$12,258
THOMAS, MICHAEL ALAN
C
DEM
L
34.459
$695
$0
$0
$690
$15
$1,305
THOMAS, WILLIAM M
I
REP
W
59.792
$430,525
$156,536
$235,447
$496,845
$157,392
$0
REP
W
58.401
$599,454
$411,430
$156,861
$449,668
$231,271
$21,731
21
GALLEGLY, ELTON
I
CHRISTENSEN, PEGGY
C
LIB
L
7.583
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
FREIMAN, RICHARD DAV
C
DEM
L
34.016
$13,706
$11,793
$50
$13,147
$558
$4,869
MOORHEAD, CARLOS JOH
I
REP
W
60.042
$444,157
$100,672
$231,350
$400,109
$666,684
$0
22
TUCKER, JAN B
C
PAF
L
2.190
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
BAYER, DAVID
C
DEM
L
34.063
$40,872
$30,397
$1,975
$40,303
$568
$8,500
WILSON, WILLIAM H
C
LIB
L
3.704
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
OPN
CMTE'S
HAND
CALIFORNIA
23
BEILENSON, ANTHONY C
I
DEM
W
61.727
$231,386
$224,835
$0
$201,404
$45,449
$0
SALOMON, JIM
C
REP
L
34.183
$358,367
$338,164
$15,100
$360,389
$286
$1,500
HONIGSFELD, JOHN
C
PAF
L
4.090
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
24
PHAIR, MAGGIE
C
PAF
L
5.493
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
COWLES, JOHN N
C
REP
L
25.614
$1,835
$110
$0
$1,830
$388
$714
WAXMAN, HENRY A
I
DEM
W
68.892
$500,847
$136,324
$315,400
$287,505
$468,893
$0
25
ROYBAL, EDWARD R
I
DEM
W
70.026
$144,260
$35,185
$79,877
$190,702
$196,852
$0
RENSHAW, STEVEN J
C
REP
L
24.770
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SCOTT, ROBERT H
C
LIB
L
5.204
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
26
ZIMRING, BERNARD
C
LIB
L
4.122
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
BERMAN, HOWARD L
I
DEM
W
61.061
$510,538
$300,044
$181,500
$450,401
$200,471
$0
DAHLSON, ROY
C
REP
L
34.816
$83,775
$4,848
$250
$82,453
$0
$0
27
LEVINE, MEL
I
DEM
W
58.205
$1,496,790
$1,053,825
$239,207
$587,961
$1,714,807
$0
COHEN, DAVID BARRETT
C
REP
L
37.246
$148,295
$65,442
$1,000
$146,206
$2,087
$0
FERRER, EDWARD E
C
PAF
L
4.549
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
28
ADAMS, GEORGE JOSEPH
C
REP
L
22.223
$6,600
$0
$0
$3,799
$2,672
$3,000
DIXON, JULIAN C
I
DEM
W
72.680
$161,900
$37,535
$124,145
$113,669
$136,981
$0
WEBER, BOB
C
LIB
L
2.249
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
WIILIAMS, WILLIAM R
C
PAF
L
2.848
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
29
0
DEM
W
79.401
$740,793
$397,513
$211,172
$759,538
$27,717
$0
WATERS, MAXINE
DEWITT, WILLIAM H
O
REP
L
18.639
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
BOCTOR, WAHEED R
o
LIB
L
1.961
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
30
FEGER, G. CURTIS
C
LIB
L
4.755
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
FRANCO, REUBEN DANIE
C
REP
L
37.030
$72,572
$49,821
$15,950
$72,867
$90
$47,943
-27-
MARTINEZ, MATTHEW G
I
DEM
W
58.215
$209,495
$110,170
$93,803
$186,130
$43,205
$0
31
DYMALLY, MERVYN M
I
DEM
W
67.146
$434,143
$242,253
$173,316
$418,232
$25,795
$0
SATO, EUNICE N
C
REP
L
32.854
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
32
KAHN, SANFORD W
C
REP
L
38.475
$7,590
$4,749
$0
$7,579
$34
$6,000
ANDERSON, GLENN M
I
DEM
W
61.525
$411,845
$126,968
$257,766
$462,503
$31,783
$0
33
WEBB, GEORGIA HOUSTO
C
DEM
L
31.404
$29,612
$20,512
$2,950
$29,177
$435
-$231
LIGHTFOOT, GAIL
C
LIB
L
4.926
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
DREIER, DAVID T
I
REP
W
63.670
$591,313
$249,831
$100,276
$172,451
$1,669,915
$0
34
TORRES, ESTEBAN EDWA
I
DEM
W
60.703
$241,635
$101,629
$87,788
$217,810
$148,388
$0
EASTMAN, JOHN CHARLE
C
REP
L
39.297
$75,581
$61,189
$11,050
$75,123
$457
$15,455
35
LEWIS, JERRY
I
REP
W
60.582
$452,381
$148,728
$292,014
$211,940
$338,797
$0
JOHNSON, JERRY
C
LIB
L
6.487
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
NORTON, BARRY
C
DEM
L
32.931
$2,266
$40
$0
$2,371
$24
$0
36
BROWN, GEORGE E JR
I
DEM
W
52.711
$818,181
$330,204
$454,935
$822,686
$4,345
$58,255
HAMMOCK, ROBERT L
C
REP
L
47.289
$538,381
$411,869
$104,035
$538,156
$226
$192,320
37
ODOM, GARY R
C
IND
L
2.790
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
FLICKINGER, BONNIE
C
LIB
L
2.662
$2,318
$2,318
$0
$2,318
$0
$1,136
WAITE, RALPH H
C
DEM
L
44.795
$622,159
$201,466
$149,266
$624,560
-$2,401
$284,929
MCCANDLESS, ALFRED A
I
REP
W
49.754
$551,789
$286,265
$179,600
$602,444
$5,600
$20,000
38
JACKSON, BARBARA
C
DEM
L
41.910
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
DORNAN, ROBERT KENNE
I
REP
W
58.090
$1,615,282
$1,579,418
$35,234
$1,445,577
$185,200
$17,000
$97,744
$0
39
DANNEMEYER, WILLIAM
I
REP
W
65.345
$594,692
$456,693
$129,250
$627,842
HOFFMAN, FRANCIS X "
C
DEM
L
30.804
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
QUIRK, MAXINE BELL
C
IND
L
3.851
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
CMTE'S
HAND
OPN
CALIFORNIA
REP
W
67.637
$688,836
$504,199
$179,516
$682,365
$5,113
$61,622
40
COX, C CHRISTOPHER
I
GRATZ, EUGENE C
C
DEM
L
32.363
$43,277
$35,714
$600
$36,124
$3,603
$0
41
KRIPKE, DANIEL F MD
C
DEM
L
43.582
$65,546
$6,388
$5,000
$72,261
$267
$39,000
REP
W
49.234
$485,964
$268,214
$205,165
$575,637
$28,497
$13,582
LOWERY, WILLIAM DAVI
I
WORKS, KAREN S R
C
PAF
L
7.185
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
42
KIMBROUGH, GUY CAMPB
C
DEM
L
36.459
$29,555
$9,566
$7,950
$28,350
$1,222
$14,800
C
LIB
L
4.202
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
MARTIN, RICHARD GIBB
ROHRABACHER, DANA TY
I
REP
W
59.339
$423,924
$296,946
$119,075
$398,963
$50,016
$650
43
PACKARD, RONALD C
I
REP
W
68.068
$167,017
$41,776
$99,716
$147,249
$174,589
$0
ARNOLD, RICHARD (RIC
C
LIB
L
13.829
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
HANSEN, DOUG
C
PAF
L
18.102
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
44
BATES, JIM
I
DEM
L
44.809
$773,364
$356,237
$360,800
$744,463
$28,580
$27,347
WALLNER, JOHN
C
LIB
L
4.034
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$30,760
CUNNINGHAM, RANDY "D
C
REP
W
46.340
$539,721
$285,651
$214,547
$534,167
$5,553
WHITE, DONNA
C
PAF
L
4.817
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
45
HUNTER, DUNCAN LEE
I
REP
W
72.847
$368,560
$245,493
$110,465
$376,408
$6,229
$0
$0
$0
SHEA, JOE
C
LIB
L
27.153
$0
$0
$0
$0
COLORADO
1
SCHROEDER, PATRICIA
I
DEM
W
63.713
$441,609
$289,245
$113,588
$521,500
$182,156
$0
ROEMER, GLORIA GONZA
C
REP
L
36.287
$162,502
$107,424
$15,200
$161,266
$1,233
$3,076
$0
$0
2
LEWIS, JASON M
C
REP
L
39.329
$49,679
$29,574
$5,900
$49,080
SKAGGS, DAVID
I
DEM
W
60.671
$415,235
$167,853
$242,070
$396,017
$31,628
$9,456
3
CAMPBELL, BEN NIGHTH
I
DEM
W
70.211
$310,176
$92,025
$215,980
$335,760
$13,513
$0
$0
$0
FIELDS, HOWARD E
C
POP
L
1.611
$1,237
$297
$0
$1,237
ELLIS, ROBERT THOMAS
C
REP
L
28.178
$27,049
$18,336
$7,600
$26,917
$128
$1,113
-28-
4
BOND, RICHARD RANDOL
o
DEM
L
45.949
$486,762
$204,367
$255,580
$481,666
$5,067
$3,833
$3,428
$10,000
ALLARD, WAYNE
o
REP
W
54.051
$363,633
$147,290
$174,550
$360,206
5
JOHNSTON, CAL
C
DEM
L
30.048
$15,313
$5,239
$6,143
$15,288
$30
$921
HEFLEY, JOEL
I
REP
W
66.435
$135,707
$11,982
$114,981
$111,435
$85,219
$0
$0
$0
$0
HAMBURGER, KEITH L
C
LIB
L
3.516
$0
$0
$0
6
JARRETT, DON
C
DEM
L
35.499
$2,295
$0
$0
$2,958
$0
$0
SCHAEFER, DANIEL L (
I
REP
W
64.501
$375,683
$129,618
$229,103
$280,103
$122,410
$0
CONNECTICUT
$0
$0
$0
1
GARVEY, JAMES PATRIC
C
REP
L
28.597
$0
$0
$0
KENNELLY, BARBARA BA
I
DEM
W
71.403
$483,041
$157,190
$297,700
$406,138
$176,983
$0
2
GEJDENSON, SAMUEL
I
DEM
W
59.705
$458,980
$244,803
$185,950
$464,500
$4,658
$36,737
$112,881
$141
$67,382
RAGSDALE, JOHN MILTO
C
REP
L
40.295
$113,024
$24,151
$0
3
SCOTT, THOMAS
0
REP
L
47.896
$311,727
$209,823
$64,937
$304,258
$7,466
$16,239
DELAURO, ROSA L
0
DEM
W
52.104
$973,625
$550,104
$401,805
$957,982
$15,642
$100,001
$58,000
$395,892
$74,546
$0
4
SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER
I
REP
W
76.562
$447,077
$374,360
SMITH, ALFRED J JR
C
DEM
L
23.438
$90,780
$18,430
$1,000
$90,634
$504
$47,500
5
FRANKS, GARY A
0
REP
W
51.713
$587,045
$244,153
$177,927
$581,625
$5,430
$74,377
$0
$1,000
$0
$0
HARE, WILLIAM GEORGE
O
LIB
L
1.040
$1,000
$0
MOFFETT, ANTHONY TOB
O
DEM
L
47.248
$880,726
$443,524
$411,188
$877,116
$3,610
$21,847
6
JOHNSON, NANCY LEE
I
REP
W
74.370
$517,724
$236,562
$252,737
$556,718
$117,662
$0
$13,150
$4,000
$22,211
$263
$4,061
KULAS, PAUL A
C
DEM
L
25.630
$22,475
DELAWARE
0
WILLIAMS, RALPH o
C
REP
L
33.295
$49,772
$39,770
$0
$49,770
$0
$8,432
CARPER, THOMAS R
I
DEM
W
66.705
$548,682
$333,507
$204,220
$521,336
$53,814
$0
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
OPN
CMTE'S
HAND
DIST OF COLUMBIA
0
NORTON, ELEANOR H
O
DEM
W
63.121
$447,441
$275,730
$145,205
$446,856
$584
$55,121
DABNEY, DAVID H
o
IND
L
2.138
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
CURE, GEORGE X
O
IND
L
5.230
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SINGLETON, HARRY MIC
o
REP
L
26.930
$86,272
$66,133
$2,000
$85,985
$788
$59,696
FLORIDA
1
KETCHEL, TERRANCE R
C
REP
L
47.765
$184,650
$113,913
$8,198
$
$182,229
$2,417
$42,959
HUTTO, EARL D
I
DEM
W
52.235
$184,405
$70,511
$95,307
$158,280
$109,103
$0
2
PETERSON, DOUGLAS BR
C
DEM
W
56.946
$306,429
$118,455
$133,170
$306,104
$323
$62,141
GRANT, BILL
I
REP
L
43.054
$801,238
$441,711
$305,253
$839,764
$3,818
$0
3
SULLIVAN, ROD
C
REP
L
27.349
$15,336
$3,336
$0
$13,414
$1,935
$12,000
BENNETT, CHARLES EDW
I
DEM
W
72.651
$87,580
$9,545
$30,450
$108,953
$280,990
$4,073
4
JAMES, CRAIG TAYLOR
I
REP
W
55.914
$643,579
$295,720
$211,951
$634,891
$11,526
$155,000
HUGHES, REID
C
DEM
L
44.086
$1,073,878
$161,633
$103,400
$1,067,366
$6,511
$748,253
5
FLETCHER, ROBERT B
C
DEM
L
40.108
$22,560
$14,563
$2,371
$18,635
$3,923
$3,900
MCCOLLUM, BILL
I
REP
W
59.892
$427,325
$210,609
$148,050
$564,994
$101,264
$0
6
STEARNS, CLIFFORD B
I
REP
W
59.223
$497,703
$262,565
$200,346
$462,925
$47,634
$58,073
JOHNSON, ART
C
DEM
L
40.777
$27,844
$1,786
$0
$26,443
$1,401
$1,401
7
PROUT, CHARLES D
C
REP
L
32.443
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
GIBBONS, SAM M
I
DEM
W
67.557
$492,517
$88,017
$316,125
$825,795
$278,960
$0
8
YOUNG, C W BILL CONG
I
REP
W
100.000
$231,400
$47,709
$132,900
$201,188
$341,773
$0
9
BILIRAKIS, MICHAEL
I
REP
W
58.105
$600,670
$300,241
$234,430
$815,366
$2,617
$5,000
KNAPP, CHERYL DAVIS
C
DEM
L
41.895
$90,307
$43,335
$36,915
$89,852
$455
$5,623
10
IRELAND, ANDREW P
I
REP
W
100.000
$410,468
$229,912
$169,683
$384,555
$98,267
$0
11
BACCHUS, JAMES L
o
DEM
W
51.936
$877,500
$406,493
$412,573
$875,386
$2,112
$17,386
-29-
TOLLEY, WILLIAM R
O
REP
L
48.064
$365,313
$204,307
$106,100
$364,926
$471
$38,917
12
LEWIS, TOM
I
REP
W
100.000
$336,333
$226,431
$80,425
$401,225
$121,358
$0
13
GOSS, PORTER JOHNSTO
I
REP
W
100.000
$303,600
$175,111
$122,125
$244,740
$100,030
$35,183
14
SHORE, HOWARD SCOTT
C
REP
L
33.960
$216,826
$149,995
$9,800
$213,139
$3,649
$86,647
JOHNSTON, HARRY A II
I
DEM
W
66.040
$508,525
$234,003
$253,169
$469,101
$42,284
$0
15
SHAW, EUGENE CLAY JR
I
REP
W
97.774
$413,387
$153,631
$245,760
$120,632
$306,224
$0
16
SMITH, LAWRENCE JACK
I
DEM
W
100.000
$527,994
$235,541
$246,935
$275,873
$413,843
$0
17
RODNEY, EARL
C
REP
L
21.683
$37,812
$5,670
$50
$37,287
$525
$31,250
LEHMAN, WILLIAM SR
I
DEM
W
78.317
$425,117
$178,744
$216,350
$369,764
$275,781
$0
4/ 18
ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA
I
REP
W
60.380
$575,234
$385,784
$168,784
$560,847
$14,387
$0
ANSCHER, BERNARD
C
DEM
L
39.620
$112,072
$5,290
$750
$112,071
$0
$743
19
FASCELL, DANTE B
I
DEM
W
61.979
$452,275
$186,436
$164,116
$500,117
$539,060
$0
ALLEN, BOB
C
REP
L
38.021
$162,658
$130,601
$400
$160,220
$2,399
$4,102
GEORGIA
1
THOMAS, ROBERT LINDS-
I
DEM
W
71.223
$378,206
$195,058
$167,765
$399,035
$67,690
$0
MEREDITH, JOHN CHRIS
C
REP
L
28.777
$19,196
$5,607
$0
$19,130
$95
$6,439
2
HATCHER, CHARLES
I
DEM
W
73.024
$328,506
$110,435
$211,150
$296,470
$38,709
$18,176
WATERS, JONATHAN PER
C
REP
L
26.976
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
3
BROUN, PAUL COLLINS
C
REP
L
36.842
$70,271
$48,745
$15,600
$69,638
$632
$15,444
RAY, RICHARD B
I
DEM
W
63.158
$369,264
$126,981
$155,950
$378,774
$180,654
$30,000
4
LINDER, JOHN
C
REP
L
47.567
$696,858
$400,346
$138,474
$696,859
$0
$89,975
JONES, BEN LEWIS
I
DEM
W
52.433
$707,046
$255,254
$416,333
$711,015
$1,959
$32,315
5
LEWIS, JOHN
I
DEM
W
75.592
$271,450
$94,967
$175,510
$108,118
$260,822
$0
TIBBS, JAMES W DR
C
REP
L
24.408
$1,992
$0
$0
$7,755
$0
$2,663
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
OPN
CMTE'S
HAND
GEORGIA
6
WORLEY, DAVID JAMES
C
DEM
L
49.683
$342,310
$140,783
$163,190
$333,873
$10,846
$31,558
GINGRICH, NEWT
I
REP
W
50.317
$1,538,827
$1,088,529
$433,421
$1,538,945
$24,739
$133,575
7
BEVERLY, ALFRED W
C
REP
L
39.891
$19,028
$12,293
$0
$18,692
$335
$3,100
DARDEN, GEORGE W (BU
I
DEM
W
60.109
$463,055
$185,415
$238,006
$480,886
$100,737
$0
8
CUNNINGHAM, ROBERT F
C
REP
L
31.253
$106,278
$87,196
$2,250
$105,270
$1,007
$5,000
ROWLAND, JAMES ROY J
I
DEM
W
68.747
$368,200
$96,057
$228,050
$365,513
$210,642
$0
9
JENKINS, EDGAR L
I
DEM
W
55.825
$302,029
$41,605
$186,000
$318,247
$448,273
$0
HOFFMAN, CHARLES JOS
C
REP
L
44.175
$139,652
$118,482
$8,500
$134,772
$4,133
$12,653
10
BARNARD, DRUIE DOUGL
I
DEM
W
54.712
$778,139
$111,977
$264,551
$937,464
$359,869
$88,000
JONES, SAMUEL RAY JR
C
REP
L
45.288
$238,903
$95,316
$21,750
$154,326
$85,306
$1,348
GUAM
0
PANGELINAN, VICENTE
C
DEM
L
43.028
$89,411
$24,433
$0
$87,410
$1,746
$56,575
BLAZ, BEN GARRIDO
I
REP
W
55.993
$104,820
$65,139
$20,050
$107,250
$5,705
$3,300
HAWAII
1
LIU, MICHAEL MINORU
o
REP
L
38.708
$271,319
$108,066
$57,601
$267,882
$3,436
$97,400
TAYLOR, ROGER
o
LIB
L
1.295
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
ABERCROMBIE, NEIL
o
DEM
W
59.997
$476,231
$312,354
$143,600
$442,211
$34,017
$27,938
2
POEPOE, ANDREW K
o
REP
L
30.639
$191,641
$106,882
$42,460
$204,153
$1,748
$27,000
MINK, PATSY TAKEMOTO
O
DEM
W
66.272
$641,324
$283,810
$147,784
$641,037
$288
$191,255
MALLAN, LLOYD
o
LIB
L
3.089
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
IDAHO
1
LA ROCCO, LARRY
o
DEM
W
53.006
$449,419
$154,286
$238,753
$447,895
$1,522
$71,316
-30-
SMYSER, CHARLES A "S
o
REP
L
46.994
$487,424
$220,371
$198,459
$480,994
$6,430
$29,220
2
MCDEVITT, SEAN DANIE
C
REP
L
36.380
$142,851
$41,996
$1,900
$141,681
$1,089
$30,000
STALLINGS, RICHARD H
I
DEM
W
63.620
$405,115
$129,587
$266,702
$406,219
$583
$16,067
ILLINOIS
1
PEYTON, BABETTE
C
REP
L
6.234
$42,913
$9,068
$1,000
$42,901
$11
$27,404
HAYES, CHARLES A REP
I
DEM
W
93.766
$110,665
$22,349
$85,250
$125,509
$25,702
$6,572
2
SAVAGE, GUS
I
DEM
W
78.215
$196,926
$115,976
$57,800
$190,685
$5,941
$61,530
HESPEL, WILLIAM T
C
REP
L
21.785
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
KLEIN, CARL L
C
REP
L
29.073
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
3
RUSSO, MARTIN A
I
DEM
W
70.927
$547,782
$162,482
$382,966
$541,279
$8,789
$2,621
4
SANGMEISTER, GEORGE
I
DEM
W
59.204
$477,551
$100,800
$356,393
$472,757
$23,142
$6,000
HOFFMAN, MANNY
C
REP
L
40.796
$651,729
$292,150
$87,725
$642,391
$9,464
$157,420
5
SHESTOKAS, DAVID J
C
REP
L
30.958
$43,950
$8,431
$0
$42,218
$1,732
$35,437
LIPINSKI, WILLIAM o
I
DEM
W
66.344
$183,213
$44,710
$137,317
$171,746
$19,110
$0
BARTOS, RONALD (RON)
C
L
2.698
$4,200
$0
$0
$3,095
$1,104
$4,200
6
HYDE, HENRY J
I
REP
W
66.690
$302,541
$140,433
$130,648
$270,435
$187,768
$0
CASSIDY, TERENCE P
C
DEM
L
33.310
$1,520
$255
$0
$1,055
$503
$0
7
COLLINS, CARDISS
I
DEM
W
79.925
$278,392
$30,235
$229,648
$399,748
$90,094
$0
DOOLEY, ROBERT MICHA
C
REP
L
20.075
$0
$4,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
8
ROSTENKOWSKI, DAN
I
DEM
W
79.106
$378,282
$31,265
$197,700
$298,653
$1,114,068
$0
MARSHALL, ROBERT
C
LIB
L
20.894
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
9
YATES, SIDNEY R
I
DEM
W
71.214
$779,125
$487,335
$267,746
$839,106
$53,828
$0
SOHN, HERBERT MD
C
REP
L
28.786
$11,545
$9,545
$2,000
$15,164
$4,261
$17,797
10
GORRELL, HERBERT L
C
L
1.460
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
MCNAMARA, PEG
C
DEM
L
30.785
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
PORTER, JOHN EDWARD
I
REP
W
67.754
$255,970
$123,933
$110,025
$313,498
$71,996
$0
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
OPN
CMTE'S
HAND
ILLINOIS
11
ANNUNZIO, FRANK
I
DEM
W
53.618
$723,159
$206,867
$478,891
$855,952
$35,719
$0
SASKA, LARRY
C
L
1.745
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
DUDYCZ, WALTER W
C
REP
L
44.637
$408,470
$170,853
$217,755
$407,617
$850
$0
12
PEDERSEN, STEVE
C
L
17.778
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
CRANE, PHILIP MILLER
I
REP
W
82.222
$163,442
$140,245
$0
$163,376
$115,919
$0
13
FAWELL, HARRIS W
I
REP
W
65.804
$336,789
$207,130
$119,570
$271,913
$103,808
$0
14
HASTERT, J DENNIS
I
REP
W
66.905
$461,002
$258,477
$181,074
$312,555
$191,061
$0
WESTPHAL, DONALD J
C
DEM
L
33.095
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
15
MADIGAN, EDWARD R
I
REP
W
100.000
$432,247
$75,382
$272,087
$277,802
$542,570
$0
16
HALLOCK, JOHN W JR
0
REP
L
45.414
$495,061
$211,214
$205,507
$491,287
$1,177
$4,800
COX, JOHN W JR
o
DEM
W
54.586
$377,421
$159,757
$191,666
$371,114
$6,306
$13,318
17
LEE, DAN
C
REP
L
33.485
$116,755
$86,440
$26,830
$115,495
$1,256
$7,947
EVANS, LANE
I
DEM
W
66.515
$417,626
$182,912
$228,998
$390,401
$30,911
$0
18
MICHEL, ROBERT H
I
REP
W
98.437
$705,878
$160,721
$519,161
$579,258
$241,996
$0
19
KERANS, ROBERT F
C
REP
L
32.393
$3,418
$2,498
$250
$3,581
$38
$43,170
BRUCE, TERRY L
I
DEM
W
66.298
$471,745
$63,256
$306,491
$258,093
$574,423
$0
O'NEILL, BRIAN JAMES
C
L
1.309
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
20
DURBIN, RICHARD JOSE
I
DEM
W
66.200
$338,066
$97,710
$207,978
$209,360
$307,371
$0
JURGENS, PAUL EUGENE
C
REP
L
33.800
$44,565
$31,725
$10,500
$44,861
$0
$0
21
COSTELLO, JERRY F
I
DEM
W
66.045
$654,131
$376,857
$231,550
$380,559
$273,831
$0
GAFFNER, ROBERT H
C
REP
L
33.955
$24,670
$5,033
$0
$26,230
$374
$12,920
22
POSHARD, GLENDAL W
I
DEM
W
83.731
$68,078
$60,575
$5,150
$103,396
$2,136
$0
WHAM, JIM
C
REP
L
16.269
$26,137
$10,156
$0
$16,737
$6
$0
INDIANA
-31-
1
COSTAS, WILLIAM BILL
C
REP
L
33.966
$21,358
$6,228
$0
$21,355
$0
$0
VISCLOSKY, PETER J
I
DEM
W
66.034
$248,272
$64,521
$168,020
$299,280
$43,701
$0
2
PENCE, MICHAEL R
C
REP
L
40.629
$590,467
$469,273
$0
$595,457
$3,123
$70,614
SHARP, PHILIP R
I
DEM
W
59.371
$714,491
$183,811
$498,599
$773,178
$29,944
$0
3
ROEMER, TIM
C
DEM
W
50.892
$504,884
$209,276
$269,313
$473,055
$31,826
$0
HILER, JOHN PATRICK
I
REP
L
49.108
$776,009
$473,494
$257,112
$745,145
$33,481
$0
HAWKS, RICK
C
REP
L
39.335
$580,037
$457,001
$79,448
$575,363
$3,152
$1,991
LONG, JILL LYNETTE
I
DEM
W
60.665
$753,725
$264,678
$448,381
$752,362
$1,363
$11,973
5
JOHNSON, JOHN ARTHUR
C
REP
L
46.858
$783,818
$116,732
$33,600
$781,224
$2,594
$626,077
JONTZ, JAMES
I
DEM
W
53.142
$620,713
$192,231
$405,145
$652,280
$1,746
$42,596
6
BURTON, DAN
I
REP
W
63.473
$526,451
$274,824
$203,436
$311,727
$400,894
$0
FADELY, JAMES PHILIP
C
DEM
L
36.527
$41,866
$26,058
$9,000
$41,180
$686
$0
7
MYERS, JOHN T
I
REP
W
57.589
$198,891
$55,087
$98,870
$228,556
$102,885
$0
RILEY, JOHN WILLIAM
C
DEM
L
42.411
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
8
MOURDOCK, RICHARD E
C
REP
L
45.278
$147,535
$110,476
$13,125
$146,961
$572
$13,958
MCCLOSKEY, FRANK
I
DEM
W
54.722
$467,981
$129,792
$322,320
$446,040
$23,382
$0
9
COATES, FLOYD EUGENE
C
REP
L
31.007
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
HAMILTON, LEE HERBER
I
DEM
W
68.993
$399,758
$184,442
$188,824
$392,606
$58,592
$0
10
HORVATH, JANOS
C
REP
L
33.568
$21,644
$11,384
$0
$13,201
$8,441
$10,000
JACOBS, ANDREW JR
I
DEM
W
66.432
$28,712
$25,611
$0
$14,816
$32,188
$0
IOWA
1
LEACH, JIM
I
REP
W
100.000
$115,051
$109,665
$0
$87,489
$46,917
$0
2
TABOR, ERIC J
o
DEM
L
48.805
$567,456
$130,156
$389,847
$568,659
$788
$8,462
NUSSLE, JAMES ALLEN
o
REP
W
49.794
$469,933
$257,124
$146,558
$466,259
$3,673
$32,500
ZONNEVELD, JAN JQ
o
L
1.401
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
CMTE'S
HAND
OPN
IOWA
DEM
W
100.000
$360,951
$88,312
$264,001
$345,154
$30,045
$9,082
3
NAGLE, DAVID
I
4
SMITH, NEAL
I
DEM
W
97.873
$167,829
$9,321
$116,970
$56,903
$376,309
$0
5
LIGHTFOOT, JIM ROSS
I
REP
W
68.012
$497,363
$329,222
$146,243
$418,134
$140,810
$0
L
31.988
$67,655
$20,610
$34,920
$63,591
$3,993
$28,230
POWELL, RODNEY H
C
DEM
6
GRANDY, FREDRICK LAW
I
REP
W
71.826
$409,067
$145,742
$251,675
$322,563
$85,951
$101,069
EARLL, MIKE
C
DEM
L
28.174
$44,250
$19,588
$17,350
$42,597
$1,651
$5,205
KANSAS
1
ROBERTS, CHARLES PAT
I
REP
W
62.648
$222,760
$35,793
$132,250
$152,249
$400,824
$0
WEST, DUANE
C
DEM
L
37.352
$16,965
$10,965
$250
$16,701
$263
$615
2
SLATTERY, JIM
I
DEM
W
62.822
$467,018
$121,639
$327,550
$504,861
$52,999
$0
L
37.178
$87,021
$71,107
$8,054
$84,568
$2,417
$4,855
MORGAN, SCOTT ELLING
C
REP
3
MEYERS, JAN MC
I
REP
W
60.092
$211,505
$94,498
$110,641
$209,986
$2,081
$0
JONES, LEROY
C
DEM
L
39.908
$78,289
$14,870
$51,299
$76,007
$2,281
$2,500
REP
L
29.238
$4,227
$3,727
$300
$4,317
$54
$1,000
4
GRUND, ROGER M SR
C
GLICKMAN, DANIEL ROB
I
DEM
W
70.762
$520,945
$200,822
$294,865
$355,581
$192,262
$0
5
WINGERT, GEORGE D
o
DEM
L
40.736
$69,450
$37,925
$12,950
$68,281
$1,168
$15,575
REP
W
59.264
$573,188
$156,603
$100,125
$565,410
$7,776
$315,550
NICHOLS, RICHARD D
o
KENTUCKY
1
SEAT, MARVIN
C
POP
L
13.115
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
HUBBARD, CARROLL JR
I
DEM
W
86.885
$351,966
$40,945
$271,327
$239,620
$335,477
$0
REP
L
33.959
$144,166
$13,283
$1,600
$144,315
$6
$93,237
2
TORI, MARTIN A
C
NATCHER, WILLIAM H
I
DEM
W
66.041
$6,768
$0
$0
$6,766
$0
$0
3
BROWN, J ALPHONSO
C
REP
L
39.437
$329,060
$242,959
$33,675
$327,390
$1,669
$40,784
DEM
W
60.563
$301,713
$258,996
$300
$333,885
-$1,484
$36,900
MAZZOLI, ROMANO L
I
4
MARTIN, GALEN AFTON
C
DEM
L
30.669
$76,407
$21,545
$32,900
$76,580
$800
$23,445
-32-
BUNNING, JIM
I
REP
W
69.331
$532,775
$268,843
$225,900
$563,409
$97,018
$0
REP
W
100.000
$180,606
$77,756
$71,025
$103,286
$270,493
$0
5
ROGERS, HAROLD
I
6
HOPKINS, LARRY J U S
I
REP
W
100.000
$203,286
$1,400
$92,200
$120,647
$691,433
$0
7
PERKINS, CARL CHRIST
I
DEM
W
50.809
$340,047
$71,690
$267,575
$344,561
$3,640
$42,923
L
49.191
$170,784
$145,539
$9,500
$172,257
$1,490
$9,128
SCOTT, WILLIAM THOMP
C
REP
LOUISIANA
1
LIVINGSTON, ROBERT L
I
REP
W
100.000
$279,603
$116,959
$140,878
$108,207
$282,513
$0
2
JEFFERSON, WILLIAM J
o
DEM
W
52.546
$448,100
$239,066
$104,950
$446,743
$1,355
$159,655
MORIAL, MARC H
O
DEM
L
47.454
$492,323
$226,009
$26,500
$487,171
$4,847
$244,033
3
DUPLANTIS, RONALD P
C
L
8.432
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
TAUZIN, WILBERT J "B
I
DEM
W
87.857
$460,418
$122,990
$243,922
$474,224
$48,411
$0
C
L
3.711
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
CLEMENT, MILLARD F
4
CAMPBELL, FOSTER L
C
DEM
L
45.291
$316,703
$133,022
$139,450
$305,348
$12,676
$17,874
MCCRERY, JAMES OTIS -
I
REP
W
54.709
$469,766
$241,947
$190,623
$481,504
$37,690
$1,000
BATEY, CARL DENVER
C
DEM
L
13.799
$5,000
$0
$0
$4,415
$584
$4,000
5
KNOX, L.D. "NOTA"
C
L
3.314
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
HUCKABY, THOMAS JERA
I
DEM
W
73.518
$218,774
$65,951
$106,498
$240,832
$273,331
$0
ROARK, BRADLEY THOMA
C
REP
L
9.370
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$67,056
$0
6
BAKER, RICHARD HUGH
I
REP
W
100.000
$382,622
$217,459
$153,761
$332,905
7
HAYES, JAMES A
I
DEM
W
60.119
$317,295
$108,024
$164,850
$309,229
$48,849
$122,000
THIBODAUX, DAVID
C
REP
L
39.881
$158,918
$139,407
$7,957
$157,656
$1,061
$0
$62,110
$0
8
HOLLOWAY, CLYDE C
I
REP
W
56.440
$383,701
$228,655
$144,263
$385,877
FIELDS, CLEO
C
DEM
L
29.565
$120,070
$108,270
$8,500
$111,828
$9,561
$6,003
MCPHERSON, WILLIAM J
C
DEM
L
13.995
$181,505
$130,700
$30,550
$180,288
$1,215
$17,900
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
OPN
CMTE'S
HAND
MAINE
1
ANDREWS, THOMAS H
o
DEM
W
60.197
$696,604
$401,252
$244,473
$693,165
$9,437
$101,720
EMERY, DAVID F
o
REP
L
39.803
$465,551
$223,311
$162,121
$463,873
$1,676
$37,411
2
MCGOWAN, PATRICK K
C
DEM
L
48.971
$229,478
$148,599
$65,903
$228,344
$1,134
$3,582
SNOWE, OLYMPIA J
I
REP
W
51.029
$278,223
$157,500
$97,655
$306,289
$3,335
$5,500
MARYLAND
1
DYSON, ROY
I
DEM
L
43.160
$759,213
$236,189
$497,700
$771,809
$1,268
$27,492
GILCHREST, WAYNE THO
C
REP
W
56.840
$266,930
$150,992
$60,074
$264,932
$2,856
$5,575
2
BENTLEY, HELEN DELIC
I
REP
W
74.363
$781,008
$535,706
$214,305
$730,852
$131,837
$4,152
BOWERS, RONALD P
C
DEM
L
25.637
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
3
NICHOLS, HARWOOD S
C
REP
L
30.275
$4,325
$0
$0
$4,234
$90
$0
CARDIN, BENJAMIN LOU
I
DEM
W
69.725
$532,752
$188,626
$200,790
$363,847
$250,724
$0
4
MCMILLEN, C THOMAS
I
DEM
W
58.846
$757,145
$299,384
$423,275
$560,909
$328,285
$0
DUCKWORTH, ROBERT P
C
REP
L
41.154
$41,205
$6,593
$0
$41,129
$74
$33,033
5
BREUER, LEE F
C
REP
L
19.335
$9,084
$1,150
$0
$8,709
$372
$9,117
HOYER, STENY HAMILTO
I
DEM
W
80.665
$725,418
$253,316
$417,235
$716,469
$321,405
$0
6
BYRON, BEVERLY B
I
DEM
W
65.346
$282,337
$107,019
$165,245
$325,997
$33,737
$0
FIOTES, CHRISTOPHER
C
REP
L
34.654
$3,559
$2,335
$0
$3,557
$0
$0
7
KONDNER, KENNETH KAR
C
REP
L
15.008
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
MFUME, KWEISI
I
DEM
W
84.992
$224,826
$86,385
$128,000
$205,671
$84,387
$0
8
MORELLA, CONSTANCE A
I
REP
W
73.527
$542,961
$287,386
$239,709
$353,959
$201,384
$0
WALKER, JAMES W JR
C
DEM
L
22.242
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
ALTMAN, SIDNEY
C
IND
L
4.232
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
MASSACHUSETTS
1
CONTE, SILVIO O
I
REP
W
77.562
$146,537
$31,463
$63,502
$167,443
$258,037
$0
ARDEN, JOHN R
C
DEM
L
22.438
$664
$140
$0
$911
$48
$229
-33-
2
NEAL, RICHARD E
I
DEM
W
100.000
$462,672
$148,766
$248,878
$534,345
$12,496
$58,683
$0
3
EARLY, JOSEPH D
I
DEM
W
100.000
$281,707
$195,359
$86,348
$282,012
$111,190
4
FRANK, BARNEY
I
DEM
W
65.535
$643,920
$402,029
$220,517
$718,160
$53,329
$4,068
SOTO, JOHN RAYMOND
C
REP
L
34.465
$32,078
$16,403
$2,250
$31,903
$172
$6,846
5
ATKINS, CHESTER G
I
DEM
W
52.181
$843,893
$829,577
$430
$861,333
$2,449
$35,624
MACGOVERN, JOHN F
C
REP
L
47.819
$238,736
$196,324
$33,082
$236,851
$2,780
$23,755
6
C
REP
L
34.941
$20,196
$12,256
$200
$19,771
$423
$4,900
KELLEY, EDGAR L
MAVROULES, NICHOLAS
I
DEM
W
65.059
$289,794
$165,382
$119,749
$333,912
$61,574
$3,075
7
MARKEY, EDWARD JOHN
I
DEM
W
100.000
$336,209
$256,525
$0
$207,273
$579,994
$0
DAVIES, SUSAN CARYN
C
L
5.073
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
8
KENNEDY, JOSEPH P II
I
DEM
W
72.283
$805,013
$628,895
$108,550
$832,815
$227,284
$0
FISCUS, GLENN
C
REP
L
22.645
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
MOAKLEY, JOHN JOSEPH
I
DEM
W
70.281
$512,858
$184,320
$279,274
$318,847
$489,816
$0
9
HORAN, ROBERT
C
IND
L
29.719
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
10
STUDDS, GERRY E
I
DEM
W
53.408
$600,325
$339,590
$221,581
$620,387
$21,912
$0
BRYAN, JON LANCE
C
REP
L
46.592
$281,651
$187,285
$0
$271,902
$11,645
$118,000
11
DONNELLY, BRIAN
I
DEM
W
100.000
$303,943
$45,350
$168,850
$104,221
$669,414
$0
MICHIGAN
1
MAYS, ROBERT
C
IND
L
1.322
$8,500
$0
$0
$8,499
$0
$0
CONYERS, JOHN JR
I
DEM
W
89.276
$300,877
$109,466
$178,360
$288,906
$38,192
$32,267
SHOULDERS, RAYMOND H
C
REP
L
8.511
$545
$545
$0
$545
$0
$0
FLINT, JONATHAN PAUL
C
LIB
L
0.891
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
OPN
CMTE'S
HAND
MICHIGAN
DEM
L
33.172
$9,575
$2,575
$4,800
$9,573
$0
$0
2
WHITE, ELMER
C
PURSELL, CARL D
I
REP
W
64.078
$285,808
$163,293
$96,415
$135,801
$240,044
$0
3
HASKINS, BRADLEY JAM
C
REP
L
42.145
$280,311
$194,060
$56,300
$274,106
$4,355
$0
WOLPE, HOWARD E
I
DEM
W
57.855
$791,685
$309,241
$414,976
$815,244
$59,327
$3,000
4
UPTON, FREDERICK STE
I
REP
W
57.769
$445,881
$274,857
$152,654
$503,164
$42,144
$800
MCFARLAND, B JOANNE
C
DEM
L
42.231
$82,095
$15,578
$48,100
$78,392
$3,702
$0
I
REP
W
75.418
$398,627
$282,695
$92,880
$241,151
$275,521
$0
5
HENRY, PAUL B
TRZYBINSKI, THOMAS M
C
DEM
L
24.582
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
6
CARR, BOB
I
DEM
W
99.750
$397,155
$149,936
$208,550
$223,595
$255,444
$0
C
REP
L
31.620
$6,382
$5,820
$0
$6,382
$0
$0
7
MORRILL, DAVID J
KILDEE, DALE E
I
DEM
W
68.380
$259,480
$66,144
$187,746
$222,531
$39,580
$0
8
TRAXLER, BOB
I
DEM
W
68.605
$295,544
$74,562
$186,860
$176,479
$358,806
$0
C
REP
L
31.395
$558
$125
$0
$433
$125
$0
WHITE, L JAMES
9
GREENE, GERALDINE
C
DEM
L
45.244
$22,554
$4,507
$12,000
$22,155
$397
$900
VANDER JAGT, GUY A
I
REP
W
54.756
$448,892
$174,055
$270,171
$452,960
$104,106
$0
CONGDON, CHARLES
o
LIB
L
1.627
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
10
DENNISON, JOAN LOUIS
o
DEM
L
33.202
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
CAMP, DAVID LEE
o
REP
W
65.170
$667,713
$361,894
$175,075
$657,229
$10,483
$117,153
11
GOULD, MARCIA RAE
C
DEM
L
38.726
$3,721
$401
$0
$4,072
$10
$125
DAVIS, ROBERT WILLIA
I
REP
W
61.274
$340,079
$77,291
$242,224
$325,232
$114,637
$0
12
RODDIS, ROBERT W
C
LIB
L
1.628
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
DINGEMAN, JAMES H
C
REP
L
33.670
$296,051
$129,359
$31,156
$295,184
$867
$85,507
$0
BONIOR, DAVID EDWARD
I
DEM
W
64.702
$1,189,127
$341,880
$728,055
$1,188,905
$89,849
13
EDWARDS, CARL R SR
o
REP
L
16.519
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
PULLEY, CLEVE ANDREW
o
IND
L
0.782
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-34-
$52,524
COLLINS, BARBARA-ROS
o
DEM
W
80.135
$335,736
$134,205
$68,620
$274,688
$61,044
HAMPTON, JEFF J
o
LIB
L
0.957
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
GRIFFEN, JOYCE ANN
o
L
1.607
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
14
MORRIS, KENNETH N
C
LIB
L
1.394
$0
$0
MCNEALY, KENNETH C
C
REP
L
32.814
$1,256
$125
$0
$1,068
$0
$0
GALE, ROBERT JOHN
C
L
2.181
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
HERTEL, DENNIS M
I
DEM
W
63.610
$306,850
$93,566
$186,680
$187,545
$281,310
$0
15
FORD, WILLIAM D
I
DEM
W
61.196
$384,737
$67,689
$280,598
$354,964
$186,613
$0
ADKINS, BURL CLARENC
C
REP
L
36.581
$42,511
$25,811
$5,200
$42,834
$159
$5,825
HUNT, DAVID R
C
LIB
L
2.223
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
16
DINGELL, JOHN D
I
DEM
W
66.583
$843,579
$172,480
$625,727
$602,952
$490,871
$122
POPE, RODGER CONANT
C
LIB
L
1.511
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L
31.906
$3,775
$3,675
$0
$3,774
$0
$0
BEAUMONT, FRANK J
C
REP
17
LEVIN, SANDER
I
DEM
W
69.691
$356,280
$86,440
$241,525
$271,072
$255,205
$0
LANKFORD, BLAINE L
C
REP
L
30.309
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
DEM
L
33.637
$98,767
$32,125
$25,600
$97,203
$1,562
$240
18
BRIGGS, WALTER OWEN
C
BROOMFIELD, WILLIAM
I
REP
W
66.363
$243,762
$78,351
$56,200
$78,205
$754,678
$0
MINNESOTA
1
PENNY, TIMOTHY J
I
DEM
W
78.138
$230,040
$85,119
$113,050
$197,442
$256,193
$0
L
21.862
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
ANDERSON, DOUG
C
REP
2
WEBER, JOHN VINCENT
I
REP
W
61.853
$613,549
$328,166
$240,653
$670,684
$213,403
$0
STONE, JIM
C
DFL
L
38.147
$17,785
$4,993
$825
$17,778
$3
$1,455
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
OPN
CMTE'S
HAND
MINNESOTA
3
DEMARS, LOUIS G
o
DEM
L
32.986
$338,261
$176,952
$107,925
$337,321
$672
$43,231
RAMSTAD, JAMES M
O
REP
W
67.014
$936,208
$677,539
$237,745
$935,454
$753
$122,580
4
VENTO, BRUCE F
I
DEM
W
64.868
$259,456
$39,295
$187,095
$265,699
$155,180
$0
MAITLAND, IAN HAMILT
C
REP
L
35.132
$57,086
$50,830
$0
$57,415
$982
$14,204
5
SABO, MARTIN OLAV
I
DEM
W
72.804
$355,684
$75,264
$226,950
$321,644
$216,221
$0
GILBERTSON, RAYMOND
C
REP
L
27.196
$7,950
$4,010
$0
$9,497
$0
$1,750
6
ANDERSON, BRUCE DOUG
C
REP
L
35.355
$16,718
$9,068
$0
$16,219
$600
$2,000
SIKORSKI, GERRY
I
DFL
W
64.645
$443,201
$56,244
$335,487
$378,087
$306,294
$0
7
STANGELAND, ARLAN
I
REP
L
46.438
$489,490
$173,096
$298,670
$487,224
$25,250
$0
PETERSON, COLLIN C
C
DEM
W
53.562
$266,773
$61,733
$185,598
$242,864
$9,233
$82,906
8
SHUSTER, GERALD
C
REP
L
27.058
$16,696
$14,615
$0
$16,681
$13
$0
OBERSTAR, JAMES LOUI
I
DEM
W
72.942
$364,577
$70,195
$248,780
$229,262
$393,551
$0
MISSISSIPPI
1
BOWLIN, JOHN WILLIAM
C
REP
L
35.132
$14,780
$13,105
$250
$14,750
$30
$0
WHITTEN, JAMIE LLOYD
I
DEM
W
64.868
$183,612
$8,450
$129,450
$96,254
$435,724
$0
2
BENFORD, DOROTHY
C
REP
L
15.894
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
ESPY, ALPHONSO MICHA
I
DEM
W
84.106
$448,212
$147,887
$219,225
$365,825
$85,459
$27,793
3
MONTGOMERY, G V (SON
I
DEM
W
100.000
$112,779
$39,005
$55,250
$71,181
$171,908
$0
4
PARKS, JERRY
C
REP
L
19.402
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
PARKER, PAUL MICHAEL
I
DEM
W
80.598
$526,415
$224,577
$286,473
$479,651
$48,162
$0
4/5
SMITH, SHEILA A
C
REP
L
18.629
$205,068
$58,364
$10,400
$205,067
$0
$0
TAYLOR, GARY EUGENE
I
DEM
W
81.371
$316,052
$163,082
$143,426
$322,048
$2,874
$42,054
MISSOURI
1
PIOTROWSKI, WAYNE GE
C
REP
L
39.100
$12,767
$10,369
$0
$12,666
$100
$1,530
CLAY, WILLIAM LACY
I
DEM
W
60.900
$213,965
$23,805
$182,550
$196,909
$119,666
$0
2
HORN, JOAN KELLY
C
DEM
W
50.013
$356,766
$175,528
$160,515
$340,390
$16,376
$18,250
BUECHNER, JOHN W JAC
I
REP
L
49.987
$639,968
$363,716
$259,595
$670,758
$0
$0
3
HOLEKAMP, MALCOLM L
C
REP
L
43.202
$82,784
$45,980
$4,966
$82,077
$38
$31,713
GEPHARDT, RICHARD A
I
DEM
W
56.798
$1,647,415
$815,339
$762,687
$1,455,794
$193,485
$0
4
I
DEM
W
61.848
$390,115
$145,665
$242,050
$306,485
$311,648
$0
SKELTON, IKE
EYERLY, DAVID
C
REP
L
38.152
$7,115
$1,000
$0
$7,137
$215
$0
5
WHEAT, ALAN
I
DEM
W
62.088
$311,266
$58,120
$224,435
$245,132
$263,939
$0
GARDNER, ROBERT H
C
REP
L
37.912
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
6
MCCLURE, BOB
C
DEM
L
48.072
$19,431
$945
$0
$22,428
$0
$0
COLEMAN, TOM
I
REP
W
51.928
$281,837
$72,957
$184,870
$315,922
$33,407
$0
7
HANCOCK, MELTON D
I
REP
W
52.147
$280,787
$135,812
$122,782
$182,474
$129,033
$0
DEATON, THOMAS PATRI
C
DEM
L
47.853
$103,759
$53,419
$47,445
$103,265
$1,649
$2,850
8
CARNAHAN, JOHN RUSSE
C
DEM
L
42.721
$250,002
$123,340
$120,950
$246,595
$3,406
$18,644
EMERSON, BILL
I
REP
W
57.279
$625,060
$279,144
$326,541
$704,447
$7,761
$0
$0
9
VOLKMER, HAROLD LEE
I
DEM
W
57.528
$308,533
$77,699
$218,715
$238,679
$159,821
CURTIS, GORDON S (DO
C
REP
L
42.472
$36,020
$26,685
$1,000
$36,045
$0
$0
MONTANA
1
WILLIAMS, PAT
I
DEM
W
59.194
$458,293
$143,141
$296,640
$345,258
$214,350
$0
JOHNSON, BRADLEY SUN
C
REP
L
40.806
$86,542
$62,077
$4,300
$90,238
-$3,698
$15,315
2
MARLENEE, RON
I
REP
W
63.525
$297,771
$138,555
$140,750
$310,981
$76,486
$0
BURRIS, DON EDGAR
C
DEM
L
36.475
$29,822
$14,599
$0
$22,129
$7,354
$11,009
NEBRASKA
1
HALL, LARRY M
C
DEM
L
35.226
$65,064
$17,097
$43,400
$65,064
$0
$2,499
BEREUTER, DOUGLAS K
I
REP
W
64.704
$254,654
$97,030
$147,250
$223,898
$54,730
$0
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
OPN
CMTE'S
HAND
NEBRASKA
41.798
$632,229
$398,853
$152,769
$625,716
$6,449
$9,128
2
MILDER, ALLY
C
REP
L
HOAGLAND, PETER
I
DEM
W
57.855
$935,652
$263,828
$615,587
$929,247
$11,720
$150,540
3
SCOFIELD, SANDRA KAY
o
DEM
L
48.840
$457,931
$201,185
$239,816
$457,655
$275
$0
BARRETT, WILLIAM E
o
REP
W
51.107
$644,559
$367,397
$193,583
$624,575
$19,982
$70,000
NEVADA
1
DICKINSON, ROBERT CA
C
REP
L
34.418
$149,863
$92,203
$9,775
$149,778
$84
$24,885
MOORE, WILLIAM BILL
C
LIB
L
4.086
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$705,037
$1,107
$30,000
BILBRAY, JAMES H
I
DEM
W
61.496
$686,010
$235,318
$218,056
2
VUCANOVICH, BARBARA
I
REP
W
59.077
$445,465
$258,959
$166,275
$441,075
$5,705
$15,000
BECON, DAN
C
LIB
L
6.917
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$483
$4,784
WISDOM, JANE
C
DEM
L
34.006
$41,771
$8,881
$22,500
$41,287
NEW HAMPSHIRE
1
KEEFE, JOSEPH F
o
DEM
L
44.756
$378,930
$180,116
$175,279
$377,993
$1,042
$39,058
ZELIFF, WILLIAM H JR
o
REP
W
55.244
$807,514
$283,013
$130,601
$802,680
$4,826
$375,800
2
DOUGLAS, CHARLES G I
I
REP
L
47.311
$575,748
$336,863
$223,050
$540,605
$40,012
$0
SWETT, RICHARD NELSO
C
DEM
W
52.689
$470,252
$273,586
$186,000
$465,160
$5,090
$10,157
NEW JERSEY
DEM
W
54.287
$542,535
$252,593
$236,190
$541,960
$574
$85,939
1
ANDREWS, ROBERT E
O
ZELDEN, JERRY
o
LIB
L
1.181
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
HARRIS, WILLIAM HENR
O
L
0.796
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
KONSTANTY, WALTER E
L
1.057
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
o
MANGINI, DANIEL J
o
REP
L
42.679
$83,705
$37,635
$23,850
$79,662
$4,220
$0
2
HUGHES, WILLIAM J
I
DEM
W
88.171
$282,731
$113,726
$91,270
$211,686
$208,172
$0
C
L
11.829
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
KANENGISER, WILLIAM
3
PLONSKI, JOSEPH A
C
L
0.548
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-36-
MCKEAN, RICHARD D
C
IND
L
2.773
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
DEM
W
49.092
$632,450
$206,434
$394,464
$634,109
$761
$54,371
PALLONE, FRANK J JR
I
KAPALKO, PAUL A
C
REP
L
46.402
$118,692
$93,011
$11,050
$115,202
$3,489
$12,925
STEWART, WILLIAM
C
LIB
L
1.185
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
LIB
L
1.343
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
4
PETERS, CARL
C
SMITH, CHRISTOPHER H
I
REP
W
62.901
$280,579
$148,643
$113,126
$292,826
$65,394
$0
SETARO, MARK S
C
DEM
L
34.363
$55,701
$47,749
$4,000
$55,772
$126
$1,142
L
0.755
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
NOTARANGELO, JOSEPH
C
CARTER, JM
C
L
0.638
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
5
ROUKEMA, MARGE
I
REP
W
75.653
$446,589
$201,011
$219,068
$443,540
$98,290
$2,000
C
L
1.920
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
RICHARDS, MARK
OLSON; LAWRENCE WAYN
C
DEM
L
22.427
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
6
DANIELCZYK, PAUL
C
REP
L
46.178
$8,987
$5,550
$800
$8,887
$99
$1,806
DEM
W
50.531
$146,908
$8,250
$125,747
$147,925
$70,432
$0
DWYER, BERNARD J
I
SCHOEN, HOWARD F
C
LIB
L
1.415
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
WALLER, RANDOLPH
C
L
1.875
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SARNOWSKI, THOMAS V
C
L
2.181
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
7
RINALDO, MATTHEW J
I
REP
W
74.655
$626,502
$252,818
$240,920
$405,355
$967,326
$0
BERGEN, BRUCE
C
DEM
L
23.165
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SIBILIA, STEPHEN
C
L
18.439
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
8
ROE, ROBERT
I
DEM
W
76.899
$651,952
$197,250
$329,910
$558,625
$577,940
$0
EDEN, BRUCE
C
L
4.662
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
OPN
CMTE'S
HAND
NEW JERSEY
9
TORRICELLI, ROBERT G
I
DEM
W
57.033
$818,917
$458,501
$236,389
$495,219
$846,461
$34,719
GRABOWSKI, CHESTER
C
L
1.774
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
RUSSO, PETER J
C
REP
L
41.194
$34,591
$22,991
$1,600
$34,513
$123
$1,600
10
PAYNE, DONALD M
I
DEM
W
81.476
$282,420
$82,114
$185,642
$162,612
$251,949
$0
BERKELEY, HOWARD E.
C
REP
L
17.344
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
MEHRABIAN, GEORGE
C
SWP
L
1.180
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
11
GOULD, JASPER "JACK"
C
L
2.463
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
GALLO, DEAN A
I
REP
W
64.942
$652,386
$431,833
$189,245
$694,735
$71,891
GORDON, MICHAEL
C
DEM
L
32.596
$106,599
$86,795
$5,850
$105,031
$1,547
$0
12
KORTEPETER, CARL MAX
o
IND
L
1.445
$10,708
$4,875
$0
$11,806
$94
$0
BOTTCHER, JOAN I
o
IND
L
2.630
$10,891
$8,139
$0
$10,651
$239
$563
CHANDLER, MARGUERITE
100
DEM
L
31.071
$1,716,554
$166,380
$51,864
$1,707,539
$3,012
$1,024,027
NOTARANGELO, MICHAEL
o
L
0.833
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
ZIMMER, RICHARD A
o
REP
W
64.021
$1,227,742
$901,105
$204,983
$1,224,626
$3,115
$208,274
13
ADLER, JOHN H
C
DEM
L
39.471
$210,993
$123,640
$56,599
$203,147
$653
$25,257
SAXTON, H JAMES
I
REP
W
58.114
$628,142
$337,334
$250,149
$730,989
$48,861
$0
PEARLMAN, HOWARD SCO
C
L
2.415
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
14
GUARINI, FRANK J
I
DEM
W
67.542
$461,948
$154,050
$299,833
$299,807
$344,190
$0
VERNOTICO, LOUIS
C
IND
L
0.380
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
STOVEKEN, DONALD K
C
L
0.609
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
THEEMLING, FRED J JR
C
REP
L
29.880
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
HARRIS, JANE E
C
SWP
L
1.589
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
NEW MEXICO
I
REP
W
70.215
$554,465
$324,500
$223,203
$538,273
$20,540
$0
1
SCHIFF, STEVEN H
-37-
VIGIL-GIRON, REBECCA
C
DEM
L
29.785
$127,218
$74,054
$34,732
$123,215
$4,003
$17,713
2
SKEEN, JOSEPH RICHAR
I
REP
W
100.000
$197,830
$73,209
$109,210
$80,737
$196,902
$1,471
3
ARCHULETTA, PHIL T
C
REP
L
25.541
$19,557
$5,186
$5,500
$20,902
$88
$9,000
RICHARDSON, BILL
I
DEM
W
74.459
$531,096
$141,250
$346,707
$420,907
$329,903
$1,804
NEW YORK
1
HOCHBRUECKNER, GEORG
I
DEM
W
56.302
$655,297
$212,405
$398,062
$638,635
$15,836
$3,000
CREIGHTON, FRANCIS W
C
REP
L
34.719
$45,545
$33,545
$550
$45,544
$0
$0
O'HARA, PETER J
C
RTL
L
3.826
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
BALDWIN, CLAYTON JR.
C
CRV
L
5.153
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
C
CRV
L
8.011
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2
CURCIO, DOMINIC A
DOWNEY, THOMAS J
I
DEM
W
55.757
$612,878
$201,227
$330,762
$635,392
$486,556
$0
BUGLER, JOHN W
C
REP
L
36.232
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
3
MRAZEK, ROBERT J
I
DEM
W
53.293
$602,613
$343,101
$193,185
$458,759
$351,185
$0
PREVIDI, ROBERT
C
REP
L
43.120
$186,877
$151,212
$14,900
$184,513
$4,535
$15,000
DREGER, FRANCIS A
C
RTL
L
3.587
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
4
HEYMAN, BEN-ZION J
C
LBL
L
1.807
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
GOBAN, FRANCIS THOMA
C
DEM
L
31.858
$0
$0
$0
$125
$0
$0
DUNKLE, JOHN
C
LIB
L
5.172
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
LENT, NORMAN FREDERI
I
REP
W
61.163
$596,305
$123,994
$406,820
$398,706
$687,015
$0
$0
$0
5
KITT, EDWARD KRISTIA
C
L
4.550
$0
$0
$0
$0
MCGRATH, RAYMOND J
I
REP
W
54.561
$537,366
$142,844
$225,358
$618,882
$245,216
$594
EPSTEIN, MARK SANFOR
C
DEM
L
40.889
$292,463
$182,284
$11,350
$291,412
$1,049
$48,689
6
CRONIN, JOHN
C
RTL
L
5.130
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SAMPOL, WILLIAM
C
REP
L
21.807
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
FLAKE, FLOYD H
I
DEM
W
73.063
$240,869
$103,776
$122,440
$205,031
$48,396
$41,044
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
CMTE'S
HAND
OPN
NEW YORK
I
DEM
W
100.000
$305,414
$92,796
$186,537
$272,549
$285,362
$0
7
ACKERMAN, GARY L
8
SCHEUER, JAMES W
I
DEM
W
72.264
$403,345
$70,545
$94,800
$397,799
$7,002
$307,250
REIFENKUGEL, GUSTAVE
C
REP
L
27.736
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
MANTON, THOMAS J
I
DEM
W
64.375
$620,609
$128,765
$452,323
$316,301
$478,772
$0
9
OGNIBENE, THOMAS V
C
CRV
L
11.231
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
C
REP
L
24.394
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
DARBY, ANN P
10
SCHUMER, CHARLES E
I
DEM
W
80.423
$819,952
$474,570
$163,612
$93,863
$1,580,475
$0
$0
KINSELLA, PATRICK J
C
REP
L
19.577
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
11
STEVENS, LORRAINE
C
L
2.801
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOWNS, EDOLPHUS
I
DEM
W
92.908
$335,807
$124,223
$186,250
$282,933
$151,035
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
JOHNSON, ERNEST
C
REP
L
4.291
$0
$0
12
CAESAR, JOSEPH N O
C
IND
L
2.711
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
MOORE, MAMIE
C
L
2.388
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
94.901
$161,086
$42,220
$111,525
$172,498
$6,451
$24,861
OWENS, MAJOR ROBERT
I
DEM
W
13
RAMOS, EDWIN
C
REP
L
19.587
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SOLARZ, STEPHEN J
I
DEM
W
80.413
$1,218,914
$918,600
$57,674
$517,794
$1,859,603
$0
4/14
W
60.051
$157,229
$81,946
$71,788
$141,216
$16,012
$18,222
MOLINARI, SUSAN K
I
REP
SACCHI, CHRISTINE
C
REP
L
4.477
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
POCCHIA, ANTHON J
C
DEM
L
35.472
$35,054
$17,729
$1,080
$35,052
$0
$0
GREEN, BILL
I
REP
W
58.775
$705,383
$495,891
$162,996
$458,486
$310,107
$237,000
15
REITER, FRANCES L
C
DEM
L
37.167
$21,005
$11,885
$3,000
$19,403
$1,600
$4,000
BERNS, MICHAEL
C
L
4.058
$9,635
$1,135
$8,500
$9,500
$135
$2,647
16
RANGEL, CHARLES B
I
DEM
W
97.230
$541,762
$178,297
$353,900
$601,550
$304,007
$0
$0
$0
FRAZIER, ALVAADER
C
L
2.770
$0
$0
$0
$0
17
PATTERSON, JOHN
C
L
1.105
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
KOEPPEL, WILLIAM WIL
C
REP
L
15.467
$432,534
$149,926
$1,745
$431,513
$1,020
$42,429
$144,408
$70,049
$72,800
$112,722
$80,492
$0
WEISS, TED
I
DEM
W
80.452
GORET, MARK
C
CRV
L
2.976
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
4/18
JOHNSON, ANNA
C
CRV
L
1.758
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
W
93.205
$111,390
$36,665
$74,550
$132,359
$16,391
$5,000
SERRANO, JOSE E
I
DEM
BRAWLEY, KEVIN
o
CRV
L
15.875
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
CHIAVARO, JOSEPH
C
REP
L
2.915
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
RIVERA, MARY
C
L
2.123
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$47,018
19
ENGEL, ELIOT L
I
DEM
W
61.206
$399,619
$72,036
$324,173
$389,698
$11,899
GOULDMAN, WILLIAM J
C
REP
L
22.920
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
20
LOWEY, NITA M
I
DEM
W
62.842
$1,223,045
$744,542
$448,797
$911,766
$339,552
$405,067
$147
$971
BELLITTO, GLEN DANIE
C
REP
L
27.196
$15,505
$9,545
$0
$15,356
SCHAFER, JOHN M
C
CRV
L
9.961
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
21
CURTIN, RICHARD S II
C
L
4.235
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$152,450
$204,990
$411,614
$134,830
$0
FISH, HAMILTON JR
I
REP
W
71.374
$348,209
BARBUTO, RICHARD L
C
DEM
L
24.391
$935
$735
$0
$729
$206
$0
22
GILMAN, BENJAMIN A
I
REP
W
68.610
$445,481
$222,600
$195,968
$497,635
$68,257
$0
4.782
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
BEIRNE, MARGARET M
C
RTL
L
DOW, JOHN G
C
DEM
L
26.608
$4,038
$3,538
$0
$3,473
$561
$0
23
BUHRMASTER, MARGARET
C
REP
L
35.935
$23,300
$17,400
$250
$23,299
$0
$0
DEM
W
64.065
$240,736
$85,397
$149,179
$149,204
$100,394
$0
MCNULTY, MICHAEL R
I
24
SOLOMON, GERALD B
I
REP
W
67.010
$255,758
$95,104
$147,715
$240,615
$111,840
$0
LAWRENCE, BOB
C
DEM
L
32.990
$98,649
$33,918
$32,340
$95,100
$489
$28,810
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
OPN
CMTE'S
HAND
NEW YORK
LIB
L
16.063
$12,882
$8,529
$0
$10,577
$0
$0
25
GRIFFEN, WILLIAM L
C
BOEHLERT, SHERWOOD L
I
REP
W
83.937
$303,746
$116,763
$130,950
$272,533
$189,652
$0
26
MARTIN, DAVID 0'B
I
REP
W
100.000
$74,891
$16,646
$52,050
$59,112
$84,339
$0
REP
W
63.162
$365,536
$220,544
$140,186
$340,553
$40,952
$2,842
27
WALSH, JAMES T
I
MURRAY, PEGGY L
C
DEM
L
34.784
$11,934
$8,452
$2,200
$11,779
$153
$0
HOFF, STEPHEN K
C
RTL
L
2.054
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
C
REP
L
35.175
$24,293
$12,178
$0
$23,766
$16
$0
28
KRIEGER, SEYMOUR
MCHUGH, MATTHEW F
I
DEM
W
64.825
$227,716
$83,007
$121,815
$200,047
$137,521
$0
29
PETERS, DONALD M
C
RTL
L
3.449
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
C
CRV
L
8.909
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
DEMAURO, PETER
HORTON, FRANK
I
REP
w
63.009
$207,092
$33,739
$160,040
$186,967
$162,845
$0
EBER, ALTON F
C
DEM
L
24.633
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
30
REGAN, JOHN M JR
C
REP
L
40.976
$24,863
$24,259
$0
$24,712
$150
$16,778
SLAUGHTER, LOUISE M
I
DEM
W
59.024
$446,664
$146,322
$282,817
$322,216
$129,299
$11,502
31
PAXON, BILL
I
REP
W
56.552
$692,799
$430,988
$239,020
$506,934
$180,313
$0
GAUGHAN, KEVIN P
C
DEM
L
43.448
$101,182
$31,754
$51,492
$100,353
$ 825
$5,150
$0
32
LAFALCE, JOHN J
I
DEM
W
55.014
$339,919
$51,847
$196,675
$145,079
$645,138
WARING, MICHAEL T
C
REP
L
31.425
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
KOWALSKI, KENNETH JA
C
REP
L
13.561
$273
$173
$0
$231
$40
$0
$0
$0
33
BASAR, JOHN A JR
C
DEM
L
4.125
$0
$0
$0
$0
KEPFER, THOMAS K
C
REP
L
16.597
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
CORRIGAN, LOUIS P
C
DEM
L
5.897
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
NOWAK, HENRY J
I
DEM
W
77.506
$150,832
$18,806
$98,908
$93,158
$238,450
$0
34
HOUGHTON, AMORY H JR
I
REP
W
69.605
$333,962
$211,499
$102,000
$178,401
$306,780
$0
LEAHEY, JOSEPH P
C
DEM
L
28.995
$6,483
$765
$0
$6,462
$0
$0
-39-
$0
$0
$0
EKLUND, NEVIN K
C
LBL
L
1.400
$0
$0
$0
NORTH
CAROLINA
1
JONES, WALTER B
I
DEM
W
64.785
$127,710
$5,700
$72,100
$111,622
$328,428
$0
MOYE, HOWARD DEWITT
C
REP
L
35.215
$20,570
$14,875
$250
$20,463
$116
$15,858
$656
$22,646
2
SHARPE, HAL COURTNEY
C
REP
L
25.258
$58,015
$39,413
$1,400
$56,842
VALENTINE, ITIMOUS T
I
DEM
W
74.742
$261,712
$91,143
$159,202
$286,351
$20,314
$0
3
LANCASTER, HAROLD MA
I
DEM
W
59.300
$421,283
$192,292
$204,450
$499,436
$20,581
$0
$4,477
$39,300
DAVIS, DONALD SPENCE
C
REP
L
40.700
$88,138
$40,636
$500
$84,160
4
CARRINGTON, JOHN H
C
REP
L
41.932
$893,349
$73,021
$0
$890,838
$2,509
$0
PRICE, DAVID E
I
DEM
W
58.068
$771,624
$343,986
$385,210
$793,291
$11,899
$50,778
5
NEAL, STEPHEN L
I
DEM
W
59.105
$671,884
$197,716
$398,879
$647,331
$27,665
$2,074
BELL, KENNETH DAVIS
C
REP
L
40.895
$178,200
$118,924
$2,550
$174,574
$3,625
$6,276
6
COBLE, JOHN HOWARD
I
REP
W
66.590
$572,043
$332,236
$223,860
$572,846
$15,846
$0
$33,135
$2,052
$2,854
ALLEGRONE, HELEN R
C
DEM
L
33.410
$35,188
$12,460
$9,500
7
ANDERSON, ROBERT C
C
REP
L
34.351
$24,449
$9,071
$0
$21,131
$3,256
$10,591
ROSE, CHARLES GRANDI
I
DEM
W
65.649
$328,232
$52,197
$196,654
$153,315
$540,833
$50,000
$34,074
$300,893
$7,037
$1,000
8
BLANTON, TED
C
REP
L
45.030
$306,813
$249,562
HEFNER, W G (BILL)
I
DEM
W
54.970
$660,311
$180,017
$445,293
$656,383
$111,471
$10,761
9
MCMILLAN, J ALEX
I
REP
W
62.018
$399,007
$101,686
$278,085
$385,183
$103,331
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
MCKNIGHT, DAVID P.
C
DEM
L
37.982
$0
$0
10
GREEN, DANIEL RAY JR
C
DEM
L
38.179
$39,178
$16,061
$11,800
$37,846
$1,327
$6,767
BALLENGER, THOMAS CA
I
REP
W
61.821
$297,417
$112,708
$183,749
$302,006
$21,544
$0
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
CMTE'S
HAND
OPN
NORTH
CAROLINA
11
TAYLOR, CHARLES HART
C
REP
W
50.664
$523,580
$185,058
$111,689
$523,867
$543
$434,467
CLARKE, JAMES MCCLUR
I
DEM
L
49.336
$486,131
$157,665
$278,941
$499,869
$683
$24,157
NORTH
DAKOTA
0
DORGAN, BYRON L CONG
I
DEM
W
65.190
$598,971
$108,261
$449,050
$504,800
$237,008
$0
SCHAFER, EDWARD T
C
REP
L
34.808
$285,042
$80,471
$1,050
$284,855
$187
$150,000
OHIO
1
LUKEN, CHARLES
O
DEM
W
51.086
$680,789
$266,523
$369,725
$651,544
$29,243
$0
BLACKWELL, J KENNETH
o
REP
L
48.914
$671,848
$396,023
$183,490
$670,640
$1,207
$8,481
$202,259
$112,796
$0
$124,331
$442,751
$0
2
GRADISON, WILLIS D J
I
REP
W
64.418
YATES, TYRONE K
C
DEM
L
35.582
$5,546
$4,079
$1,200
$5,350
$195
$150
3
HALL, TONY P
I
DEM
W
100.000
$173,805
$9,494
$130,592
$133,861
$312,635
$0
$298,581
$37,071
$200,233
$330,272
$188,791
$0
4
OXLEY, MICHAEL G
I
REP
W
61.710
BURKHART, THOMAS E
C
DEM
L
38.290
$19,103
$4,718
$12,000
$19,102
$0
$0
5
MANGE, P SCOTT
C
DEM
L
25.128
$250
$0
$0
$248
$0
$0
$325,743
$88,525
$230,425
$254,688
$83,139
$0
GILLMOR, PAUL E
I
REP
W
68.476
JACKSON, JOHN E
C
IND
L
6.396
$4,680
$1,580
$3,100
$4,650
$27
$0
6
MCEWEN, BOB
I
REP
W
71.200
$292,650
$137,703
$144,630
$196,934
$118,666
$0
MITCHELL, RAYMOND SA
C
DEM
L
28.800
$16,745
$0
$0
$11,171
$894
$5,603
7
SCHIRA, JOHN A (JACK
o
DEM
L
37.929
$89,592
$26,712
$32,200
$89,019
$1,133
$19,760
HOBSON, DAVID L
o
REP
W
62.071
$389,738
$173,806
$202,427
$389,136
$602
$14,008
L
38.880
$115,495
$61,170
$48,825
$114,852
$2,189
$7,689
8
JOLIVETTE, GREGORY V
C
DEM
BOEHNER, JOHN ANDREW
C
REP
W
61.120
$737,441
$333,317
$219,526
$732,765
$4,674
$191,055
9
LAMMERS, JERRY D
C
REP
L
22.308
$200
$0
$0
$200
$0
$0
W
77.692
$227,820
$61,768
$114,830
$211,524
$58,129
$0
KAPTUR, MARCIA C (MA
I
DEM
10
BUCHANAN, JOHN M
C
DEM
L
36.773
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-40-
MILLER, CLARENCE E
I
REP
W
63.227
$99,589
$10,744
$71,250
$75,367
$126,334
$0
W
65.719
$510,699
$98,019
$371,536
$453,883
$159,440
$1,500
11
ECKART, DENNIS E
I
DEM
MUELLER, MARGARET RE
C
REP
L
34.275
$66,674
$21,351
$0
$72,686
$91
$967,542
12
GELPI, MICHAEL A
C
DEM
L
28.014
$42,854
$27,254
$5,463
$47,815
-$4,437
$94,800
W
71.986
$328,624
$171,744
$128,715
$278,977
$93,542
$0
KASICH, JOHN R
I
REP
13
NIELSEN, WILLIAM D
C
REP
L
36.955
$125,580
$52,978
$200
$124,483
$1,097
$1,987
PEASE, DONALD JAMES
I
DEM
W
56.672
$311,899
$83,441
$184,728
$348,032
$221,677
$0
IND
L
6.373
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
RYAN, JOHN MICHAEL
C
14
SAWYER, THOMAS C
I
DEM
W
59.558
$262,812
$65,375
$187,195
$264,793
$48,321
$802
BENDER, JEAN ELINOR
C
REP
L
40.442
$2,003
$1,465
$0
$3,021
$257
$0
I
REP
W
59.106
$227,878
$55,490
$167,153
$242,592
$18,194
$0
15
WYLIE, CHALMERS P
ERNEY, THOMAS VINCEN
C
DEM
L
40.799
$16,000
$10,150
$4,500
$15,977
$22
$950
BUCKEL, WILLIAM (BIL
C
L
0.094
$283
$263
$0
$285
$0
$0
16
MENDENHALL, WARNER D
C
DEM
L
41.090
$68,042
$29,546
$10,750
$68,021
$20
$20,668
REGULA, RALPH
I
REP
W
58.910
$110,331
$100,541
$0
$156,205
$52,654
$0
17
TRAFICANT, JAMES A J
I
DEM
W
77.714
$99,644
$39,934
$54,930
$79,064
$76,169
$0
DEJULIO, ROBERT RICH
C
REP
L
22.286
$1,125
$1,285
$0
$1,700
$288
$0
$0
18
HALES, JOHN A
C
REP
L
25.721
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
APPLEGATE, DOUGLAS
I
DEM
W
74.279
$125,772
$28,995
$78,205
$94,754
$161,523
$0
19
FEIGHAN, EDWARD F
I
DEM
W
64.770
$323,072
$78,864
$217,618
$229,857
$290,445
$3,000
$569
LAWKO, SUSAN MARIE
C
REP
L
35.230
$7,863
$5,735
$0
$9,508
$366
20
OAKAR, MARY ROSE
I
DEM
W
73.348
$337,442
$49,770
$283,859
$284,053
$57,025
$2,500
SMITH, BILL
C
REP
L
26.652
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0.
$0
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
OPN
CMTE'S
HAND
OHIO
21
ROSKI, FRANKLIN H
C
REP
L
20.044
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
STOKES, LOUIS
I
DEM
W
79.956
$250,022
$56,900
$137,575
$198,984
$241,864
$0
OKLAHOMA
1
GLASSCO, KURT GEORGE
C
DEM
L
44.044
$411,069
$140,375
$194,950
$406,280
$6,123
$29,211
INHOFE, JAMES MOUNTA
I
REP
W
55.956
$609,786
$214,499
$306,071
$612,116
$1,120
$28,225
2
SYNAR, MICHAEL LYNN
I
DEM
W
61.302
$622,454
$608,140
$2,038
$631,839
$24,882
$0
GORHAM, TERRY MICHAE
C
REP
L
38.698
$63,271
$19,672
$6,625
$62,793
$476
$0
3
MILLER, PATRICK K
o
REP
L
19.612
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
BREWSTER, BILLY KENT
o
DEM
W
80.388
$448,824
$221,009
$179,466
$446,766
$2,055
$0
4
MCCURDY, DAVE
I
DEM
W
73.575
$342,376
$173,623
$149,775
$357,531
$81,622
$0
BELL, HOWARD
C
REP
L
26.425
$3,905
$2,855
$0
$2,923
$980
$0
5
BAGGETT, BRYCE
C
DEM
L
30.412
$6,395
$4,195
$2,200
$6,277
$116
$2,451
EDWARDS, MICKEY
I
REP
W
69.588
$326,283
$170,109
$147,525
$373,414
$13,371
$0
6
BURNS, ROBERT
C
REP
L
20.009
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
ENGLISH, GLENN LEE J
I
DEM
W
79.991
$238,141
$51,280
$146,050
$157,414
$324,042
$0
OREGON
1
LIVINGSTON, RICK
C
IND
L
6.541
$32,309
$28,209
$0
$32,309
$0
$0
AUCOIN, LES
I
DEM
W
63.079
$599,295
$239,265
$308,748
$445,342
$361,578
$0
MOLANDER, EARL ARVID
C
REP
L
30.380
$2,163
$1,069
$139
$2,024
$0
$0
2
SMILEY, JIM
C
DEM
L
31.953
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SMITH, ROBERT F (BOB
I
REP
W
68.017
$374,114
$199,813
$148,953
$284,700
$179,736
$0
3
WYDEN, RON
I
DEM
W
80.750
$708,598
$285,772
$341,242
$693,855
$451,751
$0
MOONEY, PHILIP E
C
REP
L
19.133
$5,739
$1,694
$0
$4,436
$0
$2,652
4
NATHAN, TONIE
C
LIB
L
13.959
$3,341
$2,152
$0
$3,343
$0
$0
DEFAZIO, PETER A
I
DEM
W
85.816
$257,547
$73,289
$172,635
$217,527
$95,794
$0
-41-
5
SMITH, DENNIS A
I
REP
L
44.869
$841,077
$421,873
$386,986
$884,828
$4,846
$0
KOPETSKI, MICHAEL JO
C
DEM
W
55.003
$851,729
$438,931
$399,283
$843,297
$9,449
$42,584
PENNSYLVANIA
1
JACKSON, JAMES LOVE
C
REP
L
20.573
$9,230
$360
$1,000
$5,969
$3,260
$22,582
FOGLIETTA, THOMAS M
I
DEM
W
79.427
$465,317
$216,685
$226,918
$234,057
$366,322
$0
2
GRAY, WILLIAM H III
I
DEM
W
92.096
$725,717
$179,969
$516,953
$814,125
$57,559
$3,062
BAKOVE, DONALD DR
C
REP
L
7.904
$135
$310
$0
$506
$0
$0
3
MC COLGAN, JOSEPH MA
C
REP
L
39.985
$74,723
$59,728
$1,000
$74,417
$305
$13,227
BORSKI, ROBERT A
I
DEM
W
60.015
$325,222
$149,946
$152,800
$277,011
$155,234
$0
4
JOHNSTON, GORDON ROB
C
REP
L
44.100
$8,870
$6,925
$0
$8,837
$53
$2,481
KOLTER, JOSEPH P
I
DEM
W
55.900
$199,605
$15,448
$162,520
$132,920
$215,765
$0
5
SCHULZE, RICHARD T
I
REP
W
57.113
$578,161
$162,351
$370,759
$672,705
$182,353
$0
STRETTON, SAMUEL C
C
DEM
L
38.480
$26,717
$14,604
$3,000
$26,396
$153
$7,050
SMITH, LEWIS DUPONT-
C
IND
L
4.407
$131,976
$0
$0
$131,929
$45
$801
6
YATRON, GUS
I
DEM
W
57.013
$204,114
$62,576
$127,955
$191,152
$157,501
$0
HICKS, JOHN F
C
REP
L
42.987
$72,084
$41,265
$1,618
$71,317
$768
$17,100
7
WELDON, CURT
I
REP
W
65.286
$504,744
$265,288
$207,805
$480,165
$135,364
$270
INNELLI, JOHN FRANCI
C
DEM
L
34.714
$109,966
$78,798
$6,400
$109,618
$346
$46,332
8
SCHALLER, AUDRIE ZET
C
REP
L
43.367
$146,322
$119,254
$15,300
$142,957
$4,406
$11,995
KOSTMAYER, PETER H
I
DEM
W
56.633
$759,657
$440,914
$295,528
$826,742
$10,140
$46,428
9
SHUSTER, BUD
I
REP
W
100.000
$417,658
$220,773
$181,469
$429,942
$102,101
$0
10
MCDADE, JOSEPH M
I
REP
W
100.000
$383,030
$89,305
$236,778
$373,388
$335,857
$0
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
OPN
CMTE'S
HAND
PENNSYLVANIA
DEM
W
100.000
$308,351
$66,033
$224,185
$405,637
$94,480
$0
11
KANJORSKI, PAUL EDMU
I
12
CHOBY, WILLEAM
C
REP
L
38.263
$6,454
$3,541
$0
$5,951
$1
$2,165
MURTHA, JOHN P
I
DEM
W
61.737
$878,887
$270,874
$496,920
$1,097,107
$33,122
$0
REP
W
60.303
$373,205
$173,017
$163,969
$235,766
$356,517
$0
13
COUGHLIN, LAWRENCE
I
TOMKIN, BERNARD
C
DEM
L
39.697
$39,199
$7,179
$5,850
$39,173
$2,178
$45,000
14
CALIGIURI, RICHARD E
C
REP
L
28.203
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
COYNE, WILLIAM J
I
DEM
W
71.797
$156,692
$7,425
$141,600
$130,904
$229,457
$0
15
ORLOSKI, RICHARD J
C
DEM
L
39.426
$103,249
$13,690
$2,500
$102,312
$935
$62,252
RITTER, DONALD
I
REP
W
60.574
$560,729
$272,580
$275,106
$577,790
$25,821
$0
I
REP
W
66.125
$96,737
$46,485
$43,810
$98,284
$35,408
$0
16
WALKER, ROBERT S
GUYLL, ERNEST E
C
DEM
L
33.875
$0
$0.
$0
$0
$0
$0
17
GEKAS, GEORGE W (WIL
I
REP
W
100.000
$128,438
$24,016
$53,410
$93,331
$141,544
$0
C
REP
W
51.446
$257,786
$211,612
$27,660
$251,496
$6,289
$0
18
SANTORUM, RICHARD JO
WALGREN, DOUG
I
DEM
L
48.554
$601,897
$145,056
$423,415
$717,124
$5,031
$0
19
GOODLING, WILLIAM F
I
REP
W
100.000
$41,011
$40,815
$0
$40,698
$6,251
$0
I
DEM
W
65.594
$191,541
$17,490
$158,250
$158,677
$123,222
$0
20
GAYDOS, JOSEPH M
LEE, ROBERT C
C
REP
L
34.406
$2,055
$550
$125
$1,086
$135
$2,380
21
RIDGE, THOMAS J
I
REP
W
100.000
$454,349
$184,705
$246,265
$361,712
$226,719
$0
C
REP
L
36.735
$3,260
$1,352
$50
$3,258
$0
$1,029
22
HAYDEN, SUZANNE J
MURPHY, AUSTIN J
I
DEM
W
63.265
$199,802
$49,392
$139,310
$191,739
$111,254
$0
23
CLINGER, WILLIAM F J
I
REP
W
59.390
$349,208
$142,633
$190,302
$338,431
$84,577
$11,000
C
DEM
L
40.610
$6,764
$4,123
$0
$6,765
$0
$0
SHANNON, DANIEL J
RHODE
ISLAND
1
MACHTLEY, RONALD KEI
I
REP
W
55.160
$857,775
$500,299
$333,189
$879,464
$10,355
$8,361
WOLF, J SCOTT
C
DEM
L
44.840
$369,300
$248,028
$104,646
$370,118
$2,600
$14,445
-42-
2
REED, JOHN F
o
DEM
w
59.214
$902,877
$301,088
$302,216
$897,224
$6,152
$219,277
COXE, GERTRUDE M
o
REP
L
40.786
$577,919
$325,378
$121,238
$571,643
$6,274
$104,000
SOUTH
CAROLINA
1
PLATT, EUGENE
C
DEM
L
4.994
$13,924
$6,424
$0
$14,040
-$4
$1,976
RAVENEL, ARTHUR JR
I
REP
W
94.878
$221,611
$76,182
$113,350
$99,261
$284,458
$0
2
SOMMER, GEBHARD HORS
C
LIB
L
10.934
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SPENCE, FLOYD D
I
REP
W
88.698
$188,988
$79,189
$106,533
$130,173
$62,190
$0
3
HASKETT, F RAY JR
C
REP
L
41.918
$74,939
$43,524
$0
$74,264
$673
$35,951
DERRICK, BUTLER C
I
DEM
W
58.026
$848,063
$219,231
$542,789
$907,904
$106,192
$0
4
PATTERSON, ELIZABETH
I
DEM
W
61.352
$485,371
$164,261
$303,354
$485,095
$2,730
$67,215
HASKINS, TERRY EDWAR
C
REP
L
38.445
$144,496
$75,629
$11,700
$144,353
$143
$8,200
5
SPRATT, JOHN MCKEE J
I
DEM
W
99.866
$110,158
$5,000
$84,950
$173,157
$153,025
$64,000
6
TALLON, ROBERT M JR
I
DEM
W
99.574
$231,293
$59,164
$145,550
$95,350
$350,780
$3,339
SOUTH
DAKOTA
0
FRANKENFELD, DONALD
C
REP
L
32.446
$215,087
$169,888
$6,608
$211,617
$3,470
$110,300
JOHNSON, TIM
I
DEM
W
67.554
$516,816
$228,634
$251,800
$463,625
$104,643
$0
TENNESSEE
1
QUILLEN, JAMES HENRY
I
REP
W
99.866
$596,536
$88,066
$360,350
$263,291
$1,044,255
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2
HERBERT, PETER
C
IND
L
19.408
$0
$0
DUNCAN, JOHN JAMES J
I
REP
W
80.567
$325,691
$151,189
$165,501
$200,935
$137,716
$0
3
RHODEN, GRADY LAMAR
c
REP
L
39.349
$1,415
$1,315
$0
$1,414
$0
$0
GOOGE, GEORGE E
C
IND
L
1.651
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
LLOYD, MARILYN L MC
I
DEM
W
53.023
$415,056
$130,525
$233,750
$234,107
$184,618
$0
MELCHER, PETER T
C
IND
L
5.977
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
OPN
CMTE'S
HAND
TENNESSEE
4
BULLINGTON, GENE M
C
IND
L
2.952
$1,423
$0
$0
$1,423
$0
$0
SANDERS, CLAIBORNE "
C
REP
L
29.623
$16,497
$15
$0
$12,588
$3,907
$16,482
COOPER, JAMES HAYES
I
DEM
W
67.425
$183,494
$65,357
$107,400
$56,922
$205,616
$0
5
CLEMENT, ROBERT N (B
I
DEM
W
72.444
$424,581
$133,779
$272,825
$298,005
$163,739
$0
STONE, TOM
C
IND
L
17.688
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
KUTTAB, MAURICE C
C
IND
L
2.856
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
BORGMAN, AL
C
IND
L
7.013
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
6
COCHRAN, GREGORY R
C
REP
L
29.116
$11,400
$9,085
$0
$8,996
$0
$0
GORDON, BART
I
DEM
W
66.705
$620,052
$180,763
$355,275
$367,090
$535,072
$0
BROWN, KEN
C
IND
L
4.179
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
7
BLOODWORTH, KENNETH
C
DEM
L
37.987
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SUNDQUIST, DONALD KE
I
REP
W
62.013
$648,472
$245,605
$351,985
$451,944
$471,904
$0
8
TANNER, JOHN S
I
DEM
W
100.000
$314,094
$155,126
$135,500
$153,941
$228,267
$0
9
DAVIS, AARON C
C
REP
L
30.763
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
RICHMOND, ISAAC
C
IND
L
2.429
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
FORD, HAROLD E
I
DEM
W
58.141
$283,087
$101,428
$169,925
$284,282
-$373
$21,751
DAVIDSON, THOMAS M
C
IND
L
8.667
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
TEXAS
1
HODGES, HAROLD HAMPT
C
REP
L
38.958
$420,961
$180,345
$2,328
$408,677
$2,283
$232,034
CHAPMAN, JIM
I
DEM
W
61.042
$533,989
$226,665
$296,839
$463,377
$126,440
$40,718
2
WILSON, CHARLES
I
DEM
W
55.565
$663,504
$187,965
$439,517
$740,342
$860
$17,634
PETERSON, DONNA KAY
C
REP
L
44.435
$125,013
$87,663
$8,000
$124,884
$128
$28,145
3
BARTLETT, STEVE
I
REP
W
99.601
$798,555
$488,750
$278,549
$837,944
$167,323
$0
$213,621
$0
4
HALL, RALPH M
I
DEM
W
99.638
$261,431
$37,921
$202,850
$209,902
-43-
MCCORD, TIMOTHY J
C
L
0.362
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
5
BRYANT, JOHN W
I
DEM
W
59.583
$936,755
$431,543
$458,721
$1,034,446
$257,837
$0
RUCKER, JERRY D
C
REP
L
37.732
$453,796
$379,107
$45,875
$453,165
$630
$18,615
ASHBY, KEN H
C
LIB
L
2.685
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
6
WORSHAM, MICHAEL
C
L
0.392
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
WELCH, JOHN EDWIN
C
DEM
L
33.139
$6,285
$740
$0
$6,568
$0
$0
BARTON, JOE LINUS
I
REP
W
66.469
$770,957
$414,484
$253,403
$458,346
$412,069
$35,028
7
ARCHER, WILLIAM R JR
I
REP
W
100.000
$241,863
$129,919
$0
$200,871
$670,901
$0
8
FIELDS, JACK MILTON
I
REP
W
100.000
$385,273
$98,676
$269,275
$420,288
$34,447
$0
9
MEYERS, MAURICE M
C
REP
L
42.261
$462,656
$406,770
$21,900
$447,974
$14,686
$29,346
BROOKS, JACK
I
DEM
W
57.739
$775,167
$231,865
$459,444
$885,090
$330,424
$0
10
BEILHARZ, DAVID C
C
REP
L
31.324
$261,543
$55,234
$0
$261,528
$13
$29,500
SAWYER, STEVE
C
L
0.004
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
PICKLE, JAMES JARREL
I
DEM
W
64.878
$491,649
$220,094
$247,900
$562,967
$66,442
$0
DAVIS, JEFF
C
LIB
L
3.781
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
11
EDWARDS, THOMAS CHES
o
DEM
W
53.455
$672,399
$271,055
$345,480
$668,936
$3,460
$71,175
SHINE, HUGH DUNHAM
O
REP
L
46.545
$878,663
$480,279
$133,667
$842,226
$36,433
$96,192
4/12
MCGINN, MICHAEL PATR
C
REP
L
28.690
$23,255
$16,755
$0
$22,695
$559
$6,500
GEREN, PRESTON M "PE
I
DEM
W
71.310
$497,798
$223,898
$257,509
$495,937
$18,132
$425,920
13
SARPALIUS, BILL
I
DEM
W
56.479
$685,539
$187,848
$387,684
$667,930
$17,542
$63,971
WATERFIELD, RICHARD
C
REP
L
43.521
$684,141
$520,787
$68,725
$679,117
$3,077
$69,072
14
DIAL, JOSEPH BURT
C
REP
L
45.694
$479,218
$367,785
$41,621
$450,095
$29,121
$30,324
LAUGHLIN, GREGORY HA
I
DEM
W
54.306
$829,150
$383,163
$433,314
$851,294
$1,820
$135,525
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
OPN
CMTE'S
HAND
TEXAS
15
DE LA GARZA, E (KIKA
I
DEM
W
100.000
$86,524
$27,331
$58,675
$121,145
$137,477
$0
16
BURGETT, WILLIAM
C
L
4.370
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
COLEMAN, RONALD D
I
DEM
W
95.630
$279,452
$116,297
$162,285
$286,407
$9,538
$0
17
STENHOLM, CHARLES W
I
DEM
W
100.000
$254,175
$133,743
$98,075
$311,378
$89,736
$0
4/18
WASHINGTON, CRAIG A
I
DEM
W
99.556
$144,647
$54,578
$87,250
$157,053
$13,250
$22,519
HATTENBACH, TIMOTHY
o
DEM
L
0.303
$4,800
$235
$0
$4,139
$0
$579
FOBBS, SHIRLEY
o
DEM
L
0.069
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
19
COMBEST, LARRY
I
REP
W
100.000
$197,121
$108,603
$85,976
$111,838
$129,221
$0
20
GONZALEZ, HENRY B
I
DEM
W
100.000
$141,688
$60,664
$80,800
$112,901
$35,482
$30,099
21
ROBERTS, KIRBY JILES
C
DEM
L
25.153
$15,763
$8,346
$43
$15,732
$31
$3,385
SMITH, LAMAR SEELIGS
I
REP
W
74.847
$679,487
$436,306
$130,230
$399,059
$363,182
$0
22
DELAY, THOMAS DALE
I
REP
W
71.237
$324,134
$145,588
$168,475
$297,153
$76,314
$0
DIRECTOR, BRUCE
C
DEM
L
28.763
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
23
BUSTAMANTE, ALBERT G
I
DEM
W
63.491
$370,750
$134,744
$192,725
$236,046
$294,345
$11,732
GONZALES, JEROME LEE
C
REP
L
36.509
$22,559
$11,315
$500
$22,428
$3
$0
24
FROST, MARTIN
I
DEM
W
100.000
$679,688
$224,128
$411,405
$597,310
$316,106
$0
25
ANDREWS, MICHAEL A
I
DEM
W
100.000
$539,864
$105,070
$344,883
$294,340
$811,150
$0
26
CATON, JOHN WAYNE
C
DEM
L
29.597
$15,135
$1,535
$13,600
$14,303
$820
$0
ARMEY, DICK
I
REP
W
70.403
$441,625
$238,623
$162,306
$198,305
$362,311
$0
27
ORTIZ, SOLOMON P
I
DEM
W
100.000
$235,873
$100,719
$100,790
$140,756
$245,251
$0
UTAH
1
BRUNSDALE, KENLEY WA
C
DEM
L
43.797
$133,729
$55,299
$66,850
$133,084
$643
$4,857
WADSWORTH, REVA MARX
C
AMP
L
4.052
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
HANSEN, JAMES V
I
REP
W
52.151
$271,159
$87,722
$180,750
$237,357
$41,944
$0
2
ATWOOD, GENEVIEVE
C
REP
L
39.811
$505,299
$152,562
$85,596
$490,726
$14,573
$30,000
OWENS, DOUGLAS WAYNE
I
DEM
W
57.595
$1,014,489
$461,433
$541,232
$1,088,929
$9,239
$16,337
GARCIA, ELEANOR
C
SOC
L
0.278
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOPHAM, LAWRENCE R
C
IND
L
2.316
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
3
DUTROW, ANTHONY M
0
SWP
L
0.383
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SNOW, KARL N JR
o
REP
L
36.449
$291,945
$135,691
$108,090
$290,439
$1,505
$57,165
SMITH, ROBERT J
o
AMP
L
4.822
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
ORTON, WILLIAM H
o
DEM
W
58.347
$86,601
$12,627
$32,000
$88,234
-$1,874
$64,289
VERMONT
0
SMITH, PETER
I
REP
L
39.521
$682,870
$366,780
$299,954
$688,907
$1,539
$19,480
DIAMONDSTONE, PETER
C
LIB
L
0.936
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SANDERS, BERNARD
C
W
56.001
$571,556
$434,730
$72,250
$569,772
$3,216
$25,156
SANDOVAL, DOLORES
C
DEM
L
3.009
$13,830
$8,916
$300
$12,850
$977
$3,000
VIRGIN ISLANDS
0
DE LUGO, RON
I
DEM
W
100.000
$16,953
$8,550
$7,650
$18,963
$1,565
$0
VIRGINIA
1
FOX, ANDREW H
C
DEM
L
48.972
$106,176
$53,010
$33,474
$102,092
$4,083
$9,000
BATEMAN, HERBERT H
I
REP
W
50.958
$526,099
$256,763
$218,750
$549,818
$15,817
$35,000
2
PICKETT, OWEN
I
DEM
W
74.953
$240,133
$91,705
$135,500
$82,828
$185,854
$0
BROSKIE, HARRY G
C
IND
L
21.618
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
3
STARKE, JAMES A JR
C
DEM
L
30.683
$57,857
$22,126
$28,925
$57,909
-$112
$15,385
SIMPSON, ROSE L
C
IND
L
3.654
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
BLILEY, THOMAS JEROM
I
REP
W
65.275
$632,395
$223,461
$398,462
$710,739
$30,293
$0
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
CMTE'S
HAND
OPN
VIRGINIA
W
78.310
$240,553
$28,520
$158,200
$275,502
$281,644
$349,183
4
SISISKY, NORMAN
I
DEM
MCREYNOLDS, DON LERO
C
IND
L
13.551
$19,854
$6,452
$0
$19,883
$77
$15,471
CHANDLER, LORETTA F
C
L
7.828
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
DEM
W
99.442
$317,828
$124,608
$187,650
$317,271
$9,594
$105,550
5
PAYNE, LEWIS F JR HO
I
6
BERG, GERALD E "LASE
C
IND
L
16.149
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
OLIN, JAMES RANDOLPH
I
DEM
W
82.729
$254,058
$90,731
$153,700
$199,904
$63,273
$22,000
W
58.091
$649,588
$325,038
$152,865
$826,942
$2,857
$75,000
7
SLAUGHTER, D FRENCH
I
REP
SMITH, DAVID M
C
DEM
L
41.732
$390,379
$322,876
$49,250
$388,415
$1,763
$0
8
PARRIS, STANFORD E
I
REP
L
44.627
$864,864
$487,104
$313,852
$982,157
$40,972
$0
51.703
$883,236
$588,784
$257,821
$883,216
$20
$82,687
MORAN, JAMES P JR
C
DEM
W
MURPHY, ROBERT T
C
IND
L
3.482
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
9
BOUCHER, FREDERICK C
I
DEM
W
97.089
$524,268
$120,107
$366,584
$252,685
$401,838
$0
33.960
$97,467
$46,890
$7,150
$93,659
$3,806
$29,215
10
CANTER, NOLAND MACKE
C
DEM
L
WOLF, FRANK R
I
REP
W
61.551
$514,240
$302,800
$192,395
$511,853
$59,412
$0
LAROUCHE, LYNDON H J
C
DEM
L
1.360
$648,572
$645,024
$0
$647,836
$1,736
$99,582
3.128
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
MINNICH, BARBARA S
C
IND
L
WASHINGTON
1
SULLIVAN, CYNTHIA M
C
DEM
L
47.953
$376,382
$204,687
$127,537
$351,660
$19,499
$20,740
MILLER, JOHN R
I
REP
W
52.047
$913,407
$498,569
$265,457
$912,969
$11,196
$54,000
$11,408
$5,805
$0
$11,373
$35
$0
2
SMITH, DOUGLAS J
C
REP
L
41.198
MCCORD, WILLIAM L
C
LIB
L
8.257
$0
$ 0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SWIFT, ALLAN BYRON
I
DEM
W
50.545
$503,123
$126,383
$272,542
$465,249
$168,462
$0
$829,603
$493,562
$204,768
$817,944
$11,658
$20,816
3
WILLIAMS, G ROBERT
C
REP
L
46.241
UNSOELD, JOLENE
I
DEM
W
53.759
$1,297,700
$564,385
$624,498
$1,298,593
$5,610
$3,987
4
HOUGEN, OLE
C
DEM
L
29.340
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-45-
$42,200
$49,935
$218,433
$0
MORRISON, SIDNEY WAL
I
REP
W
70.660
$111,371
$44,615
5
FOLEY, THOMAS S
I
DEM
W
68.811
$467,084
$69,165
$326,337
$457,754
$596,708
$0
DERBY, MARLYN A
C
REP
L
31.189
$7,154
$2,495
$375
$5,006
$468
$0
$240,055
$565,257
$107,649
$0
6
DICKS, NORMAN DEVALO
I
DEM
W
61.366
$392,043
$118,284
MUELLER, NORBERT
C
REP
L
38.634
$8,048
$200
$0
$7,598
$450
$5,947
7
MCDERMOTT, JAMES A
I
DEM
W
72.311
$230,973
$31,929
$196,253
$204,296
$45,399
$0
$0
$0
$0
SCHERR, ROBBIE
C
SWP
L
3.637
$0
$0
$0
PENBERTHY, LARRY
C
REP
L
24.052
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
8
CHANDLER, ROD
I
REP
W
56.213
$472,433
$146,789
$300,815
$451,296
$127,364
$0
$33,817
$50
$5,491
GILES, DAVID EDWARD
C
DEM
L
43.787
$33,866
$15,837
$300
WEST
VIRGINIA
1
TUCK, HOWARD K
C
REP
L
32.862
$34,020
$1,950
$0
$34,077
$53
$45,865
MOLLOHAN, ALAN B
I
DEM
W
67.138
$197,997
$53,301
$131,498
$206,688
$136,457
$0
$42,297
2
STAGGERS, HARLEY ORR
I
DEM
W
55.473
$419,859
$84,059
$302,800
$500,133
$1,646
LUCK, OLIVER FRANCIS
C
REP
L
44.527
$357,109
$193,852
$57,476
$356,282
$828
$21,871
3
WISE, ROBERT E JR
I
DEM
W
100.000
$182,913
$43,524
$126,118
$53,137
$179,230
$0
4
RAHALL, NICK J II
I
DEM
W
51.952
$536,855
$179,076
$287,250
$566,348
$353,763
$0
BREWSTER, MARIANNE R
C
REP
L
48.048
$66,671
$55,475
$750
$61,471
$5,198
$10,000
WISCONSIN
I
DEM
W
99.389
$892,153
$538,117
$322,900
$795,806
$162,669
$0
1
ASPIN, LES
2
KLUG, SCOTT
C
REP
W
53.227
$183,789
$131,786
$32,800
$178,129
$5,660
$6,430
KASTENMEIER, ROBERT
I
DEM
L
46.758
$358,609
$159,619
$184,314
$371,928
$18,188
$0
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
FINANCIAL DATA FOR HOUSE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1990
DIST
CANDIDATE
INC
PARTY
GEN
GEN
NET
INDIV
OTHER
NET
CASH
DEBTS
CHL
PCT
RECEIPTS
CONTRIB
POLITICAL
DISBURSE
ON
OWED
CMTE'S
HAND
OPN
WISCONSIN
3
ZIEGEWEID, JAMES L
C
DEM
L
38.990
$57,161
$15,528
$31,860
$57,576
$166
$16,154
GUNDERSON, STEVEN CR
I
REP
W
60.999
$388,310
$182,544
$196,595
$341,458
$98,169
$0
$86,327
$0
4
KLECZKA, GERALD DANI
I
DEM
W
69.163
$304,440
$85,766
$186,048
$393,562
COOK, JOSEPH L
C
REP
L
30.667
$31,850
$5,341
$2,800
$27,986
$229
$0
5
HAMMERSMITH, DONALDA
C
REP
L
27.385
$22,508
$20,533
$0
$21,348
$770
$884
STAMPLEY, NATHANIEL
C
IND
L
4.369
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
67.953
$735,212
$251,615
$450,704
$515,159
$237,639
$0
MOODY, JIM
I
DEM
W
6
PETRI, THOMAS E
I
REP
W
99.534
$240,501
$89,459
$98,455
$131,156
$397,666
$0
7
OBEY, DAVID ROSS
I
DEM
W
62.143
$620,219
$256,893
$311,550
$467,346
$334,565
$0
MCEWEN, JOHN LEROY
C
REP
L
37.857
$10,886
$6,397
$0
$10,683
$202
$0
8
VAN SISTINE, JEROME
C
DEM
L
46.454
$284,761
$68,131
$214,895
$274,112
$467
$0
ROTH, TOBY
I
REP
W
53.546
$390,432
$146,800
$203,083
$499,968
$93,841
$9,773
9
SENSENBRENNER, FRANK
I
REP
W
99.701
$266,285
$135,357
$98,635
$98,609
$312,478
$0
WYOMING
4/0
THOMAS, CRAIG LYLE
I
REP
W
55.093
$404,308
$184,671
$174,995
$437,772
$4,531
$20,000
MAXFIELD, PETER CHAR
C
DEM
L
44.907
$239,474
$99,766
$33,950
$239,116
$358
$102,613
-46-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE - RECEIPTS
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE
DIST
PARTY
INC
NET
CHL
RECEIPTS
OPN
1 CHANDLER, MARGUERITE 10/
NJ
12
DEM
o
$1,716,554
2 GEPHARDT, RICHARD A
MO
3
DEM
I
$1,647,415
3 DORNAN, ROBERT KENNETH
CA
38
REP
I
$1,615,282
4 GINGRICH, NEWT
GA
6
REP
I
$1,538,827
5 LEVINE, MEL
CA
27
DEM
I
$1,496,790
6 UNSOELD, JOLENE
WA
3
DEM
I
$1,297,700
7 CAMPBELL, THOMAS J
CA
12
REP
I
$1,286,200
8 ZIMMER, RICHARD A
NJ
12
REP
O
$1,227,742
9 LOWEY, NITA M
NY
20
DEM
I
$1,223,045
10 SOLARZ, STEPHEN J
NY
13
DEM
I
$1,218,914
11 MATSUI, ROBERT T
CA
3
DEM
I
$1,207,843
12 BONIOR, DAVID EDWARD
MI
12
DEM
I
$1,189,127
13 CONDIT, GARY
CA
15
DEM
o
$1,158,192
14 ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA
FL
18
REP
0
$1,081,884
15 HUGHES, REID
FL
4
DEM
C
$1,073,878
16 OWENS, DOUGLAS WAYNE
UT
2
DEM
I
$1,014,489
17 DELAURO, ROSA L
CT
3
DEM
o
$973,625
18 GEREN, PRESTON M "PETE"
TX
12
DEM
0
$936,886
19 BRYANT, JOHN W
TX
5
DEM
I
$936,755
20 RAMSTAD, JAMES M
MN
3
REP
o
$936,208
21 HOAGLAND, PETER
NE
2
DEM
I
$935,652
22 BOXER, BARBARA
CA
6
DEM
I
$921,666
23 MILLER, JOHN R
WA
1
REP
I
$913,407
24 REED, JOHN F
RI
2
DEM
o
$902,877
25 CARRINGTON, JOHN H
NC
4
REP
C
$893,349
26 ASPIN, LES
WI
1
DEM
I
$892,153
27 RICHMAN, GERALD F
FL
18
DEM
o
$889,080
28 MORAN, JAMES P JR
VA
8
DEM
C
$883,236
29 MOFFETT, ANTHONY TOBY
CT
5
DEM
O
$880,726
30 MURTHA, JOHN P
PA
12
DEM
I
$878,887
31 SHINE, HUGH DUNHAM
TX
11
REP
O
$878,663
32 BACCHUS, JAMES L
FL
11
DEM
o
$877,500
33 PARRIS, STANFORD E
VA
8
REP
I
$864,864
34 MACHTLEY, RONALD KEITH
RI
1
REP
I
$857,775
35 KOPETSKI, MICHAEL JOSEPH
OR
5
DEM
C
$851,729
36 DERRICK, BUTLER C
SC
3
DEM
I
$848,063
37 FAZIO, VIC
CA
4
DEM
I
$845,622
38 ATKINS, CHESTER G
MA
5
DEM
I
$843,893
39 DINGELL, JOHN D
MI
16
DEM
I
$843,579
40 SMITH, DENNIS A
OR
5
REP
I
$841,077
41 ANDERSON, THOMAS H JR
MS
5
REP
o
$834,168
42 WILLIAMS, G ROBERT
WA
3
REP
C
$829,603
43 LAUGHLIN, GREGORY HAINES
TX
14
DEM
I
$829,150
44 SCHUMER, CHARLES E
NY
10
DEM
I
$819,952
45 TORRICELLI, ROBERT G
NJ
9
DEM
I
$818,917
46 BROWN, GEORGE E JR
CA
36
DEM
I
$818,181
47 FRELINGHUYSEN, RODNEY P
NJ
12
REP
o
$817,892
48 ZELIFF, WILLIAM H JR
NH
1
REP
o
$807,514
49 KENNEDY, JOSEPH P II
MA
8
DEM
I
$805,013
50 GRANT, BILL
FL
2
REP
I
$801,238
-47-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE - CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE DIST PARTY INC
INDIV
CHL
CONTRIB
OPN
1 DORNAN, ROBERT KENNETH
CA
38
REP
I
$1,579,418
2 GINGRICH, NEWT
GA
6
REP
I
$1,088,529
3 LEVINE, MEL
CA
27
DEM
I
$1,053,825
4 CAMPBELL, THOMAS J
CA
12
REP
I
$992,893
5 SOLARZ, STEPHEN J
NY
13
DEM
I
$918,600
6 ZIMMER, RICHARD A
NJ
12
REP
o
$901,105
7 ATKINS, CHESTER G
MA
5
DEM
I
$829,577
8 GEPHARDT, RICHARD A
MO
3
DEM
I
$815,339
9 LOWEY, NITA M
NY
20
DEM
I
$744,542
10 ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA
FL
18
REP
O
$720,522
11 RAMSTAD, JAMES M
MN
3
REP
O
$677,539
12 LAROUCHE, LYNDON H JR
VA
10
DEM
C
$645,024
13 KENNEDY, JOSEPH P II
MA
8
DEM
I
$628,895
14 SYNAR, MICHAEL LYNN
OK
2
DEM
I
$608,140
15 LANTOS, THOMAS P
CA
11
DEM
I
$597,361
16 MORAN, JAMES P JR
VA
8
DEM
C
$588,784
17 UNSOELD, JOLENE
WA
3
DEM
I
$564,385
18 DELAURO, ROSA L
CT
3
DEM
o
$550,104
19 GEREN, PRESTON M "PETE"
TX
12
DEM
o
$548,751
20 DELLUMS, RONALD V
CA
8
DEM
I
$547,479
21 BOXER, BARBARA
CA
6
DEM
I
$542,898
22 ASPIN, LES
WI
1
DEM
I
$538,117
23 BENTLEY, HELEN DELICH
MD
2
REP
I
$535,706
24 WATERFIELD, RICHARD ALLEN
TX
13
REP
C
$520,787
25 COX, C CHRISTOPHER
CA
40
REP
I
$504,199
26 MACHTLEY, RONALD KEITH
RI
1
REP
I
$500,299
27 MILLER, JOHN R
WA
1
REP
I
$498,569
28 GREEN, BILL
NY
15
REP
I
$495,891
29 WILLIAMS, G ROBERT
WA
3
REP
C
$493,562
30 BARTLETT, STEVE
TX
3
REP
I
$488,750
31 YATES, SIDNEY R
IL
9
DEM
I
$487,335
32 PARRIS, STANFORD E
VA
8
REP
I
$487,104
33 MATSUI, ROBERT T
CA
3
DEM
I
$486,852
34 SHINE, HUGH DUNHAM
TX
11
REP
o
$480,279
35 SCHUMER, CHARLES E
NY
10
DEM
I
$474,570
36 HILER, JOHN PATRICK
IN
3
REP
I
$473,494
37 PENCE, MICHAEL R
IN
2
REP
C
$469,273
38 LAGOMARSINO, ROBERT J
CA
19
REP
I
$465,444
39 CONDIT, GARY
CA
15
DEM
o
$462,467
40 OWENS, DOUGLAS WAYNE
UT
2
DEM
I
$461,433
41 TORRICELLI, ROBERT G
NJ
9
DEM
I
$458,501
42 HAWKS, RICK
IN
4
REP
C
$457,001
43 DANNEMEYER, WILLIAM E
CA
39
REP
I
$456,693
44 FRELINGHUYSEN, RODNEY P
NJ
12
REP
o
$444,813
45 MOFFETT, ANTHONY TOBY
CT
5
DEM
O
$443,524
46 ANDERSON, THOMAS H. JR
MS
5
REP
o
$441,996
47 GRANT, BILL
FL
2
REP
I
$441,711
48 KOSTMAYER, PETER H
PA
8
DEM
I
$440,914
49 LANIER, BOB DR
TX
12
REP
o
$440,111
50 KOPETSKI, MICHAEL JOSEPH
OR
5
DEM
C
$438,931
-48-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE - CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PAC'S AND OTHER COMMITTEES
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE
DIST
PARTY
INC
OTHER
CHL
CMTE'S
OPN
1 GEPHARDT, RICHARD A
MO
3
DEM
I
$762,687
2 BONIOR, DAVID EDWARD
MI
12
DEM
I
$728,055
3 DINGELL, JOHN D
MI
16
DEM
I
$625,727
4 UNSOELD, JOLENE
WA
3
DEM
I
$624,498
5 HOAGLAND, PETER
NE
2
DEM
I
$615,587
6 MATSUI, ROBERT T
CA
3
DEM
I
$582,964
7 DERRICK, BUTLER C
SC
3
DEM
I
$542,789
8 OWENS, DOUGLAS WAYNE
UT
2
DEM
I
$541,232
9 MICHEL, ROBERT H
IL
18
REP
I
$519,161
10 GRAY, WILLIAM H III
PA
2
DEM
I
$516,953
11 SHARP, PHILIP R
IN
2
DEM
I
$498,599
12 DYSON, ROY
MD
1
DEM
I
$497,700
13 MURTHA, JOHN P
PA
12
DEM
I
$496,920
14 ANNUNZIO, FRANK
IL
11
DEM
I
$478,891
15 BROOKS, JACK
TX
9
DEM
I
$459,444
16 BRYANT, JOHN W
TX
5
DEM
I
$458,721
17 BROWN, GEORGE E JR
CA
36
DEM
I
$454,935
18 MANTON, THOMAS J
NY
9
DEM
I
$452,323
19 FAZIO, VIC
CA
4
DEM
I
$451,245
20 MOODY, JIM
WI
5
DEM
I
$450,704
21 DORGAN, BYRON L
ND
0
DEM
I
$449,050
22 LOWEY, NITA M
NY
20
DEM
I
$448,797
23 LONG, JILL LYNETTE
IN
4
DEM
I
$448,381
24 HEFNER, W G (BILL)
NC
8
DEM
I
$445,293
25 WILSON, CHARLES
TX
2
DEM
I
$439,517
26 GINGRICH, NEWT
GA
6
REP
I
$433,421
27 LAUGHLIN, GREGORY HAINES
TX
14
DEM
I
$433,314
28 WALGREN, DOUG
PA
18
DEM
I
$423,415
29 MCMILLEN, C THOMAS
MD
4
DEM
I
$423,275
30 HOYER, STENY HAMILTON
MD
5
DEM
I
$417,235
31 JONES, BEN LEWIS
GA
4
DEM
I
$416,333
32 WOLPE, HOWARD E
MI
3
DEM
I
$414,976
33 BACCHUS, JAMES L
FL
11
DEM
O
$412,573
34 FROST, MARTIN
TX
24
DEM
I
$411,405
35 MOFFETT, ANTHONY TOBY
CT
5
DEM
O
$411,188
36 LENT, NORMAN FREDERICK
NY
4
REP
I
$406,820
37 ALEXANDER, WILLIAM VOLLIE
AR
1
DEM
I
$405,150
38 JONTZ, JAMES
IN
5
DEM
I
$405,145
39 DELAURO, ROSA L
CT
3
DEM
O
$401,805
40 KOPETSKI, MICHAEL JOSEPH
OR
5
DEM
C
$399,283
41 NEAL, STEPHEN L
NC
5
DEM
I
$398,879
42 BLILEY, THOMAS JEROME JR
VA
3
REP
I
$398,462
43 HOCHBRUECKNER, GEORGE J
NY
1
DEM
I
$398,062
44 CONDIT, GARY
CA
15
DEM
O
$396,882
45 PALLONE, FRANK J JR
NJ
3
DEM
I
$394,464
46 TABOR, ERIC J
IA
2
DEM
O
$389,847
47 SARPALIUS, BILL
TX
13
DEM
I
$387,684
48 SMITH, DENNIS A
OR
5
REP
I
$386,986
49 PRICE, DAVID E
NC
4
DEM
I
$385,210
50 RUSSO, MARTIN A
IL
3
DEM
I
$382,966
-49-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE DISBURSEMENTS
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE DIST PARTY INC
NET
CHL
DISBURSE
OPN
1 CHANDLER, MARGUERITE 10/
NJ
12
DEM
o
$1,707,539
2 GINGRICH, NEWT
GA
6
REP
I
$1,538,945
3 GEPHARDT, RICHARD A
MO
3
DEM
I
$1,455,794
4 DORNAN, ROBERT KENNETH
CA
38
REP
I
$1,445,577
5 UNSOELD, JOLENE
WA
3
DEM
I
$1,298,593
6 ZIMMER, RICHARD A
NJ
12
REP
0
$1,224,626
7 BONIOR, DAVID EDWARD
MI
12
DEM
I
$1,188,905
8 CONDIT, GARY
CA
15
DEM
O
$1,155,459
9 MURTHA, JOHN P
PA
12
DEM
I
$1,097,107
10 OWENS, DOUGLAS WAYNE
UT
2
DEM
I
$1,088,929
11 ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA
FL
18
REP
0
$1,081,883
12 HUGHES, REID
FL
4
DEM
C
$1,067,366
13 BRYANT, JOHN W
TX
5
DEM
I
$1,034,446
14 FAZIO, VIC
CA
4
DEM
I
$1,029,304
15 PARRIS, STANFORD E
VA
8
REP
I
$982,157
16 DELAURO, ROSA L
CT
3
DEM
o
$957,982
17 BARNARD, DRUIE DOUGLAS JR
GA
10
DEM
I
$937,464
18 RAMSTAD, JAMES M
MN
3
REP
O
$935,454
19 HOAGLAND, PETER
NE
2
DEM
I
$929,247
20 GEREN, PRESTON M "PETE"
TX
12
DEM
O
$921,183
21 MILLER, JOHN R
WA
1
REP
I
$912,969
22 LOWEY, NITA M
NY
20
DEM
I
$911,766
23 DERRICK, BUTLER C
SC
3
DEM
I
$907,904
24 REED, JOHN F
RI
2
DEM
o
$897,224
25 CARRINGTON, JOHN H
NC
4
REP
C
$890,838
26 RICHMAN, GERALD F
FL
18
DEM
O
$886,393
27 BROOKS, JACK
TX
9
DEM
I
$885,090
28 SMITH, DENNIS A
OR
5
REP
I
$884,828
29 MORAN, JAMES P JR
VA
8
DEM
C
$883,216
30 MACHTLEY, RONALD KEITH
RI
1
REP
I
$879,464
31 MOFFETT, ANTHONY TOBY
CT
5
DEM
O
$877,116
32 BACCHUS, JAMES L
FL
11
DEM
o
$875,386
33 ATKINS, CHESTER G
MA
5
DEM
I
$861,333
34 ANNUNZIO, FRANK
IL
11
DEM
I
$855,952
35 LAUGHLIN, GREGORY HAINES
TX
14
DEM
I
$851,294
36 KOPETSKI, MICHAEL JOSEPH
OR
5
DEM
C
$843,297
37 SHINE, HUGH DUNHAM
TX
11
REP
o
$842,226
38 DELLUMS, RONALD V
CA
8
DEM
I
$840,029
39 GRANT, BILL
FL
2
REP
I
$839,764
40 YATES, SIDNEY R
IL
9
DEM
I
$839,106
41 BARTLETT, STEVE
TX
3
REP
I
$837,944
42 KENNEDY, JOSEPH P II
MA
8
DEM
I
$832,815
43 ANDERSON, THOMAS H JR
MS
5
REP
0
$830,550
44 SLAUGHTER, D FRENCH JR
VA
7
REP
I
$826,942
45 KOSTMAYER, PETER H
PA
8
DEM
I
$826,742
46 GIBBONS, SAM M
FL
7
DEM
I
$825,795
47 BROWN, GEORGE E JR
CA
36
DEM
I
$822,686
48 WILLIAMS, G ROBERT
WA
3
REP
C
$817,944
49 BILIRAKIS, MICHAEL
FL
9
REP
I
$815,366
50 WOLPE, HOWARD E
MI
3
DEM
I
$815,244
-50-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE - CASH-ON-HAND
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE
DIST
PARTY
INC
CASH
CHL
ON
OPN
HAND
1 SOLARZ, STEPHEN J
NY
13
DEM
I
$1,859,603
2 LEVINE, MEL
CA
27
DEM
I
$1,714,807
3 DREIER, DAVID T
CA
33
REP
I
$1,669,915
4 SCHUMER, CHARLES E
NY
10
DEM
I
$1,580,475
5 MATSUI, ROBERT T
CA
3
DEM
I
$1,128,637
6 ROSTENKOWSKI, DAN
IL
8
DEM
I
$1,114,068
7 QUILLEN, JAMES HENRY
TN
1
REP
I
$1,044,255
8 RINALDO, MATTHEW J
NJ
7
REP
I
$967,326
9 TORRICELLI, ROBERT G
NJ
9
DEM
I
$846,461
10 ANDREWS, MICHAEL A
TX
25
DEM
I
$811,150
11 BROOMFIELD, WILLIAM S
MI
18
REP
I
$754,678
12 HOPKINS, LARRY J U S REP
KY
6
REP
I
$691,433
13 LENT, NORMAN FREDERICK
NY
4
REP
I
$687,015
14 ARCHER, WILLIAM R JR
TX
7
REP
I
$670,901
15 DONNELLY, BRIAN
MA
11
DEM
I
$669,414
16 MOORHEAD, CARLOS JOHN
CA
22
REP
I
$666,684
17 LAFALCE, JOHN J
NY
32
DEM
I
$645,138
18 LANTOS, THOMAS P
CA
11
DEM
I
$637,734
19 CAMPBELL, THOMAS J
CA
12
REP
I
$633,197
20 FOLEY, THOMAS S
WA
5
DEM
I
$596,708
21 MARKEY, EDWARD JOHN
MA
7
DEM
I
$579,994
22 ROE, ROBERT
NJ
8
DEM
I
$577,940
23 BRUCE, TERRY L
IL
19
DEM
I
$574,423
24 BEVILL, TOM
AL
4
DEM
I
$566,499
25 MADIGAN, EDWARD R
IL
15
REP
I
$542,570
26 ROSE, CHARLES GRANDISON I
NC
7
DEM
I
$540,833
27 FASCELL, DANTE B
FL
19
DEM
I
$539,060
28 GORDON, BART
TN
6
DEM
I
$535,072
29 HAMMERSCHMIDT, JOHN PAUL
AR
3
REP
I
$500,684
30 BOXER, BARBARA
CA
6
DEM
I
$499,349
31 DINGELL, JOHN D
MI
16
DEM
I
$490,871
32 MOAKLEY, JOHN JOSEPH
MA
9
DEM
I
$489,816
33 DOWNEY, THOMAS J
NY
2
DEM
I
$486,556
34 MANTON, THOMAS J
NY
9
DEM
I
$478,772
35 SUNDQUIST, DONALD KENNETH
TN
7
REP
I
$471,904
36 WAXMAN, HENRY A
CA
24
DEM
I
$468,893
37 WYDEN, RON
OR
3
DEM
I
$451,751
38 JENKINS, EDGAR L
GA
9
DEM
I
$448,273
39 GRADISON, WILLIS D JR
OH
2
REP
I
$442,751
40 MILLER, GEORGE
CA
7
DEM
I
$438,229
41 WHITTEN, JAMIE LLOYD
MS
1
DEM
I
$435,724
42 SMITH, LAWRENCE JACK
FL
16
DEM
I
$413,843
43 BARTON, JOE LINUS
TX
6
REP
I
$412,069
44 BOUCHER, FREDERICK CARLYL
VA
9
DEM
I
$401,838
45 BURTON, DAN
IN
6
REP
I
$400,894
46 ROBERTS, CHARLES PATRICK
KS
1
REP
I
$400,824
47 PETRI, THOMAS E
WI
6
REP
I
$397,666
48 OBERSTAR, JAMES LOUIS
MN
8
DEM
I
$393,551
49 SMITH, NEAL
IA
4
DEM
I
$376,309
50 FOGLIETTA, THOMAS M
PA
1
DEM
I
$366,322
-51-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE DEBTS OWED
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE
DIST
PARTY
INC
DEBTS
CHL
OWED
OPN
1
CHANDLER, MARGUERITE 10/
NJ
12
DEM
0
$1,024,027
2
MUELLER, MARGARET REID
OH
11
REP
C
$967,542
3 HUGHES, REID
FL
4
DEM
C
$748,253
4 JOHNSON, JOHN ARTHUR
IN
5
REP
C
$626,077
5 KORMAN, SANG R
CA
21
REP
C
$559,139
6 GIFFORD, CHARLES HERBERT
RI
2
DEM
o
$438,961
7 TAYLOR, CHARLES HART
NC
11
REP
C
$434,467
8 GEREN, PRESTON M "PETE"
TX
12
DEM
I
$425,920
9 LOWEY, NITA M
NY
20
DEM
I
$405,067
10 ZELIFF, WILLIAM H JR
NH
1
REP
O
$375,800
11 SISISKY, NORMAN
VA
4
DEM
I
$349,183
12 NICHOLS, RICHARD D
KS
5
REP
O
$315,550
13 SCHEUER, JAMES W
NY
8
DEM
I
$307,250
14 GEORGIOU, BYRON STEPHEN
CA
44
DEM
C
$295,930
15 WAITE, RALPH H
CA
37
DEM
C
$284,929
16 RICHMAN, GERALD F
FL
18
DEM
O
$277,448
17 DUNN, JIM
MI
10
REP
0
$250,963
18 MORIAL, MARC H
LA
2
DEM
O
$244,033
19 EISENDRATH, EDWIN W III
IL
9
DEM
C
$237,977
20 GREEN, BILL
NY
15
REP
I
$237,000
21 FRAZER, MARK R
MD
1
REP
C
$236,171
22 HODGES, HAROLD HAMPTON
TX
1
REP
C
$232,034
23 REED, JOHN F
RI
2
DEM
o
$219,277
24 MENOR, RON
HI
2
DEM
O
$209,205
25 ZIMMER, RICHARD A
NJ
12
REP
o
$208,274
26 GIBSON, MICHAEL LEE
AR
1
DEM
C
$203,500
27 HAMMOCK, ROBERT L
CA
36
REP
C
$192,320
28 MINK, PATSY TAKEMOTO
HI
2
DEM
O
$191,255
29 BOEHNER, JOHN ANDREW
OH
8
REP
C
$191,055
30 LOCKWOOD, FRED
NE
3
REP
O
$185,100
31 FRELINGHUYSEN, RODNEY P
NJ
12
REP
O
$181,158
32 PEREZ, CARLOS
FL
18
REP
o
$178,272
33 MATSUNAGA, MATTHEW M
HI
1
DEM
O
$173,344
34 JEFFERSON, WILLIAM J
LA
2
DEM
0
$159,655
35 HOFFMAN, MANNY
IL
4
REP
C
$157,420
36 JAMES, CRAIG TAYLOR
FL
4
REP
I
$155,000
37 HOAGLAND, PETER
NE
2
DEM
I
$150,540
38 SCHAFER, EDWARD T
ND
0
REP
C
$150,000
39 WHARTON, BONNIE
FL
11
REP
o
$148,951
40 RIGGS, FRANK DUNCAN
CA
1
REP
C
$148,055
41 HANNEMANN, MULIUFI FRANCI
HI
2
DEM
o
$140,719
42 LAUGHLIN, GREGORY HAINES
TX
14
DEM
I
$135,525
43 GIGANTE, ROBERT J
NY
14
DEM
O
$135,000
44 GINGRICH, NEWT
GA
6
REP
I
$133,575
45 RAMSTAD, JAMES M
MN
3
REP
o
$122,580
46 HAYES, JAMES A
LA
7
DEM
I
$122,000
47 BRYAN, JON LANCE
MA
10
REP
C
$118,000
48 CAMP, DAVID LEE
MI
10
REP
o
$117,153
49 ALEXANDER, WILLIAM VOLLIE
AR
1
DEM
I
$112,834
50 MCCONKEY, PHILLIP J
NJ
12
REP
o
$111,200
-52-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE INCUMBENTS - RECEIPTS
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE DIST PARTY INC
NET
CHL
RECEIPTS
OPN
1
GEPHARDT, RICHARD A
MO
3
DEM
I
$1,647,415
2 DORNAN, ROBERT KENNETH
CA
38
REP
I
$1,615,282
3 GINGRICH, NEWT
GA
6
REP
I
$1,538,827
4 LEVINE, MEL
CA
27
DEM
I
$1,496,790
5 UNSOELD, JOLENE
WA
3
DEM
I
$1,297,700
6 CAMPBELL, THOMAS J
CA
12
REP
I
$1,286,200
7 LOWEY, NITA M
NY
20
DEM
I
$1,223,045
8
SOLARZ, STEPHEN J
NY
13
DEM
I
$1,218,914
9 MATSUI, ROBERT T
CA
3
DEM
I
$1,207,843
10 BONIOR, DAVID EDWARD
MI
12
DEM
I
$1,189,127
11 OWENS, DOUGLAS WAYNE
UT
2
DEM
I
$1,014,489
12 BRYANT, JOHN W
TX
5
DEM
I
$936,755
13 HOAGLAND, PETER
NE
2
DEM
I
$935,652
14 BOXER, BARBARA
CA
6
DEM
I
$921,666
15 MILLER, JOHN R
WA
1
REP
I
$913,407
16 ASPIN, LES
WI
1
DEM
I
$892,153
17 MURTHA, JOHN P
PA
12
DEM
I
$878,887
18 PARRIS, STANFORD E
VA
8
REP
I
$864,864
19 MACHTLEY, RONALD KEITH
RI
1
REP
I
$857,775
20 DERRICK, BUTLER C
SC
3
DEM
I
$848,063
21 FAZIO, VIC
CA
4
DEM
I
$845,622
22 ATKINS, CHESTER G
MA
5
DEM
I
$843,893
23 DINGELL, JOHN D
MI
16
DEM
I
$843,579
24 SMITH, DENNIS A
OR
5
REP
I
$841,077
25 LAUGHLIN, GREGORY HAINES
TX
14
DEM
I
$829,150
26 SCHUMER, CHARLES E
NY
10
DEM
I
$819,952
27 TORRICELLI, ROBERT G
NJ
9
DEM
I
$818,917
28 BROWN, GEORGE E JR
CA
36
DEM
I
$818,181
29 KENNEDY, JOSEPH P II
MA
8
DEM
I
$805,013
30 GRANT, BILL
FL
2
REP
I
$801,238
31 BARTLETT, STEVE
TX
3
REP
I
$798,555
32 WOLPE, HOWARD E
MI
3
DEM
I
$791,685
33 DELLUMS, RONALD V
CA
8
DEM
I
$790,386
34 LANTOS, THOMAS P
CA
11
DEM
I
$788,298
35 BENTLEY, HELEN DELICH
MD
2
REP
I
$781,008
36 YATES, SIDNEY R
IL
9
DEM
I
$779,125
37 BARNARD, DRUIE DOUGLAS JR
GA
10
DEM
I
$778,139
38 HILER, JOHN PATRICK
IN
3
REP
I
$776,009
39 BROOKS, JACK
TX
9
DEM
I
$775,167
40 BATES, JIM
CA
44
DEM
I
$773,364
41 ALEXANDER, WILLIAM VOLLIE
AR
1
DEM
I
$773,016
42 PRICE, DAVID E
NC
4
DEM
I
$771,624
43 BARTON, JOE LINUS
TX
6
REP
I
$770,957
44 KOSTMAYER, PETER H
PA
8
DEM
I
$759,657
45
DYSON, ROY
MD
1
DEM
I
$759,213
46 MCMILLEN, C THOMAS
MD
4
DEM
I
$757,145
47 LONG, JILL LYNETTE
IN
4
DEM
I
$753,725
48 MOODY, JIM
WI
5
DEM
I
$735,212
49 GRAY, WILLIAM H III
PA
2
DEM
I
$725,717
50 HOYER, STENY HAMILTON
MD
5
DEM
I
$725,418
-53-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE INCUMBENTS - CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE
DIST
PARTY
INC
INDIV
CHL
CONTRIB
OPN
1 DORNAN, ROBERT KENNETH
CA
38
REP
I
$1,579,418
2 GINGRICH, NEWT
GA
6
REP
I
$1,088,529
3 LEVINE, MEL
CA
27
DEM
I
$1,053,825
4 CAMPBELL, THOMAS J
CA
12
REP
I
$992,893
5 SOLARZ, STEPHEN J
NY
13
DEM
I
$918,600
6 ATKINS, CHESTER G
MA
5
DEM
I
$829,577
7 GEPHARDT, RICHARD A
MO
3
DEM
I
$815,339
8 LOWEY, NITA M
NY
20
DEM
I
$744,542
9 KENNEDY, JOSEPH P II
MA
8
DEM
I
$628,895
10 SYNAR, MICHAEL LYNN
OK
2
DEM
I
$608,140
11 LANTOS, THOMAS P
CA
11
DEM
I
$597,361
12 UNSOELD, JOLENE
WA
3
DEM
I
$564,385
13 DELLUMS, RONALD V
CA
8
DEM
I
$547,479
14 BOXER, BARBARA
CA
6
DEM
I
$542,898
15 ASPIN, LES
WI
1
DEM
I
$538,117
16 BENTLEY, HELEN DELICH
MD
2
REP
I
$535,706
17 COX, C CHRISTOPHER
CA
40
REP
I
$504,199
18 MACHTLEY, RONALD KEITH
RI
1
REP
I
$500,299
19 MILLER, JOHN R
WA
1
REP
I
$498,569
20 GREEN, BILL
NY
15
REP
I
$495,891
21 BARTLETT, STEVE
TX
3
REP
I
$488,750
22 YATES, SIDNEY R
IL
9
DEM
I
$487,335
23 PARRIS, STANFORD E
VA
8
REP
I
$487,104
24 MATSUI, ROBERT T
CA
3
DEM
I
$486,852
25 SCHUMER, CHARLES E
NY
10
DEM
I
$474,570
26 HILER, JOHN PATRICK
IN
3
REP
I
$473,494
27 LAGOMARSINO, ROBERT J
CA
19
REP
I
$465,444
28 OWENS, DOUGLAS WAYNE
UT
2
DEM
I
$461,433
29 TORRICELLI, ROBERT G
NJ
9
DEM
I
$458,501
30 DANNEMEYER, WILLIAM E
CA
39
REP
I
$456,693
31 GRANT, BILL
FL
2
REP
I
$441,711
32 KOSTMAYER, PETER H
PA
8
DEM
I
$440,914
33 SMITH, LAMAR SEELIGSON
TX
21
REP
I
$436,306
34 GALLO, DEAN A
NJ
11
REP
I
$431,833
35 BRYANT, JOHN W
TX
5
DEM
I
$431,543
36 PAXON, BILL
NY
31
REP
I
$430,988
37 SMITH, DENNIS A
OR
5
REP
I
$421,873
38 BARTON, JOE LINUS
TX
6
REP
I
$414,484
39 GALLEGLY, ELTON
CA
21
REP
I
$411,430
40 FRANK, BARNEY
MA
4
DEM
I
$402,029
41 ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA
FL
18
REP
I
$385,784
42 LAUGHLIN, GREGORY HAINES
TX
14
DEM
I
$383,163
43 HERGER, WALTER WILLIAM (W
CA
2
REP
I
$382,079
44 COSTELLO, JERRY F
IL
21
DEM
I
$376,857
45 SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER
CT
4
REP
I
$374,360
46 KYL, JON L
AZ
4
REP
I
$373,560
47
SMITH, PETER
VT
0
REP
I
$366,780
48 BUECHNER, JOHN W JACK
MO
2
REP
I
$363,716
49 BATES, JIM
CA
44
DEM
I
$356,237
50 PRICE, DAVID E
NC
4
DEM
I
$343,986
-54-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE INCUMBENTS - CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PAC'S AND OTHER COMMITTEES
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE
DIST
PARTY
INC
OTHER
CHL
CMTE'S
OPN
1
GEPHARDT, RICHARD A
MO
3
DEM
I
$762,687
2
BONIOR, DAVID EDWARD
MI
12
DEM
I
$728,055
3 DINGELL, JOHN D
MI
16
DEM
I
$625,727
4 UNSOELD, JOLENE
WA
3
DEM
I
$624,498
5 HOAGLAND, PETER
NE
2
DEM
I
$615,587
6 MATSUI, ROBERT T
CA
3
DEM
I
$582,964
7
DERRICK, BUTLER C
SC
3
DEM
I
$542,789
8 OWENS, DOUGLAS WAYNE
UT
2
DEM
I
$541,232
9 MICHEL, ROBERT H
IL
18
REP
I
$519,161
10 GRAY, WILLIAM H III
PA
2
DEM
I
$516,953
11 SHARP, PHILIP R
IN
2
DEM
I
$498,599
12
DYSON, ROY
MD
1
DEM
I
$497,700
13 MURTHA, JOHN P
PA
12
DEM
I
$496,920
14 ANNUNZIO, FRANK
IL
11
DEM
I
$478,891
15 BROOKS, JACK
TX
9
DEM
I
$459,444
16 BRYANT, JOHN W
TX
5
DEM
I
$458,721
17 BROWN, GEORGE E JR
CA
36
DEM
I
$454,935
18 MANTON, THOMAS J
NY
9
DEM
I
$452,323
19 FAZIO, VIC
CA
4
DEM
I
$451,245
20 MOODY, JIM
WI
5
DEM
I
$450,704
21 DORGAN, BYRON L CONGRESSM
ND
0
DEM
I
$449,050
22 LOWEY, NITA M
NY
20
DEM
I
$448,797
23 LONG, JILL LYNETTE
IN
4
DEM
I
$448,381
24 HEFNER, W G (BILL)
NC
8
DEM
I
$445,293
25 WILSON, CHARLES
TX
2
DEM
I
$439,517
26 GINGRICH, NEWT
GA
6
REP
I
$433,421
27 LAUGHLIN, GREGORY HAINES
TX
14
DEM
I
$433,314
28 WALGREN, DOUG
PA
18
DEM
I
$423,415
29 MCMILLEN, C THOMAS
MD
4
DEM
I
$423,275
30 HOYER, STENY HAMILTON
MD
5
DEM
I
$417,235
31 JONES, BEN LEWIS
GA
4
DEM
I
$416,333
32 WOLPE, HOWARD E
MI
3
DEM
I
$414,976
33
FROST, MARTIN
TX
24
DEM
I
$411,405
34 LENT, NORMAN FREDERICK
NY
4
REP
I
$406,820
35 ALEXANDER, WILLIAM VOLLIE
AR
1
DEM
I
$405,150
36 JONTZ, JAMES
IN
5
DEM
I
$405,145
37 NEAL, STEPHEN L
NC
5
DEM
I
$398,879
38 BLILEY, THOMAS JEROME JR
VA
3
REP
I
$398,462
39 HOCHBRUECKNER, GEORGE J
NY
1
DEM
I
$398,062
40 PALLONE, FRANK J JR
NJ
3
DEM
I
$394,464
41 SARPALIUS, BILL
TX
13
DEM
I
$387,684
42 SMITH, DENNIS A
OR
5
REP
I
$386,986
43 PRICE, DAVID E
NC
4
DEM
I
$385,210
44 RUSSO, MARTIN A
IL
3
DEM
I
$382,966
45 ANTHONY, BERYL FRANKLIN J
AR
4
DEM
I
$374,300
46 ECKART, DENNIS E
OH
11
DEM
I
$371,536
47
SCHULZE, RICHARD T
PA
5
REP
I
$370,759
48 BOUCHER, FREDERICK CARLYL
VA
9
DEM
I
$366,584
49
MINETA, NORMAN Y
CA
13
DEM
I
$361,274
50 BATES, JIM
CA
44
DEM
I
$360,800
-55-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE INCUMBENTS - DISBURSEMENTS
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE DIST PARTY INC
NET
CHL
DISBURSE
OPN
1 GINGRICH, NEWT
GA
6
REP
I
$1,538,945
2 GEPHARDT, RICHARD A
MO
3
DEM
I
$1,455,794
3 DORNAN, ROBERT KENNETH
CA
38
REP
I
$1,445,577
4 UNSOELD, JOLENE
WA
3
DEM
I
$1,298,593
5 BONIOR, DAVID EDWARD
MI
12
DEM
I
$1,188,905
6 MURTHA, JOHN P
PA
12
DEM
I
$1,097,107
7 OWENS, DOUGLAS WAYNE
UT
2
DEM
I
$1,088,929
8 BRYANT, JOHN W
TX
5
DEM
I
$1,034,446
9 FAZIO, VIC
CA
4
DEM
I
$1,029,304
10 PARRIS, STANFORD E
VA
8
REP
I
$982,157
11 BARNARD, DRUIE DOUGLAS JR
GA
10
DEM
I
$937,464
12 HOAGLAND, PETER
NE
2
DEM
I
$929,247
13 MILLER, JOHN R
WA
1
REP
I
$912,969
14 LOWEY, NITA M
NY
20
DEM
I
$911,766
15 DERRICK, BUTLER C
SC
3
DEM
I
$907,904
16 BROOKS, JACK
TX
9
DEM
I
$885,090
17 SMITH, DENNIS A
OR
5
REP
I
$884,828
18 MACHTLEY, RONALD KEITH
RI
1
REP
I
$879,464
19 ATKINS, CHESTER G
MA
5
DEM
I
$861,333
20 ANNUNZIO, FRANK
IL
11
DEM
I
$855,952
21 LAUGHLIN, GREGORY HAINES
TX
14
DEM
I
$851,294
22 DELLUMS, RONALD V
CA
8
DEM
I
$840,029
23 GRANT, BILL
FL
2
REP
I
$839,764
24 YATES, SIDNEY R
IL
9
DEM
I
$839,106
25 BARTLETT, STEVE
TX
3
REP
I
$837,944
26 KENNEDY, JOSEPH P II
MA
8
DEM
I
$832,815
27 SLAUGHTER, D FRENCH JR
VA
7
REP
I
$826,942
28 KOSTMAYER, PETER H
PA
8
DEM
I
$826,742
29 GIBBONS, SAM M
FL
7
DEM
I
$825,795
30 BROWN, GEORGE E JR
CA
36
DEM
I
$822,686
31 BILIRAKIS, MICHAEL
FL
9
REP
I
$815,366
32 WOLPE, HOWARD E
MI
3
DEM
I
$815,244
33 GRAY, WILLIAM H III
PA
2
DEM
I
$814,125
34 ASPIN, LES
WI
1
DEM
I
$795,806
35 PRICE, DAVID E
NC
4
DEM
I
$793,291
36 ALEXANDER, WILLIAM VOLLIE
AR
1
DEM
I
$785,626
37 SHARP, PHILIP R
IN
2
DEM
I
$773,178
38 DYSON, ROY
MD
1
DEM
I
$771,809
39 LONG, JILL LYNETTE
IN
4
DEM
I
$752,362
40 HILER, JOHN PATRICK
IN
3
REP
I
$745,145
41 BATES, JIM
CA
44
DEM
I
$744,463
42 WILSON, CHARLES
TX
2
DEM
I
$740,342
43 MATSUI, ROBERT T
CA
3
DEM
I
$734,005
44 SAXTON, H JAMES
NJ
13
REP
I
$730,989
45 BENTLEY, HELEN DELICH
MD
2
REP
I
$730,852
46 FRANK, BARNEY
MA
4
DEM
I
$718,160
47 WALGREN, DOUG
PA
18
DEM
I
$717,124
48 HOYER, STENY HAMILTON
MD
5
DEM
I
$716,469
49 JONES, BEN LEWIS
GA
4
DEM
I
$711,015
50 BLILEY, THOMAS JEROME JR
VA
3
REP
I
$710,739
-56-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE INCUMBENTS - CASH-ON-HAND
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE
DIST
PARTY
INC
CASH
CHL
ON
OPN
HAND
1
SOLARZ, STEPHEN J
NY
13
DEM
I
$1,859,603
2
LEVINE, MEL
CA
27
DEM
I
$1,714,807
3
DREIER, DAVID T
CA
33
REP
I
$1,669,915
4 SCHUMER, CHARLES E
NY
10
DEM
I
$1,580,475
5 MATSUI, ROBERT T
CA
3
DEM
I
$1,128,637
6 ROSTENKOWSKI, DAN
IL
8
DEM
I
$1,114,068
7 QUILLEN, JAMES HENRY
TN
1
REP
I
$1,044,255
8 RINALDO, MATTHEW J
NJ
7
REP
I
$967,326
9 TORRICELLI, ROBERT G
NJ
9
DEM
I
$846,461
10 ANDREWS, MICHAEL A
TX
25
DEM
I
$811,150
11 BROOMFIELD, WILLIAM S
MI
18
REP
I
$754,678
12 HOPKINS, LARRY J U S REP
KY
6
REP
I
$691,433
13 LENT, NORMAN FREDERICK
NY
4
REP
I
$687,015
14 ARCHER, WILLIAM R JR
TX
7
REP
I
$670,901
15 DONNELLY, BRIAN
MA
11
DEM
I
$669,414
16 MOORHEAD, CARLOS JOHN
CA
22
REP
I
$666,684
17 LAFALCE, JOHN J
NY
32
DEM
I
$645,138
18 LANTOS, THOMAS P
CA
11
DEM
I
$637,734
19 CAMPBELL, THOMAS J
CA
12
REP
I
$633,197
20 FOLEY, THOMAS S
WA
5
DEM
I
$596,708
21 MARKEY, EDWARD JOHN
MA
7
DEM
I
$579,994
22 ROE, ROBERT
NJ
8
DEM
I
$577,940
23 BRUCE, TERRY L
IL
19
DEM
I
$574,423
24 BEVILL, TOM
AL
4
DEM
I
$566,499
25 MADIGAN, EDWARD R
IL
15
REP
I
$542,570
26 ROSE, CHARLES GRANDISON I
NC
7
DEM
I
$540,833
27 FASCELL, DANTE B
FL
19
DEM
I
$539,060
28 GORDON, BART
TN
6
DEM
I
$535,072
29 HAMMERSCHMIDT, JOHN PAUL
AR
3
REP
I
$500,684
30 BOXER, BARBARA
CA
6
DEM
I
$499,349
31 DINGELL, JOHN D
MI
16
DEM
I
$490,871
32 MOAKLEY, JOHN JOSEPH
MA
9
DEM
I
$489,816
33 DOWNEY, THOMAS J
NY
2
DEM
I
$486,556
34 MANTON, THOMAS J
NY
9
DEM
I
$478,772
35 SUNDQUIST, DONALD KENNETH
TN
7
REP
I
$471,904
36 WAXMAN, HENRY A
CA
24
DEM
I
$468,893
37 WYDEN, RON
OR
3
DEM
I
$451,751
38 JENKINS, EDGAR L
GA
9
DEM
I
$448,273
39 GRADISON, WILLIS D JR
OH
2
REP
I
$442,751
40 MILLER, GEORGE
CA
7
DEM
I
$438,229
41 WHITTEN, JAMIE LLOYD
MS
1
DEM
I
$435,724
42 SMITH, LAWRENCE JACK
FL
16
DEM
I
$413,843
43 BARTON, JOE LINUS
TX
6
REP
I
$412,069
44 BOUCHER, FREDERICK CARLYL
VA
9
DEM
I
$401,838
45 BURTON, DAN
IN
6
REP
I
$400,894
46 ROBERTS, CHARLES PATRICK
KS
1
REP
I
$400,824
47 PETRI, THOMAS E
WI
6
REP
I
$397,666
48 OBERSTAR, JAMES LOUIS
MN
8
DEM
I
$393,551
49 SMITH, NEAL
IA
4
DEM
I
$376,309
50 FOGLIETTA, THOMAS M
PA
1
DEM
I
$366,322
-57-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE INCUMBENTS - DEBTS OWED
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE DIST PARTY INC
DEBTS
CHL
OWED
OPN
1 GEREN, PRESTON M "PETE"
TX
12
DEM
I
$425,920
2 LOWEY, NITA M
NY
20
DEM
I
$405,067
3 SISISKY, NORMAN
VA
4
DEM
I
$349,183
4 SCHEUER, JAMES W
NY
8
DEM
I
$307,250
5 GREEN, BILL
NY
15
REP
I
$237,000
6 JAMES, CRAIG TAYLOR
FL
4
REP
I
$155,000
7 HOAGLAND, PETER
NE
2
DEM
I
$150,540
8 LAUGHLIN, GREGORY HAINES
TX
14
DEM
I
$135,525
9 GINGRICH, NEWT
GA
6
REP
I
$133,575
10 HAYES, JAMES A
LA
7
DEM
I
$122,000
11 ALEXANDER, WILLIAM VOLLIE
AR
1
DEM
I
$112,834
12 PAYNE, LEWIS F JR HON
VA
5
DEM
I
$105,550
13 GRANDY, FREDRICK LAWRENCE
IA
6
REP
I
$101,069
14 YOUNG, DONALD E
AK
0
REP
I
$100,119
15 BARNARD, DRUIE DOUGLAS JR
GA
10
DEM
I
$88,000
16 SLAUGHTER, D FRENCH JR
VA
7
REP
I
$75,000
17 PATTERSON, ELIZABETH J
SC
4
DEM
I
$67,215
18 SPRATT, JOHN MCKEE JR
SC
5
DEM
I
$64,000
19 SARPALIUS, BILL
TX
13
DEM
I
$63,971
20 COX, C CHRISTOPHER
CA
40
REP
I
$61,622
21 SAVAGE, GUS
IL
2
DEM
I
$61,530
22 NEAL, RICHARD E
MA
2
DEM
I
$58,683
23 BROWN, GEORGE E JR
CA
36
DEM
I
$58,255
24 STEARNS, CLIFFORD B
FL
6
REP
I
$58,073
25 PALLONE, FRANK J JR
NJ
3
DEM
I
$54,371
26 MILLER, JOHN R
WA
1
REP
I
$54,000
27 PRICE, DAVID E
NC
4
DEM
I
$50,778
28 ROSE, CHARLES GRANDISON I
NC
7
DEM
I
$50,000
29 ENGEL, ELIOT L
NY
19
DEM
I
$47,018
30 KOSTMAYER, PETER H
PA
8
DEM
I
$46,428
31 DELLUMS, RONALD V
CA
8
DEM
I
$45,000
32 PERKINS, CARL CHRISTOPHER
KY
7
DEM
I
$42,923
33 JONTZ, JAMES
IN
5
DEM
I
$42,596
34 STAGGERS, HARLEY ORRIN JR
WV
2
DEM
I
$42,297
35 TAYLOR, GARY EUGENE
MS
5
DEM
I
$42,054
36 FLAKE, FLOYD H
NY
6
DEM
I
$41,044
37 CHAPMAN, JIM
TX
1
DEM
I
$40,718
38 MAZZOLI, ROMANO L
KY
3
DEM
I
$36,900
39 GEJDENSON, SAMUEL
CT
2
DEM
I
$36,737
40 ATKINS, CHESTER G
MA
5
DEM
I
$35,624
41 GOSS, PORTER JOHNSTON
FL
13
REP
I
$35,183
42 BARTON, JOE LINUS
TX
6
REP
I
$35,028
43 BATEMAN, HERBERT H
VA
1
REP
I
$35,000
44 TORRICELLI, ROBERT G
NJ
9
DEM
I
$34,719
45 LAGOMARSINO, ROBERT J
CA
19
REP
I
$32,600
46 JONES, BEN LEWIS
GA
4
DEM
I
$32,315
47 CONYERS, JOHN JR
MI
1
DEM
I
$32,267
48 GONZALEZ, HENRY B
TX
20
DEM
I
$30,099
49 RAY, RICHARD B
GA
3
DEM
I
$30,000
50 BILBRAY, JAMES H
NV
1
DEM
I
$30,000
-58-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE CHALLENGERS - RECEIPTS
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE
DIST
PARTY
INC
NET
CHL
RECEIPTS
OPN
1 HUGHES, REID
FL
4
DEM
C
$1,073,878
2
CARRINGTON, JOHN H
NC
4
REP
C
$893,349
3 MORAN, JAMES P JR
VA
8
DEM
C
$883,236
4 KOPETSKI, MICHAEL JOSEPH
OR
5
DEM
C
$851,729
5 WILLIAMS, G ROBERT
WA
3
REP
C
$829,603
6 JOHNSON, JOHN ARTHUR
IN
5
REP
C
$783,818
7 BOEHNER, JOHN ANDREW
OH
8
REP
C
$737,441
8 LINDER, JOHN
GA
4
REP
C
$696,858
9 WATERFIELD, RICHARD ALLEN
TX
13
REP
C
$684,141
10 HOFFMAN, MANNY
IL
4
REP
C
$651,729
11 LAROUCHE, LYNDON H JR
VA
10
DEM
C
$648,572
12 EISENDRATH, EDWIN W III
IL
9
DEM
C
$644,647
13 MILDER, ALLY
NE
2
REP
C
$632,229
14 WAITE, RALPH H
CA
37
DEM
C
$622,159
15 GIBSON, MICHAEL LEE
AR
1
DEM
C
$596,190
16 PENCE, MICHAEL R
IN
2
REP
C
$590,467
17 HAWKS, RICK
IN
4
REP
c
$580,037
18 SANDERS, BERNARD
VT
0
C
$571,556
19 DOOLEY, CALVIN M
CA
17
DEM
C
$547,763
20 CUNNINGHAM, RANDY "DUKE"
CA
44
REP
C
$539,721
21 HAMMOCK, ROBERT L
CA
36
REP
C
$538,381
22 TAYLOR, CHARLES HART
NC
11
REP
C
$523,580
23 ATWOOD, GENEVIEVE
UT
2
REP
C
$505,299
24 ROEMER, TIM
IN
3
DEM
C
$504,884
25 KORMAN, SANG R
CA
21
REP
C
$480,074
26 DIAL, JOSEPH BURT
TX
14
REP
C
$479,218
27 SWETT, RICHARD NELSON
NH
2
DEM
C
$470,252
28 MEYERS, MAURICE M
TX
9
REP
C
$462,656
29 RUCKER, JERRY D
TX
5
REP
C
$453,796
30 KOEPPEL, WILLIAM WILKE
NY
17
REP
C
$432,534
31 HODGES, HAROLD HAMPTON
TX
1
REP
C
$420,961
32 GEORGIOU, BYRON STEPHEN
CA
44
DEM
C
$417,345
33 GLASSCO, KURT GEORGE
OK
1
DEM
C
$411,069
34 DUDYCZ, WALTER W
IL
11
REP
C
$408,470
35 SMITH, DAVID M
VA
7
DEM
C
$390,379
36 SULLIVAN, CYNTHIA M
WA
1
DEM
C
$376,382
37 WOLF, J SCOTT
RI
1
DEM
C
$369,300
38 SALOMON, JIM
CA
23
REP
C
$358,367
39 LUCK, OLIVER FRANCIS
WV
2
REP
C
$357,109
40 HORN, JOAN KELLY
MO
2
DEM
C
$356,766
41 WORLEY, DAVID JAMES
GA
6
DEM
C
$342,310
42 BROWN, J ALPHONSO
KY
3
REP
C
$329,060
43 FRAZER, MARK R
MD
1
REP
C
$324,977
44 CAMPBELL, FOSTER L
LA
4
DEM
C
$316,703
45 BLANTON, TED
NC
8
REP
C
$306,813
46 PETERSON, DOUGLAS BRIAN
FL
2
DEM
C
$306,429
47 DINGEMAN, JAMES H
MI
12
REP
C
$296,051
48 EPSTEIN, MARK SANFORD
NY
5
DEM
C
$292,463
49 HUTTER, JEFFREY VANCE
KY
3
DEM
C
$287,163
50 SCHAFER, EDWARD T
ND
0
REP
C
$285,042
-59-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE CHALLENGERS - CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE DIST PARTY INC
INDIV
CHL
CONTRIB
OPN
1
LAROUCHE, LYNDON H JR
VA
10
DEM
C
$645,024
2 MORAN, JAMES P JR
VA
8
DEM
C
$588,784
3 WATERFIELD, RICHARD ALLEN
TX
13
REP
C
$520,787
4 WILLIAMS, G ROBERT
WA
3
REP
C
$493,562
5 PENCE, MICHAEL R
IN
2
REP
C
$469,273
6 HAWKS, RICK
IN
4
REP
C
$457,001
7 KOPETSKI, MICHAEL JOSEPH
OR
5
DEM
C
$438,931
8 SANDERS, BERNARD
VT
0
C
$434,730
9 HAMMOCK, ROBERT L
CA
36
REP
C
$411,869
10 MEYERS, MAURICE M
TX
9
REP
C
$406,770
11 LINDER, JOHN
GA
4
REP
C
$400,346
12 MILDER, ALLY
NE
2
REP
C
$398,853
13 EISENDRATH, EDWIN W III
IL
9
DEM
C
$393,901
14 RUCKER, JERRY D
TX
5
REP
C
$379,107
15 DIAL, JOSEPH BURT
TX
14
REP
C
$367,785
16 GIBSON, MICHAEL LEE
AR
1
DEM
C
$340,010
17 SALOMON, JIM
CA
23
REP
C
$338,164
18 BOEHNER, JOHN ANDREW
OH
8
REP
C
$333,317
19 SMITH, DAVID M
VA
7
DEM
C
$322,876
20 HOFFMAN, MANNY
IL
4
REP
C
$292,150
21 DOOLEY, CALVIN M
CA
17
DEM
C
$291,811
22 CUNNINGHAM, RANDY "DUKE"
CA
44
REP
c
$285,651
23 SWETT, RICHARD NELSON
NH
2
DEM
C
$273,586
24 BLANTON, TED
NC
8
REP
C
$249,562
25 WOLF, J SCOTT
RI
1
DEM
C
$248,028
26 BROWN, J ALPHONSO
KY
3
REP
C
$242,959
27 BRISCUSO, RAYMOND JOSEPH
MD
1
REP
C
$221,746
28 SANTORUM, RICHARD JOHN
PA
18
REP
C
$211,612
29 ROEMER, TIM
IN
3
DEM
C
$209,276
30 KREAMER, BARBARA OSBORN
MD
1
DEM
C
$204,814
31 SULLIVAN, CYNTHIA M
WA
1
DEM
C
$204,687
32 NAHIGIAN, ARCHIE H JR
CA
17
DEM
C
$203,235
33 WAITE, RALPH H
CA
37
DEM
C
$201,466
34 MACGOVERN, JOHN F
MA
5
REP
C
$196,324
35 HASKINS, BRADLEY JAMES
MI
3
REP
C
$194,060
36 LUCK, OLIVER FRANCIS
WV
2
REP
C
$193,852
37 ROSS, JACK W
OK
2
DEM
C
$188,302
38 BRYAN, JON LANCE
MA
10
REP
C
$187,285
39 TAYLOR, CHARLES HART
NC
11
REP
C
$185,058
40 EPSTEIN, MARK SANFORD
NY
5
DEM
C
$182,284
41 HODGES, HAROLD HAMPTON
TX
1
REP
C
$180,345
42 HORN, JOAN KELLY
MO
2
DEM
C
$175,528
43 KRESS, B ALEXANDER (SANDY
TX
5
DEM
C
$171,926
44 DUDYCZ, WALTER W
IL
11
REP
C
$170,853
45 FRANKENFELD, DONALD L
SD
0
REP
C
$169,888
46 KORMAN, SANG R
CA
21
REP
C
$163,645
47 HUGHES, REID
FL
4
DEM
C
$161,633
48 ATWOOD, GENEVIEVE
UT
2
REP
C
$152,562
49 PREVIDI, ROBERT
NY
3
REP
C
$151,212
50 GILCHREST, WAYNE THOMAS
MD
1
REP
C
$150,992
-60-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE CHALLENGERS - CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PAC'S AND OTHER COMMITTEES
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE DIST PARTY INC
OTHER
CHL
CMTE'S
OPN
1 KOPETSKI, MICHAEL JOSEPH
OR
5
DEM
C
$399,283
2
ROEMER, TIM
IN
3
DEM
C
$269,313
3 MORAN, JAMES P JR
VA
8
DEM
C
$257,821
4 BOEHNER, JOHN ANDREW
OH
8
REP
C
$219,526
5 DUDYCZ, WALTER W
IL
11
REP
C
$217,755
6 VAN SISTINE, JEROME
WI
8
DEM
C
$214,895
7 CUNNINGHAM, RANDY "DUKE"
CA
44
REP
C
$214,547
8 WILLIAMS, G ROBERT
WA
3
REP
C
$204,768
9 GLASSCO, KURT GEORGE
OK
1
DEM
C
$194,950
10 SWETT, RICHARD NELSON
NH
2
DEM
C
$186,000
11 PETERSON, COLLIN C
MN
7
DEM
C
$185,598
12 DOOLEY, CALVIN M
CA
17
DEM
C
$171,185
13 WORLEY, DAVID JAMES
GA
6
DEM
C
$163,190
14 HORN, JOAN KELLY
MO
2
DEM
C
$160,515
15 MILDER, ALLY
NE
2
REP
C
$152,769
16 WAITE, RALPH H
CA
37
DEM
C
$149,266
17 CAMPBELL, FOSTER L
LA
4
DEM
C
$139,450
18 LINDER, JOHN
GA
4
REP
C
$138,474
19 PETERSON, DOUGLAS BRIAN
FL
2
DEM
C
$133,170
20 SULLIVAN, CYNTHIA M
WA
1
DEM
C
$127,537
21 CARNAHAN, JOHN RUSSELL
MO
8
DEM
C
$120,950
22 HUTTER, JEFFREY VANCE
KY
3
DEM
C
$117,000
23 TAYLOR, CHARLES HART
NC
11
REP
C
$111,689
24 WOLF, J SCOTT
RI
1
DEM
C
$104,646
25 HAMMOCK, ROBERT L
CA
36
REP
C
$104,035
26 HUGHES, REID
FL
4
DEM
C
$103,400
27 BAGGIANO, FAYE S
AL
2
DEM
C
$91,752
28 HOFFMAN, MANNY
IL
4
REP
C
$87,725
29 ATWOOD, GENEVIEVE
UT
2
REP
C
$85,596
30 HAWKS, RICK
IN
4
REP
C
$79,448
31 FERGUSON, ANITA PEREZ
CA
19
DEM
C
$72,875
32 SANDERS, BERNARD
VT
0
C
$72,250
33 ROSS, JACK W
OK
2
DEM
C
$72,017
34 WATERFIELD, RICHARD ALLEN
TX
13
REP
C
$68,725
35 BRUNSDALE, KENLEY WAYNE
UT
1
DEM
C
$66,850
36 MCGOWAN, PATRICK K
ME
2
DEM
C
$65,903
37 GILCHREST, WAYNE THOMAS
MD
1
REP
C
$60,074
38 LUCK, OLIVER FRANCIS
WV
2
REP
C
$57,476
39 ADLER, JOHN H
NJ
13
DEM
C
$56,599
40 HASKINS, BRADLEY JAMES
MI
3
REP
C
$56,300
41 GAUGHAN, KEVIN P
NY
31
DEM
C
$51,492
42 JONES, LEROY
KS
3
DEM
C
$51,299
43 KREAMER, BARBARA OSBORN
MD
1
DEM
C
$50,139
44 SMITH, DAVID M
VA
7
DEM
C
$49,250
45 JOLIVETTE, GREGORY V
OH
8
DEM
C
$48,825
46 REYNOLDS, MEL
IL
2
DEM
C
$48,100
47 MCFARLAND, B JOANNE
MI
4
DEM
C
$48,100
48 DEATON, THOMAS PATRICK
MO
7
DEM
C
$47,445
49 RUCKER, JERRY D
TX
5
REP
C
$45,875
50 HALL, LARRY M
NE
1
DEM
C
$43,400
-61-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE CHALLENGERS - DISBURSEMENTS
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE DIST PARTY INC
NET
CHL
DISBURSE
OPN
1 HUGHES, REID
FL
4
DEM
C
$1,067,366
2 CARRINGTON, JOHN H
NC
4
REP
C
$890,838
3 MORAN, JAMES P JR
VA
8
DEM
C
$883,216
4 KOPETSKI, MICHAEL JOSEPH
OR
5
DEM
C
$843,297
5 WILLIAMS, G ROBERT
WA
3
REP
C
$817,944
6 JOHNSON, JOHN ARTHUR
IN
5
REP
C
$781,224
7 BOEHNER, JOHN ANDREW
OH
8
REP
C
$732,765
8 LINDER, JOHN
GA
4
REP
C
$696,859
9 WATERFIELD, RICHARD ALLEN
TX
13
REP
C
$679,117
10 LAROUCHE, LYNDON H JR
VA
10
DEM
C
$647,836
11 HOFFMAN, MANNY
IL
4
REP
C
$642,391
12 EISENDRATH, EDWIN W III
IL
9
DEM
C
$642,119
13 MILDER, ALLY
NE
2
REP
C
$625,716
14 WAITE, RALPH H
CA
37
DEM
C
$624,560
15 PENCE, MICHAEL R
IN
2
REP
C
$595,457
16 GIBSON, MICHAEL LEE
AR
1
DEM
C
$581,189
17 HAWKS, RICK
IN
4
REP
C
$575,363
18 SANDERS, BERNARD
VT
0
C
$569,772
19 DOOLEY, CALVIN M
CA
17
DEM
C
$538,354
20 HAMMOCK, ROBERT L
CA
36
REP
C
$538,156
21 CUNNINGHAM, RANDY "DUKE"
CA
44
REP
C
$534,167
22 TAYLOR, CHARLES HART
NC
11
REP
C
$523,867
23 ATWOOD, GENEVIEVE
UT
2
REP
C
$490,726
24 KORMAN, SANG R
CA
21
REP
C
$480,072
25 ROEMER, TIM
IN
3
DEM
C
$473,055
26 SWETT, RICHARD NELSON
NH
2
DEM
C
$465,160
27 RUCKER, JERRY D
TX
5
REP
C
$453,165
28 DIAL, JOSEPH BURT
TX
14
REP
C
$450,095
29 MEYERS, MAURICE M
TX
9
REP
C
$447,974
30 KOEPPEL, WILLIAM WILKE
NY
17
REP
C
$431,513
31 GEORGIOU, BYRON STEPHEN
CA
44
DEM
C
$414,836
32 HODGES, HAROLD HAMPTON
TX
1
REP
C
$408,677
33 DUDYCZ, WALTER W
IL
11
REP
C
$407,617
34 GLASSCO, KURT GEORGE
OK
1
DEM
C
$406,280
35 SMITH, DAVID M
VA
7
DEM
C
$388,415
36 WOLF, J SCOTT
RI
1
DEM
C
$370,118
37 SALOMON, JIM
CA
23
REP
C
$360,389
38 LUCK, OLIVER FRANCIS
WV
2
REP
C
$356,282
39 SULLIVAN, CYNTHIA M
WA
1
DEM
C
$351,660
40 HORN, JOAN KELLY
MO
2
DEM
C
$340,390
41 WORLEY, DAVID JAMES
GA
6
DEM
C
$333,873
42 KREAMER, BARBARA OSBORN
MD
1
DEM
C
$329,355
43 BROWN, J ALPHONSO
KY
3
REP
C
$327,390
44 FRAZER, MARK R
MD
1
REP
C
$325,374
45 PETERSON, DOUGLAS BRIAN
FL
2
DEM
C
$306,104
46 CAMPBELL, FOSTER L
LA
4
DEM
C
$305,348
47 BLANTON, TED
NC
8
REP
C
$300,893
48 DINGEMAN, JAMES H
MI
12
REP
C
$295,184
49 EPSTEIN, MARK SANFORD
NY
5
DEM
C
$291,412
50 HUTTER, JEFFREY VANCE
KY
3
DEM
C
$287,163
-62-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE CHALLENGERS CASH-ON-HAND
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE
DIST
PARTY
INC
CASH
CHL
ON
OPN
HAND
1 KRESS, B ALEXANDER (SANDY
TX
5
DEM
C
$115,567
2 JONES, SAMUEL RAY JR
GA
10
REP
C
$85,306
3 ROEMER, TIM
IN
3
DEM
C
$31,826
4 DIAL, JOSEPH BURT
TX
14
REP
C
$29,121
5 ROBINSON, WILLIAM J
MA
10
REP
C
$20,000
6 SULLIVAN, CYNTHIA M
WA
1
DEM
C
$19,499
7 HORN, JOAN KELLY
MO
2
DEM
C
$16,376
8 GIBSON, MICHAEL LEE
AR
1
DEM
C
$15,001
9 MEYERS, MAURICE M
TX
9
REP
C
$14,686
10 ATWOOD, GENEVIEVE
UT
2
REP
C
$14,573
11 LANTRY, JAMES J
CA
44
REP
C
$13,409
12 CAMPBELL, FOSTER L
LA
4
DEM
C
$12,676
13 PUCA, ANTHONY PATRICK
MD
6
DEM
C
$12,403
14 WILLIAMS, G ROBERT
WA
3
REP
C
$11,658
15 BRYAN, JON LANCE
MA
10
REP
C
$11,645
16 WORLEY, DAVID JAMES
GA
6
DEM
C
$10,846
17 FIELDS, CLEO
LA
8
DEM
C
$9,561
18 HOFFMAN, MANNY
IL
4
REP
C
$9,464
19 KOPETSKI, MICHAEL JOSEPH
OR
5
DEM
C
$9,449
20 DOOLEY, CALVIN M
CA
17
DEM
C
$9,409
21 PETERSON, COLLIN C
MN
7
DEM
C
$9,233
22 HORVATH, JANOS
IN
10
REP
C
$8,441
23 BURRIS, DON EDGAR
MT
2
DEM
C
$7,354
24 DIMAURO, THEODORE E
MA
2
DEM
C
$7,268
25 BLANTON, TED
NC
8
REP
C
$7,037
26 STRUB, SEAN O'BRIEN
NY
22
DEM
C
$6,824
27 RIGGS, FRANK DUNCAN
CA
1
REP
C
$6,677
28 HUGHES, REID
FL
4
DEM
C
$6,511
29 MILDER, ALLY
NE
2
REP
c
$6,449
30 SANTORUM, RICHARD JOHN
PA
18
REP
c
$6,289
31 GLASSCO, KURT GEORGE
OK
1
DEM
C
$6,123
32 BRISCUSO, RAYMOND JOSEPH
MD
1
REP
C
$6,006
33 KLUG, SCOTT
WI
2
REP
C
$5,660
34 CUNNINGHAM, RANDY "DUKE"
CA
44
REP
c
$5,553
35 BAGGIANO, FAYE S
AL
2
DEM
C
$5,445
36 BLANKENSHIP, MARK IRVIN
CA
35
REP
C
$5,288
37 BREWSTER, MARIANNE RICHAR
WV
4
REP
c
$5,198
38 SWETT, RICHARD NELSON
NH
2
DEM
C
$5,090
39 BOEHNER, JOHN ANDREW
OH
8
REP
c
$4,674
40 PREVIDI, ROBERT
NY
3
REP
c
$4,535
41 DAVIS, DONALD SPENCER
NC
3
REP
c
$4,477
42 SCHALLER, AUDRIE ZETTICK
PA
8
REP
c
$4,406
43 HASKINS, BRADLEY JAMES
MI
3
REP
C
$4,355
44 SOHN, HERBERT MD
IL
9
REP
C
$4,261
45 INCARNATO, JOSEPH S
MD
8
DEM
C
$4,195
46 HOFFMAN, CHARLES JOSEPH
GA
9
REP
C
$4,133
47 FOX, ANDREW H
VA
1
DEM
c
$4,083
48 VIGIL-GIRON, REBECCA
NM
1
DEM
C
$4,003
49 POWELL, RODNEY H
IA
5
DEM
C
$3,993
50 FLETCHER, ROBERT B
FL
5
DEM
C
$3,923
-63-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE CHALLENGERS - DEBTS OWED
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE DIST PARTY INC
DEBTS
CHL
OWED
OPN
1 MUELLER, MARGARET REID
OH
11
REP
C
$967,542
2 HUGHES, REID
FL
4
DEM
C
$748,253
3 JOHNSON, JOHN ARTHUR
IN
5
REP
C
$626,077
4 KORMAN, SANG R
CA
21
REP
C
$559,139
5 TAYLOR, CHARLES HART
NC
11
REP
C
$434,467
6 GEORGIOU, BYRON STEPHEN
CA
44
DEM
C
$295,930
7 WAITE, RALPH H
CA
37
DEM
C
$284,929
8 EISENDRATH, EDWIN W III
IL
9
DEM
C
$237,977
9 FRAZER, MARK R
MD
1
REP
C
$236,171
10 HODGES, HAROLD HAMPTON
TX
1
REP
C
$232,034
11 GIBSON, MICHAEL LEE
AR
1
DEM
C
$203,500
12 HAMMOCK, ROBERT L
CA
36
REP
C
$192,320
13 BOEHNER, JOHN ANDREW
OH
8
REP
C
$191,055
14 HOFFMAN, MANNY
IL
4
REP
C
$157,420
15 SCHAFER, EDWARD T
ND
0
REP
C
$150,000
16 RIGGS, FRANK DUNCAN
CA
1
REP
C
$148,055
17 BRYAN, JON LANCE
MA
10
REP
C
$118,000
18 FRANKENFELD, DONALD L
SD
0
REP
C
$110,300
19 ROMERO, VICTOR ARNOLD
CA
9
REP
C
$106,914
20 DIMAURO, THEODORE E
MA
2
DEM
C
$104,838
21 MAXFIELD, PETER CHARLES
WY
0
DEM
C
$102,613
22 WRZESINSKI, JOHN T
AZ
1
REP
C
$101,694
23 LAROUCHE, LYNDON H JR
VA
10
DEM
C
$99,582
24 GELPI, MICHAEL A
OH
12
DEM
C
$94,800
25 TORI, MARTIN A
KY
2
REP
C
$93,237
26 LINDER, JOHN
GA
4
REP
C
$89,975
27 SHORE, HOWARD SCOTT
FL
14
REP
C
$86,647
28 DINGEMAN, JAMES H
MI
12
REP
C
$85,507
29 RAPPA, DANIEL DOMINICK
DE
0
DEM
C
$84,000
30 PETERSON, COLLIN C
MN
7
DEM
C
$82,906
31 MORAN, JAMES P JR
VA
8
DEM
C
$82,687
32 NAHIGIAN, ARCHIE H JR
CA
17
DEM
C
$81,827
33. NICHOLS, ALAN H
CA
5
REP
C
$79,540
34 PENCE, MICHAEL R
IN
2
REP
C
$70,614
35 STASKIEWICZ, RONALD LEE
NE
2
REP
C
$69,094
36 WATERFIELD, RICHARD ALLEN
TX
13
REP
C
$69,072
37 RAGSDALE, JOHN MILTON
CT
2
REP
C
$67,382
38 ORLOSKI, RICHARD J
PA
15
DEM
C
$62,252
39 PETERSON, DOUGLAS BRIAN
FL
2
DEM
C
$62,141
40 DOOLEY, CALVIN M
CA
17
DEM
C
$62,140
41 HARVEY, LANE
IL
19
REP
C
$60,621
42 WEED, PERRY
MD
1
REP
C
$59,349
43 PANGELINAN, VICENTE C
GU
0
DEM
C
$56,575
44 PALMER, ROBERT
CA
12
DEM
C
$56,563
45 GHOUGASSIAN, JOSEPH A
CA
44
REP
C
$53,319
46 EPSTEIN, MARK SANFORD
NY
5
DEM
C
$48,689
47 FRANCO, REUBEN DANIEL
CA
30
REP
C
$47,943
48 SMITH, ALFRED J JR
CT
4
DEM
C
$47,500
49 INNELLI, JOHN FRANCIS
PA
7
DEM
C
$46,332
50 TUCK, HOWARD K
WV
1
REP
C
$45,865
-64-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE OPEN SEAT - RECEIPTS
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE
DIST
PARTY
INC
NET
CHL
RECEIPTS
OPN
1 CHANDLER, MARGUERITE 10/
NJ
12
DEM
o
$1,716,554
2 ZIMMER, RICHARD A
NJ
12
REP
o
$1,227,742
3 CONDIT, GARY
CA
15
DEM
o
$1,158,192
4 ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA
FL
18
REP
o
$1,081,884
5 DELAURO, ROSA L
CT
3
DEM
O
$973,625
6 GEREN, PRESTON M "PETE"
TX
12
DEM
o
$936,886
7 RAMSTAD, JAMES M
MN
3
REP
O
$936,208
8 REED, JOHN F
RI
2
DEM
O
$902,877
9 RICHMAN, GERALD F
FL
18
DEM
o
$889,080
10 MOFFETT, ANTHONY TOBY
CT
5
DEM
o
$880,726
11 SHINE, HUGH DUNHAM
TX
11
REP
o
$878,663
12 BACCHUS, JAMES L
FL
11
DEM
o
$877,500
13 ANDERSON, THOMAS H JR
MS
5
REP
O
$834,168
14 FRELINGHUYSEN, RODNEY P
NJ
12
REP
o
$817,892
15 ZELIFF, WILLIAM H JR
NH
1
REP
o
$807,514
16 WATERS, MAXINE
CA
29
DEM
o
$740,793
17 THORNTON, RAY
AR
2
DEM
o
$697,067
18 ANDREWS, THOMAS H
ME
1
DEM
O
$696,604
19 LUKEN, CHARLES
OH
1
DEM
O
$680,789
20 EDWARDS, THOMAS CHESTER
TX
11
DEM
o
$672,399
21 BLACKWELL, J KENNETH
OH
1
REP
o
$671,848
22 CAMP, DAVID LEE
MI
10
REP
o
$667,713
23 CRAMER, ROBERT E JR
AL
5
DEM
o
$662,457
24 LANIER, BOB DR
TX
12
REP
o
$647,762
25 BARRETT, WILLIAM E
NE
3
REP
o
$644,559
26 WASHINGTON, CRAIG A
TX
18
DEM
o
$644,479
27 MINK, PATSY TAKEMOTO
HI
2
DEM
o
$641,324
28 BROWDER, JOHN GLEN
AL
3
DEM
o
$594,284
29 FRANKS, GARY A
CT
5
REP
o
$587,045
30 COXE, GERTRUDE M
RI
2
REP
o
$577,919
31 NICHOLS, RICHARD D
KS
5
REP
o
$573,188
32 TABOR, ERIC J
IA
2
DEM
o
$570,382
33 THOMAS, CRAIG LYLE
WY
0
REP
o
$564,142
34 HALL, ANTHONY W JR
TX
18
DEM
O
$556,540
35 ANDREWS, ROBERT E
NJ
1
DEM
O
$542,535
36 DOOLITTLE, JOHN T
CA
14
REP
o
$529,813
37 VINICH, JOHN P
WY
0
DEM
O
$514,629
38 HALLOCK, JOHN W JR
IL
16
REP
o
$495,061
39 MORIAL, MARC H
LA
2
DEM
O
$492,323
40 SMYSER, CHARLES A "SKIP"
ID
1
REP
o
$487,424
41 BOND, RICHARD RANDOLPH
CO
4
DEM
o
$486,762
42 ABERCROMBIE, NEIL
HI
1
DEM
o
$476,231
43 GIFFORD, CHARLES HERBERT
RI
2
DEM
o
$474,702
44 MOLINARI, SUSAN K
NY
14
REP
o
$470,197
45 NUSSLE, JAMES ALLEN
IA
2
REP
o
$469,933
46 LOCKWOOD, FRED
NE
3
REP
o
$466,025
47 EMERY, DAVID F
ME
1
REP
o
$465,551
48 SCOFIELD, SANDRA KAY
NE
3
DEM
o
$457,931
49 HANNEMANN, MULIUFI FRANCI
HI
2
DEM
o
$457,588
50 LA ROCCO, LARRY
ID
1
DEM
o
$449,419
-65-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE OPEN SEAT- CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE DIST PARTY INC
INDIV
CHL
CONTRIB
OPN
1 ZIMMER, RICHARD A
NJ
12
REP
O
$901,105
2 ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA
FL
18
REP
o
$720,522
3 RAMSTAD, JAMES M
MN
3
REP
o
$677,539
4 DELAURO, ROSA L
CT
3
DEM
o
$550,104
5 GEREN, PRESTON M "PETE"
TX
12
DEM
o
$548,751
6 SHINE, HUGH DUNHAM
TX
11
REP
o
$480,279
7 CONDIT, GARY
CA
15
DEM
O
$462,467
8 FRELINGHUYSEN, RODNEY P
NJ
12
REP
O
$444,813
9 MOFFETT, ANTHONY TOBY
CT
5
DEM
o
$443,524
10 ANDERSON, THOMAS H JR
MS
5
REP
o
$441,996
11 LANIER, BOB DR
TX
12
REP
o
$440,111
12 BACCHUS, JAMES L
FL
11
DEM
o
$406,493
13 ANDREWS, THOMAS H
ME
1
DEM
o
$401,252
14 WATERS, MAXINE
CA
29
DEM
O
$397,513
15 BLACKWELL, J KENNETH
OH
1
REP
o
$396,023
16 WASHINGTON, CRAIG A
TX
18
DEM
O
$385,161
17 THORNTON, RAY
AR
2
DEM
O
$376,229
18 BARRETT, WILLIAM E
NE
3
REP
o
$367,397
19 CAMP, DAVID LEE
MI
10
REP
o
$361,894
20 RICHMAN, GERALD F
FL
18
DEM
o
$358,671
21 CRAMER, ROBERT E JR
AL
5
DEM
o
$326,753
22 COXE, GERTRUDE M
RI
2
REP
o
$325,378
23 HALL, ANTHONY W JR
TX
18
DEM
O
$323,036
24 ABERCROMBIE, NEIL
HI
1
DEM
o
$312,354
25 REED, JOHN F
RI
2
DEM
O
$301,088
26 MIZUGUCHI, NORMAN KEIJI
HI
1
DEM
O
$299,252
27 KEET, JAMES HOLLAND III "
AR
2
REP
o
$292,095
28 DOOLITTLE, JOHN T
CA
14
REP
O
$289,247
29 MOLINARI, SUSAN K
NY
14
REP
o
$285,627
30 MINK, PATSY TAKEMOTO
HI
2
DEM
O
$283,810
31 ZELIFF, WILLIAM H JR
NH
1
REP
O
$283,013
32 HANNEMANN, MULIUFI FRANCI
HI
2
DEM
o
$276,996
33 NORTON, ELEANOR H
DC
0
DEM
O
$275,730
34 EDWARDS, THOMAS CHESTER
TX
11
DEM
o
$271,055
35 LUKEN, CHARLES
OH
1
DEM
O
$266,523
36 NUSSLE, JAMES ALLEN
IA
2
REP
o
$257,124
37 ANDREWS, ROBERT E
NJ
1
DEM
O
$252,593
38 THOMAS, CRAIG LYLE
WY
0
REP
O
$244,319
39 FRANKS, GARY A
CT
5
REP
o
$244,153
40 RICE, JOHN
AL
3
REP
o
$240,497
41 JEFFERSON, WILLIAM J
LA
2
DEM
o
$239,066
42 KENNEDY, ROSARIO
FL
18
DEM
o
$228,575
43 MORIAL, MARC H
LA
2
DEM
O
$226,009
44 BERRYHILL, CLARE L
CA
15
REP
o
$225,977
45 EMERY, DAVID F
ME
1
REP
o
$223,311
46 BREWSTER, BILLY KENT
OK
3
DEM
o
$221,009
47 SMYSER, CHARLES A "SKIP"
ID
1
REP
o
$220,371
48 KERR, ROBERT S III
OK
3
DEM
o
$216,692
49 HALLOCK, JOHN W JR
IL
16
REP
o
$211,214
50 SCOTT, THOMAS
CT
3
REP
O
$209,823
-66-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE OPEN SEAT - CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PAC'S AND OTHER COMMITTEES
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE
DIST
PARTY
INC
OTHER
CHL
CMTE'S
OPN
1 BACCHUS, JAMES L
FL
11
DEM
0
$412,573
2 MOFFETT, ANTHONY TOBY
CT
5
DEM
O
$411,188
3 DELAURO, ROSA L
CT
3
DEM
O
$401,805
4 CONDIT, GARY
CA
15
DEM
O
$396,882
5 TABOR, ERIC J
IA
2
DEM
O
$389,847
6 LUKEN, CHARLES
OH
1
DEM
O
$369,725
7
BROWDER, JOHN GLEN
AL
3
DEM
O
$357,692
8 GEREN, PRESTON M "PETE"
TX
12
DEM
O
$350,390
9 EDWARDS, THOMAS CHESTER
TX
11
DEM
O
$345,480
10 REED, JOHN F
RI
2
DEM
O
$302,216
11 VINICH, JOHN P
WY
0
DEM
O
$273,150
12 BOND, RICHARD RANDOLPH
CO
4
DEM
O
$255,580
13 CRAMER, ROBERT E JR
AL
5
DEM
o
$246,932
14 ANDREWS, THOMAS H
ME
1
DEM
O
$244,473
15 ANDERSON, THOMAS H JR
MS
5
REP
O
$242,933
16 THORNTON, RAY
AR
2
DEM
O
$242,900
17 SCOFIELD, SANDRA KAY
NE
3
DEM
O
$239,816
18 LONG, JILL LYNETTE
IN
4
DEM
O
$239,147
19 LA ROCCO, LARRY
ID
1
DEM
0
$238,753
20 RAMSTAD, JAMES M
MN
3
REP
O
$237,745
21 THOMAS, CRAIG LYLE
WY
0
REP
0
$237,345
22 ANDREWS, ROBERT E
NJ
1
DEM
0
$236,190
23 DOOLITTLE, JOHN T
CA
14
REP
0
$234,764
24 ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA
FL
18
REP
0
$233,757
25 KENNEDY, ROSARIO
FL
18
DEM
O
$216,900
26 WATERS, MAXINE
CA
29
DEM
0
$211,172
27 HALLOCK, JOHN W JR
IL
16
REP
0
$205,507
28 ZIMMER, RICHARD A
NJ
12
REP
0
$204,983
29 HOBSON, DAVID L
OH
7
REP
0
$202,427
30 SMYSER, CHARLES A "SKIP"
ID
1
REP
0
$198,459
31 BARRETT, WILLIAM E
NE
3
REP
O
$193,583
32 COX, JOHN W JR
IL
16
DEM
o
$191,666
33 BLACKWELL, J KENNETH
OH
1
REP
O
$183,490
34 BREWSTER, BILLY KENT
OK
3
DEM
O
$179,466
35 FRANKS, GARY A
CT
5
REP
O
$177,927
36 KEEFE, JOSEPH F
NH
1
DEM
O
$175,279
37 CAMP, DAVID LEE
MI
10
REP
0
$175,075
38 ALLARD, WAYNE
CO
4
REP
0
$174,550
39 RICHMAN, GERALD F
FL
18
DEM
O
$169,499
40 WASHINGTON, CRAIG A
TX
18
DEM
o
$166,116
41 EMERY, DAVID F
ME
1
REP
O
$162,121
42 MOLINARI, SUSAN K
NY
14
REP
0
$148,938
43 MINK, PATSY TAKEMOTO
HI
2
DEM
O
$147,784
44 NUSSLE, JAMES ALLEN
IA
2
REP
0
$146,558
45 NORTON, ELEANOR H
DC
0
DEM
O
$145,205
46 ABERCROMBIE, NEIL
HI
1
DEM
O
$143,600
47 SERRANO, JOSE E
NY
18
DEM
O
$143,300
48 HEATH, DANIEL G
IN
4
REP
O
$134,980
49 SHINE, HUGH DUNHAM
TX
11
REP
0
$133,667
50 ZELIFF, WILLIAM H JR
NH
1
REP
O
$130,601
-67-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE OPEN SEAT- DISBURSEMENTS
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE DIST PARTY INC
NET
CHL
DISBURSE
OPN
1
CHANDLER, MARGUERITE 10/
NJ
12
DEM
O
$1,707,539
2 ZIMMER, RICHARD A
NJ
12
REP
O
$1,224,626
3 CONDIT, GARY
CA
15
DEM
O
$1,155,459
4 ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA
FL
18
REP
o
$1,081,883
5 DELAURO, ROSA L
CT
3
DEM
O
$957,982
6 RAMSTAD, JAMES M
MN
3
REP
O
$935,454
7 GEREN, PRESTON M "PETE"
TX
12
DEM
0
$921,183
8 REED, JOHN F
RI
2
DEM
O
$897,224
9 RICHMAN, GERALD F
FL
18
DEM
o
$886,393
10 MOFFETT, ANTHONY TOBY
CT
5
DEM
O
$877,116
11 BACCHUS, JAMES L
FL
11
DEM
O
$875,386
12 SHINE, HUGH DUNHAM
TX
11
REP
O
$842,226
13 ANDERSON, THOMAS H JR
MS
5
REP
o
$830,550
14 ZELIFF, WILLIAM H JR
NH
1
REP
O
$802,680
15 FRELINGHUYSEN, RODNEY P
NJ
12
REP
O
$798,090
16 WATERS, MAXINE
CA
29
DEM
O
$759,538
17 ANDREWS, THOMAS H
ME
1
DEM
O
$693,165
18 THORNTON, RAY
AR
2
DEM
O
$678,429
19 BLACKWELL, J KENNETH
OH
1
REP
O
$670,640
20 EDWARDS, THOMAS CHESTER
TX
11
DEM
O
$668,936
21 CAMP, DAVID LEE
MI
10
REP
O
$657,229
22 LANIER, BOB DR
TX
12
REP
O
$652,285
23 LUKEN, CHARLES
OH
1
DEM
O
$651,544
24 MINK, PATSY TAKEMOTO
HI
2
DEM
O
$641,037
25 CRAMER, ROBERT E JR
AL
5
DEM
O
$638,361
26 BARRETT, WILLIAM E
NE
3
REP
O
$624,575
27 WASHINGTON, CRAIG A
TX
18
DEM
O
$619,120
28 FRANKS, GARY A
CT
5
REP
O
$581,625
29 BROWDER, JOHN GLEN
AL
3
DEM
O
$577,556
30 COXE, GERTRUDE M
RI
2
REP
O
$571,643
31 TABOR, ERIC J
IA
2
DEM
O
$571,428
32 NICHOLS, RICHARD D
KS
5
REP
O
$565,410
33 HALL, ANTHONY W JR
TX
18
DEM
o
$551,539
34 ANDREWS, ROBERT E
NJ
1
DEM
o
$541,960
35 THOMAS, CRAIG LYLE
WY
0
REP
O
$526,148
36 DOOLITTLE, JOHN T
CA
14
REP
O
$517,668
37 VINICH, JOHN P
WY
0
DEM
o
$514,629
38 MIZUGUCHI, NORMAN KEIJI
HI
1
DEM
o
$509,075
39 HALLOCK, JOHN W JR
IL
16
REP
O
$491,287
40 MORIAL, MARC H
LA
2
DEM
o
$487,171
41 BOND, RICHARD RANDOLPH
CO
4
DEM
0
$481,666
42 SMYSER, CHARLES A "SKIP"
ID
1
REP
O
$480,994
43 GIFFORD, CHARLES HERBERT
RI
2
DEM
0
$474,396
44 MOLINARI, SUSAN K
NY
14
REP
O
$470,197
45 NUSSLE, JAMES ALLEN
IA
2
REP
o
$466,259
46 LOCKWOOD, FRED
NE
3
REP
o
$465,792
47 EMERY, DAVID F
ME
1
REP
o
$463,873
48 SCOFIELD, SANDRA KAY
NE
3
DEM
o
$457,655
49 LA ROCCO, LARRY
ID
1
DEM
O
$447,895
50 NORTON, ELEANOR H
DC
0
DEM
O
$446,856
-68-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE OPEN SEAT- CASH-ON-HAND
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE
DIST
PARTY
INC
CASH
CHL
ON
OPN
HAND
1 COLLINS, BARBARA-ROSE
MI
13
DEM
0
$61,044
2
SERRANO, JOSE E
NY
18
DEM
o
$37,363
3 SHINE, HUGH DUNHAM
TX
11
REP
o
$36,433
4
ABERCROMBIE, NEIL
HI
1
DEM
O
$34,017
5 LUKEN, CHARLES
OH
1
DEM
o
$29,243
6 WATERS, MAXINE
CA
29
DEM
o
$27,717
7 CRAMER, ROBERT E JR
AL
5
DEM
o
$20,771
8 BARRETT, WILLIAM E
NE
3
REP
O
$19,982
9 THORNTON, RAY
AR
2
DEM
o
$18,638
10 PATTERSON, MICHAEL DUANE
MI
13
DEM
o
$17,193
11 HANNEMANN, MULIUFI FRANCI
HI
2
DEM
o
$15,978
12 DELAURO, ROSA L
CT
3
DEM
O
$15,642
13 ROITZ, EDWARD J
KS
5
REP
o
$12,827
14 DOOLITTLE, JOHN T
CA
14
REP
o
$12,142
15 KOPPEL, HARWOOD "WOODY"
LA
2
DEM
O
$10,597
16 CAMP, DAVID LEE
MI
10
REP
O
$10,483
17 ANDREWS, THOMAS H
ME
1
DEM
o
$9,437
18 NICHOLS, RICHARD D
KS
5
REP
o
$7,776
19 SCOTT, THOMAS
CT
3
REP
O
$7,466
20 GREER, BAYLESS LYNN
AL
5
DEM
o
$7,056
21 BRISTOW, DEAN LEROY
UT
3
REP
o
$6,644
22 SMYSER, CHARLES A "SKIP"
ID
1
REP
o
$6,430
23 COX, JOHN W. JR
IL
16
DEM
O
$6,306
24 COXE, GERTRUDE M
RI
2
REP
o
$6,274
25 REED, JOHN F
RI
2
DEM
O
$6,152
26 KENNEDY, ROSARIO
FL
18
DEM
o
$6,098
27 KEET, JAMES HOLLAND III "
AR
2
REP
O
$5,950
28 KEYS, LINDSEY LEON
MI
10
DEM
O
$5,935
29 DRAMESI, JOHN A COL
NJ
1
DEM
0
$5,785
30 FRANKS, GARY A
CT
5
REP
O
$5,430
31 BOND, RICHARD RANDOLPH
CO
4
DEM
O
$5,067
32 HALL, ANTHONY W JR
TX
18
DEM
O
$5,000
33 MORIAL, MARC H
LA
2
DEM
o
$4,847
34 ZELIFF, WILLIAM H JR
NH
1
REP
o
$4,826
35 SCAMMAN, W DOUGLAS JR
NH
1
REP
O
$4,624
36 CROZIER, MICHAEL L
HI
2
DEM
O
$4,386
37 MENOR, RON
HI
2
DEM
O
$4,370
38 MANGINI, DANIEL J
NJ
1
REP
o
$4,220
39 HUTCHINSON, FRANKLIN G JR
HI
1
REP
O
$3,998
40 ERTL, JOSEPH L
IA
2
REP
O
$3,682
41 NUSSLE, JAMES ALLEN
IA
2
REP
o
$3,673
42 ANDERSON, THOMAS H JR
MS
5
REP
o
$3,618
43 MOFFETT, ANTHONY TOBY
CT
5
DEM
o
$3,610
44 MALBERG, PATRICIA ANNE
CA
14
DEM
o
$3,592
45 EDWARDS, THOMAS CHESTER
TX
11
DEM
o
$3,460
46 LIU, MICHAEL MINORU FAWN
HI
1
REP
o
$3,436
47 ALLARD, WAYNE
CO
4
REP
o
$3,428
48 MIZUGUCHI, NORMAN KEIJI
HI
1
DEM
o
$3,271
49 DRIVER, RODNEY D
RI
2
DEM
o
$3,162
50 ZIMMER, RICHARD A
NJ
12
REP
O
$3,115
-69-
1989-90
TOP 50 HOUSE OPEN SEAT - DEBTS OWED
RANK
CANDIDATE
STATE DIST PARTY INC
DEBTS
CHL
OWED
OPN
1
CHANDLER, MARGUERITE 10/
NJ
12
DEM
O
$1,024,027
2 GIFFORD, CHARLES HERBERT
RI
2
DEM
O
$438,961
3 ZELIFF, WILLIAM H JR
NH
1
REP
O
$375,800
4 NICHOLS, RICHARD D
KS
5
REP
0
$315,550
5 RICHMAN, GERALD F
FL
18
DEM
O
$277,448
6 DUNN, JIM
MI
10
REP
O
$250,963
7 MORIAL, MARC H
LA
2
DEM
O
$244,033
8 REED, JOHN F
RI
2
DEM
O
$219,277
9 MENOR, RON
HI
2
DEM
O
$209,205
10 ZIMMER, RICHARD A
NJ
12
REP
o
$208,274
11 MINK, PATSY TAKEMOTO
HI
2
DEM
o
$191,255
12 LOCKWOOD, FRED
NE
3
REP
O
$185,100
13 FRELINGHUYSEN, RODNEY P
NJ
12
REP
O
$181,158
14 PEREZ, CARLOS
FL
18
REP
O
$178,272
15 MATSUNAGA, MATTHEW M
HI
1
DEM
O
$173,344
16 JEFFERSON, WILLIAM J
LA
2
DEM
O
$159,655
17 WHARTON, BONNIE
FL
11
REP
O
$148,951
18 HANNEMANN, MULIUFI FRANCI
HI
2
DEM
O
$140,719
19 GIGANTE, ROBERT J
NY
14
DEM
O
$135,000
20 RAMSTAD, JAMES M
MN
3
REP
O
$122,580
21 CAMP, DAVID LEE
MI
10
REP
O
$117,153
22 MCCONKEY, PHILLIP J
NJ
12
REP
O
$111,200
23 KEET, JAMES HOLLAND III "
AR
2
REP
O
$105,174
24 CARLSON, MERLYN
NE
3
REP
O
$104,500
25 COXE, GERTRUDE M
RI
2
REP
O
$104,000
26 ABROMSON, LINDA
ME
1
DEM
O
$102,800
27 ANDREWS, THOMAS H
ME
1
DEM
O
$101,720
28 DELAURO, ROSA L
CT
3
DEM
O
$100,001
29 LIU, MICHAEL MINORU FAWN
HI
1
REP
O
$97,400
30 ERTL, JOSEPH L
IA
2
REP
o
$97,000
31 SHINE, HUGH DUNHAM
TX
11
REP
o
$96,192
32 CRAMER, ROBERT E JR
AL
5
DEM
O
$87,000
33 ANDREWS, ROBERT E
NJ
1
DEM
O
$85,939
34 WASHINGTON, CRAIG A
TX
18
DEM
o
$84,107
35 BROWDER, JOHN GLEN
AL
3
DEM
O
$76,242
36 MIZUGUCHI, NORMAN KEIJI
HI
1
DEM
o
$75,000
37 FRANKS, GARY A
CT
5
REP
o
$74,377
38 HARMER, JOHN LOREN
UT
3
REP
o
$72,098
39 LA ROCCO, LARRY
ID
1
DEM
O
$71,316
40 EDWARDS, THOMAS CHESTER
TX
11
DEM
o
$71,175
41 BARRETT, WILLIAM E
NE
3
REP
o
$70,000
42 CROZIER, MICHAEL L
HI
2
DEM
o
$67,145
43 ORTON, WILLIAM H
UT
3
DEM
O
$64,289
44 RICE, JOHN
AL
3
REP
O
$62,846
45 SINGLETON, HARRY MICHAEL
DC
0
REP
o
$59,696
46 ANDERSON, THOMAS H JR
MS
5
REP
O
$57,810
47 SNOW, KARL N JR
UT
3
REP
O
$57,165
48 KENNEDY, ROSARIO
FL
18
DEM
o
$56,968
49 NORTON, ELEANOR H
DC
0
DEM
O
$55,121
50 ADAMS, CHARLES H
AL
3
DEM
O
$55,000
-70-
89-658 C
CRS Report for Congress
Grants Work in a Congressional Office
Rhoda Newman
Congressional Reference Division
December 5, 1989
CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE USE ONLY
CRS
Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress
The Congressional Research Service works exclusively for the Congress, conducting re-
search, analyzing legislation, and providing information at the request of committees,
Members, and their staffs.
The Service makes such research available, without partisan bias, in many forms includ-
ing studies, reports, compilations, digests, and background briefings. Upon request,
CRS assists committees in analyzing legislative proposals and issues, and in assessing the
possible effects of these proposals and their alternatives. The Service's senior specialists
and subject analysts are also available for personal consultations in their respective fields
of expertise.
GRANTS WORK IN A CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE
SUMMARY
Congressional offices are often approached by constituents seeking funds
for projects of potential benefit to their States or districts. This report
discusses the grants process and varying approaches and techniques
congressional offices have developed in dealing with grants requests.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1
FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION OF GRANTS OPERATIONS IN
CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES
1
TOOLS
2
Grants Manual
2
File Systems and Logs
3
Agency Files
3
Constituent Files by County
3
COMMUNICATING WITH STAFF
3
UNDERSTANDING THE GRANTS PROCESS
4
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
4
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
4
TYPES OF ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
6
Grants
6
Loans
6
Insurance
6
Technical Assistance, Training, and Special Services
6
Goods and Properties
6
FOUNDATIONS AND CORPORATE GRANTS
7
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
8
ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING CONTACTS
9
WAYS CONGRESSIONAL GRANTS STAFF CAN ASSIST
CONSTITUENTS
10
GETTING INFORMATION TO CONSTITUENTS
10
COUNSELING ON PROPOSAL WRITING
11
FOLLOWING UP ON CONSTITUENTS' REQUESTS
12
ANNOUNCING GRANTS AWARDS
13
GRANTS WORK IN A CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE
INTRODUCTION
Members of Congress frequently receive requests from constituents for
information and assistance in obtaining funds for projects. Many State and
local governments, nonprofit social service and community action
organizations, private research groups, and small businesses approach
congressional offices for information on funding, both from the Federal
Government and from the private sector. Senate and House offices allocate
staff and other resources to grants and projects activities in order to assist
these constituents with projects of potential benefit to their districts, cities,
or States.
Constituents have varying degrees of sophistication and skill when it
comes to seeking grants. Congressional expertise can prove extremely helpful
to grantseekers faced with such problems as identifying the most appropriate
funding source, dealing with application and follow-up procedures, and coping
with bureaucratic delays and funding uncertainties. The grants person in the
congressional office can serve constituents not only as an information
resource, but also as a facilitator with agencies and foundations, and, in some
cases, even as an advocate.
The following discussion does not constitute a blueprint for every office
involved in grants and projects activity, nor does it present in-depth
information about all aspects of staff activity in this area. The discussion is
aimed at describing some basics about the grants process and some of the
approaches and techniques used by congressional offices in dealing with this
type of constituent service.
FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION OF GRANTS OPERATIONS IN
CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES
Each congressional office handles grants requests in its own way,
depending upon such factors as the Member's philosophy on Federal support
for local projects, the relation of certain proposals to his or her legislative
activity, or the Member's particular interest in specific types of projects.
Other factors may include the degree of economic distress in any given
locality and the current level of Federal assistance it receives.
Grants activities in any congressional office depend very much upon the
overall organization and workload of the office. Most offices divide
responsibility by function, i.e., legislation is assigned to legislative assistants
CRS-2
and correspondents, press and newsletters are under the purview of a press
secretary, and caseworkers do casework. Offices organized in this way may
have a full-time grants specialist or several staff members under the
supervision of a grants coordinator working solely in the area of grants and
projects. Some offices divide responsibilities by subject area; i.e., a specialist
in health issues is involved with legislation, correspondence, casework, grants,
projects, speeches, and press releases in that subject area. In some offices, all
grants requests are handled in the district or State office; in others, they are
answered by the Washington staff; still others divide grants and projects
activity between the district or State office and the Washington office.
Regardless of how this responsibility is assigned, it is helpful to have at least
one person in the district or State office and one person in the Washington
office familiar with the whole process.
Since some constituents request the aid of the entire State delegation
for a grant or project, cooperation among Members of the delegation can
minimize duplication of effort and permit more effective use of staff time. To
increase the chances of a project's funding, Members may solicit the support
of other Members either from the same geographic region if the proposal
would benefit a wide area, or from those who hold key positions in leadership
or on committees which exercise funding and oversight of the Federal
program. Political considerations can limit the amount of such cooperation.
One State's delegation has established a State Projects Office to help its
constituents learn about the grants process and follow through on all
applications until awards are made.
TOOLS
To assure continuity, particularly in cases of staff turnover and shifting
responsibilities, and to monitor the progress of the grants and process
operation, several resources can be developed.
Grants Manual
An internal grants manual is a valuable tool for grants staff to develop.
It can outline office policies and procedures. Among the items that might be
included in this volume are:
A written record of the Member's policy on letters of endorsement and
press announcements, along with samples.
A checklist of procedures to facilitate the training of new staff.
Sample project worksheets, allowing space for agency contacts, status
reports, and follow-up timetables.
A personal telephone listing of contacts in Federal, State, and local
agencies, and foundations who are heavily relied upon because of the
CRS-3
frequency of requests under their supervision, or of those who have
proven especially helpful.
File Systems and Logs
A congressional office may wish to maintain detailed, cross-referenced
files.
Agency Files
Program files include detailed information on the most frequently used
programs in communities in the State or district, with a fact sheet
describing each program, plus agency brochures, contacts, etc.
Project files may contain lists of applicants for each project. Some offices
keep records on the steps taken in support of all grant applications as
documentation.
Follow-up calendar or log is an often helpful tool.
Constituent Files by County
These can prove especially useful for the Member's visits to the State
or district. In addition to the correspondence on each grant application, local
press coverage of awards can be included. These clippings, along with letters
from grateful constituents, can serve as a source for favorable quotations.
COMMUNICATING WITH STAFF
A weekly grants and projects report or memorandum is one way to keep
both the Member and other staff fully informed of significant developments.
This is particularly important for offices organized by functional
responsibility. This report prepares the Member for the types of questions
that may be asked during visits to the State or district and provides topics to
be addressed in speeches. The legislative staff will benefit from knowing
about pending State or local government actions that would have an impact
on grants and projects. Conversely, grants and projects staff should also be
able to rely on the legislative staff for information about pending bills that
would alter or create Federal programs or change funding levels. Sometimes,
comments from constituents can supply data on whether programs are
carrying out legislative intent and whether changes in agency regulations or
legislation are needed. The press secretary should also be kept up to date on
programs, so that current information can be presented in newsletters and
press releases. The staff may want to maintain a listing of Federal grant
recipients and the amount of Federal dollars received each year for their State
or district. This amount can be found in Consolidated Federal Funds Report,
published by the Bureau of the Census for the Office of Management and
Budget.
CRS-4
UNDERSTANDING THE GRANTS PROCESS
Congressional grants staff can be of the greatest assistance to their
constituents when they have a thorough understanding of the entire grants
process:
-- defining the project
-- searching for likely funding sources
-- proposal writing
-- grant application
-- review and award procedure
-- post award requirements.
A good start towards understanding this process can be gained by looking
at the CRS Info Pack 50G, "Grants and Foundation Support," which
discusses sources of information on Federal programs and private foundations.
It also contains a report on how to write a grant proposal. Info Pack 50G is
available for distribution to constituents, who may consult many of the
published sources described in the Info Pack at large public or university
libraries or depository libraries which serve as repositories for U.S. Govern-
ment publications.
Because of cutbacks in Federal programs, today many projects are made
possible only through a combination of funding sources -- Federal, State and
local government, and foundation or corporate grants. Whatever the funding
source, it is important to emphasize that once a project has been clearly
defined, constituents can improve their likelihood of success by doing
preliminary research in order to find potential funding sources whose goals
are most nearly consistent with their own.
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
The General Services Administration (GSA), which is responsible for
disseminating information about Federal domestic assistance programs
administered by 51 Federal agencies and departments, publishes the Catalog
of Federal Domestic Assistance. Each program listed in the Catalog contains
explanations of:
-- authorizing legislation
-- objectives
-- types of assistance provided
-- restrictions
-- eligibility requirements
-- formula and matching requirements, where applicable
-- post assistance requirements
CRS-5
-- financial information
-- program accomplishments
-- regulations, guidelines and literature
-- information contacts
-- application and award process
-- deadlines.
It also may include criteria for selecting proposals, examples of funded
projects, and referrals to related programs.
Updated information on Federal programs appears in the daily Federal
Register. Each congressional office is supposed to receive three copies of the
Catalog, as well as copies of the Federal Register
Information given in the printed Catalog is also available online through
the Federal Assistance Program Retrieval System (FAPRS) database, operated
by the General Services Administration.
In addition, through its PRE-AWARD (PREA) database, the House
Information Systems office provides House offices with updated, online
information about Federal programs in the Catalog; and, through its POST-
AWARD (POST) database, it furnishes information about Federal grants
which have been awarded in the last four quarters. House Information
Systems also publishes the Federal Funding Report, a weekly compilation of
notices from the previous week's Federal Register, dealing with Federal
domestic assistance programs.
Congressional grants specialists may suggest that constituents seeking
Federal funding begin by consulting the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance and the Federal Register at Federal depository libraries or other
large libraries in their area. Grantseekers will need to study the introduction
to the Catalog and then consult all of the indexes to lead them to applicable
programs. Program descriptions have to be carefully analyzed to see whether
they may be appropriate. At this point, a telephone call or letter to the
agency contact person can provide invaluable help. Agencies often prepare
guidelines and application packets for specific programs. They may also
provide a list of grantees from the previous fiscal year and indicate the
amount of money still available for the coming year.
Some congressional grants specialists go one step further in serving their
constituents by actually identifying potential funding programs either from
their own files or by doing their own Catalog searches.
CRS-6
TYPES OF ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
Grants
Grants are generally considered the most desirable form of financial
assistance since they represent an outright award of funds that do not have
to be repaid. Categorical grants, made for specific purposes, may require
the recipient to match some portion of the grant, and are usually accompanied
by detailed administrative requirements. The funds may be distributed
according to a formula established by law or administrative regulation or on
a discretionary project-by-project basis. Block grants are made for broad
purposes such as drug or alcohol treatment and rehabilitation, and are usually
made to State agencies which distribute the funds to local governments or
nonprofit organizations. Block grants may also have matching requirements.
Loans
Since loans must be repaid, they are often viewed as less desirable than
grants. However, with the reduction of Federal funds available for grants and
the increasing level of competition for such funds, loans are often the only
form of assistance available. Direct loans are issued directly by an agency.
Guaranteed loans are issued by a local lending institution, but are
guaranteed by the Federal government. Insured loans are generally the same
as guaranteed loans but may refer to direct loans which are issued from a
revolving insurance fund administered by an agency.
Insurance
Some Federal programs provide financial assistance to assure
reimbursement for losses sustained under specified conditions. Coverage may
be provided directly by the Federal government or through private carriers
and may or may not require the payment of premiums.
Technical Assistance, Training, and Special Services
Federal agencies may provide Federal specialists, or may enter into
contracts with private entities, colleges, or universities, to consult, advise,
or counsel communities or individuals through conferences, workshops, or
personal contact. Other programs provide Federal personnel, who perform
certain tasks that involve more than consultation, advice, or counseling.
Programs also provide for publication and distribution of technical informa-
tion and data not designed for general public consumption.
Goods and Properties
Some programs provide for the loan, use of, or access to, Federal facilities
or property. Other programs provide for the sale, exchange, or donation of
CRS-7
Federal real property, personal property, commodities, and other goods
including land, buildings, equipment, food, and drugs.
FOUNDATIONS AND CORPORATE GRANTS
While Federal, State, and local governments are still the key sources of
support for nonprofit organizations, congressional grants specialists may wish
to suggest other funding possibilities to their constituents as alternatives and
supplements to Federal funding.
Small local projects should begin their search for assistance at the
community level from local businesses or institutions: Support may be
available in the form of cash contributions or in-kind contributions of
property, buildings, equipment, or professional expertise. In fact, evidence of
such community-based support may lead the way to additional outside
funding.
While there are all kinds of foundation and corporate grants available
throughout the country, it should be pointed out that competition for these
funds is great, and, just as is the case in searching for Federal support,
grantseekers enhance their chances for success by doing preliminary research
to find grantmakers whose priorities and goals are consistent with their own.
Grantmaking foundations are established with the express purpose of
providing funds for projects in their areas of interest, and all must comply
with specific Internal Revenue Service regulations to maintain their tax-
exempt status. Every year, each must give away money equal to at least 5
percent of the market value of its assets, and each must make its tax records
public.
There are many different kinds of foundations, with widely varying
resources and purposes. Some are national in scope; others are set up purely
for the purpose of local giving. Some are endowed by an individual or family
to provide funds for specific social, educational, or religious purposes; others
are company-sponsored; still others are publicly supported community founda-
tions.
Because of this variety, different strategies may be required for dealing
with different foundations. There are a few foundations which publicize their
funding policies, and even initiate projects, but generally they do not.
Usually, the grantseeker must take the first step and approach the foundation
about his or her proposal. Although it is hard to generalize about founda-
tions, they tend to be more flexible than Federal funding agencies and to have
fewer bureaucratic requirements. Many foundations see their purpose as
providing short-term, startup funding for demonstration projects. Frequently,
such foundations are the best primary source to turn to for funding
emergency situations or small, high-risk, innovative programs. In some cases,
CRS-8
foundation officials will work closely with inexperienced grantseekers to help
them develop realistic proposals.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
The Foundation Center is an independent national service organization,
which provides a clearinghouse of information on private philanthropic giving.
In addition to its major reference collections in New York, Washington, DC,
Cleveland, and San Francisco, it maintains a national network of cooperating
collections in each State, all open to the public. A list of these collections is
included in the CRS Info Pack 50G, "Grants and Foundation Support." The
New York and Washington, DC, collections contain a complete set of all U.S.
foundation tax returns, while many of the network members have sets of
State and regional foundation tax returns. In addition, these collections offer
grantseekers a variety of useful specialized materials and services.
Major publications of the Foundation Center (described in greater detail
in Info Pack 50G) are:
Foundation Directory, which describes over 6,000 major foundations.
The Directory is arranged by State. Entries include factual and financial
data, statements of purpose and activities, types of support, limitations,
application information, and names of donors, officers and trustees.
Note: The Foundation Center will provide each congressional office
with one free copy of the Foundation Directory.
Foundation Grants Index, which lists grants awarded by selected
foundations in the last year or two. The main listing of grants is
arranged by State, with foundations in the State listed alphabetically.
Entries include lists of grant recipients, giving the date, amount and
purpose of each grant.
In addition, for a fee, the Foundation Center offers computerized searches
for information on foundation grants by subject and location.
It is generally a good idea to start looking for foundations close to home;
they may have a greater interest in local problems than do larger foundations
principally concerned with programs of national significance. Foundation
Center resources are a good starting point for identifying likely funding
sources. The next step is to find out more about these foundations by
obtaining copies of their annual reports and/or guidelines. Grantseekers will
need to find out whether their projected proposals match the foundation's
areas of interest and geographic guidelines, whether the proposal is within
the foundation's budgetary constraints, and whether the foundation normally
funds the type of project being considered.
CRS-9
Direct corporate giving is another potential funding source not to be
overlooked. Many corporations provide support for local projects in areas
where they have their headquarters or plants, or sponsor projects which
somehow enhance their corporate image. Information sources on direct
corporate giving are also included in Info Pack 50G.
ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING CONTACTS
Most Federal agencies have two or three offices: a central office in
Washington; a series of regional offices; and, in some cases, local or area
offices. Each program in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance has a
section on information contacts, either giving the name, address, and
telephone number of the program officer, or referring applicants to the
regional, State or local office of the agency. Addresses and telephone numbers
for these offices are given in appendixes of the Catalog.
Some agencies prefer that congressional offices not deal directly with
program officers but channel their requests through congressional liaison
offices. In either event, establishing a good relationship with the liaison staff
is important; they are usually well informed and willing to share information
with grants and projects staff. (CRS Report 89-551 PGM and House and
Senate telephone directories list congressional liaison offices.) The liaison
office may be willing to set up a tour of the agency for congressional staff so
that they may become more familiar with the way the agency is organized and
where responsibilities are assigned, as well as with published materials that
may be available on various programs. State and district grants and projects
staff usually work closely with Federal agency representatives in their areas,
with State and local elected officials and former officials, and with councils of
government.
Many Federal programs are administered directly by State agencies or
other entities within the State, and many states have programs funded out
of their own appropriations which supplement or complement Federal
programs. Local councils of government, where they exist, have access to
Federal funds for providing technical assistance, guidance, and counseling in
the grants process. Constituents are best served by being put in touch with
program officers closest to them as early as possible.
Congressional grants staff will also want to get to know the kinds and
levels of private sector support that is available to their constituents. The
copy of the Foundation Directory provided to congressional offices by the
Foundation Center serves as a good introduction and gives names of
individuals to contact.
A congressional office that encourages cooperation among local
organizations, foundations, units of government, and councils of government
can serve as a catalyst for applicants by improving communications which
may, in turn, enhance the chances for proposal approval.
CRS-10
When congressional staff take the time to express appreciation for
assistance provided by Federal personnel, foundation officials, and others
involved in the grants process, they may possibly improve their chances for
future assistance.
WAYS CONGRESSIONAL GRANTS STAFF CAN ASSIST
CONSTITUENTS
GETTING INFORMATION TO CONSTITUENTS
Basic information on Federal and private grants can be given to
constituents by sending them the CRS Info Pack 50G "Grants and Foundation
Support."
Congressional offices may also prepare their own information packets
on programs which are requested most frequently. Such packets could include
program descriptions, brochures, the latest rules and regulations, changes in
agency policy, application forms, etc.
Newsletters are a good way of reaching a large number of people. A
congressional office may decide to send out either a special grants and projects
newsletter or include a section on grants and projects in their regular
newsletter. Subjects that could be developed are new legislation, new
appropriations, and descriptions of recently awarded grants.
A congressional office may also choose to communicate with a more
selected audience. Targeted mailings can inform interested constituents of
Federal Register announcements of new programs in specific areas or changes
in deadlines or regulations for existing programs. The office may wish to
inform constituents of the possible impact of new legislative or executive
actions which might revise existing programs, create new ones, or alter
funding levels. Constituents can be informed of important dates and
deadlines, and the advantages and limitations of various programs. They can
also be made aware of community, State, or Federal officials who share
common concerns.
Another way of getting information to interested constituents is for a
congressional office to coordinate seminars on Federal and private assistance.
An office can sponsor programs bringing together Federal, State, and local
officials, as well as academic and corporate specialists, experienced volunteers,
and constituents working in the same area. Many agencies are willing to
provide speakers for seminars arranged by congressional offices and also to
provide such materials as brochures, sample proposals, and lists of information
contacts. While well-planned balanced programs tailored to a particular
audience can create good will, coordinating and following through on such
meetings take a great deal of staff work and time. Such programs may also
result in additional demands being made on an office.
CRS-11
COUNSELING ON PROPOSAL WRITING
Detailed information on proposal writing can be found in Info Pack 50G.
While most congressional offices do not actually write proposals, they are
frequently approached by inexperienced constituents seeking guidance on what
makes a good proposal. They may wish to pass on the following suggestions:
Allow sufficient time to prepare a thoroughly documented proposal,
well before the application deadline. If possible, have someone outside
the organization critique the proposal prior to submission.
Follow the instructions given in the application form or in other material
provided by the agency or foundation. Answer questions as asked.
Be sure that the proposal is clear and brief. Avoid jargon. Take pains
to make the proposal interesting. Reviewing panels have limited time to
devote to any single proposal. Whenever possible, fit the style of the
proposal to the style of the agency or foundation being approached.
When no form or instructions for submitting grant proposals are
provided, the proposal should include:
A cover letter on the applicant's letterhead giving a brief description of
the purpose and amount of the grant proposal, conveying the applicant's
willingness to discuss the proposal in further detail.
A half-page summary which includes identification of the applicant, the
reasons for the request, proposed objectives and means to accomplish
them, along with the total cost of the project, an indication of funds
already obtained, and the amount being requested for this grant.
An introduction, in which the history, credentials, and accomplishments
of the applicant are presented briefly (supporting documents can be
included in an appendix).
A description of current conditions demonstrating the need for the
proposed project.
A statement of the project's objectives in specific, measurable terms.
A description of the methods to be used to accomplish these objectives.
A description of the means by which the project will be monitored and
evaluated.
A discussion of plans for continuing the project beyond the period covered
by the grant.
A detailed budget.
CRS-12
FOLLOWING UP ON CONSTITUENTS' REQUESTS
Once a proposal is submitted to a congressional office, an assessment of
the stated problem should be made. First, this benefits the grantseeker, since
any application for assistance will require that the problem be clearly stated
and that the proposed solution provide some remedy. Secondly, this initial
assessment can provide staff with a sense of direction: Are there other
projects currently under way that address the problem? Is there an
appropriate Federal program that is designed for such a project, or is the
issue better addressed through local, State, or private organizations, or
through legislation? Will the sought-after aid produce other problems for the
community? What are its chances for success?
The initial review of the request should also involve an assessment of the
applicant. A formal grant proposal will require an applicant to establish
credibility. Individuals connected with a proposal might mention education,
training, and professional credentials. Credibility for an organization may be
established by giving its history, goals, activities, and primary
accomplishments, as well as by letters of support. By reviewing such
information, a congressional office may avoid the hazard of offering support
for a questionable applicant and may be in a better position to make decisions
about support when several communities or organizations are applying for the
same program -- will all be treated equally or will support be given to one
applicant?
A written request from a constituent should always be acknowledged.
If the request is a fairly common one, the office may be able to respond with
a prepared packet of materials on available programs. Another alternative
would be to send a copy of the constituent's letter to the agency with a buck
slip, and to inform the constituent that he or she will be hearing more from
the office once the agency reports back. Another approach would be to call
the agency contact. This procedure is generally more time consuming than
a simple referral, but it is often more informative. The agency may provide
facts about budget levels, authorizations and appropriations, the amount of
money available for the program, the total amount requested in applications
on file, the number of applications received, and the number likely to be
approved, agency priorities, categories of competition or targets by region, key
dates and deadlines, and information on who makes recommendations and
decisions.
If the constituent decides to submit a formal grant application for a
particular program, the congressional office may recommend and/or arrange
a meeting with agency offices in the district or State. Another way to get
input from the agency early in the process is a pre-review of the application.
Many agencies provide procedural review of proposals one or two months
before the application deadline. Such a review, while not dealing with the
substance of the proposal, allows an agency to inform the applicant of any
technical problems or omissions to be corrected before the proposal is formally
submitted.
CRS-13
If the constituent notifies the congressional office that a proposal has
been submitted, the office can send a letter to the agency expressing the
Member's interest in being kept informed of developments relating to the
application. In addition, the letter may also request a list of all applicants for
the particular grant. This enables the office to consider initiating letters of
support from the Member to those applicants in his or her State or district
who did not approach the office prior to submission of their application.
Whether the Member chooses to support a particular applicant or extends
support to all applicants from the State or district, the office should maintain
contact with all interested parties as it is notified of progress reports from
agency contacts.
ANNOUNCING GRANTS AWARDS
While there is some variation, the usual announcement procedure in
cases of allocated Federal funds is for the agency making the award to notify
the Senate office first, then the House office, and finally the recipient. Not
all awards are announced publicly. In the case of block grants, the Office of
Management and Budget notifies Senate offices of the allocations among the
States. The State's decision on how to distribute funds among local
communities is, however, not necessarily communicated to congressional
offices. In these cases, a good State agency contact may be willing to provide
the office with this information.
It is a good practice to discourage constituents from making requests
that are unlikely to be approved at the Federal level and to suggest
consideration of other funding sources early in the process. In cases where
grant applications are made and turned down, the congressional office may
notify constituents of their right to know why the award was not granted and
what the appeals process is. Constituents may ask the agency for an analysis
of the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal, or may give the agency
permission to provide the congressional office with this information.
Alternative programs or other approaches may be suggested following an
adverse decision. The constituent might also decide to improve upon the
initial application and start the whole process over again.