NYT : Of Party Dues and Deadbeats on Capitol Hill

Of Party Dues and Deadbeats on Capitol Hill

By JEFF ZELENY | October 1, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 — To move up the ladder in Congress, you must do more than win votes. You are, quite literally, expected to pay your dues.

If you are a rank-and-file member of the House, the amount is up to $100,000. If your ambitions are to preside over a powerful committee, the duty is $300,000. For a top party leader, the tally can climb beyond $600,000.

Make those checks payable to the Republican or Democratic Congressional campaign committees.

Whether or not they are in competitive races, lawmakers are asked to mount vigorous fund-raising drives to fill their own campaign chests. Then they dole to the party, which spreads the money to the most competitive campaigns in the country.

Four years after Congress tried to reduce the influence of money in politics by rewriting the rules of how campaigns are financed, Republicans and Democrats alike have found myriad replacements for the river of financial contributions known as soft money.

The practice of paying what the parties refer to as dues is not illegal, and it is not an entirely fresh notion by either party. This year, Democrats are hoping to glean about $33 million in dues from their House members, an amount that would be about one-third of their fund-raising goal. That makes the dues an important piece in the Democrats’ strategy to overtake the Republican majority.

As members of Congress scurried to finish their business in Washington before heading home for the final stretch of the midterm election campaigns, leaders of both political parties were placing an unusually tight squeeze on colleagues who have not settled their bills.

With five weeks remaining in the race, nearly half of the House Democrats are in arrears. Even a month-by-month installment plan — let alone the prospect that they could regain control of the chamber if they can out-hustle the Republicans — has not provided an incentive for Democrats to pay what they owe.

“Some people make a lot of money for the party, others make a lot of issues,” said Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, who contributed for the first time this week, but still owes $115,000. “I work on the issues side. That’s where I excel.”

The delinquency statements that Democrats sent via overnight delivery to representatives’ homes throughout the year have been supplanted by telephone calls or personal visits from party leaders.

Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, Democrat of Illinois, said he had no intention of paying his dues of $250,000, assessed because of his seniority on the Financial Services Committee. But after a two-minute telephone conversation with the minority leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, he changed course and sent in a check for $15,000.

“It’s kind of hard to ignore,” Mr. Gutierrez said in an interview, conceding that before Ms. Pelosi rang his cellphone, he had not given a nickel. “I still owe $225,000. Thank God it doesn’t affect my credit score when I go get a mortgage.”

It could, however, affect what committee assignments are passed out when Congress convenes in January. Several members said they had been told by party leaders that their positions could be on the line if they fail to contribute.

Last weekend, Ms. Pelosi made more than 50 telephone calls to members of her caucus, chiding them to pay their dues. Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois and chairman of the Congressional Campaign Committee, has barred Democrats from using the telephones at party headquarters if they had not paid at least some of what they owed.

“This is not my job,” said Mr. Emanuel, recalling the message he repeats again and again to fellow Democrats. “This is our job.”

Strong-arm techniques, though, can backfire. So last week, in the final Democratic caucus before the recess, both Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Emanuel softened their language. Still, they distributed a spreadsheet, laying out for everyone to see how much — or how little — members had given to the party.

The grid showed that Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, had contributed $47,500. As a chief deputy whip of the party, she owes a total of $250,000.

Ms. Waters said she did not take kindly to humiliation or intimidation.

“Nobody puts the screws on me. I don’t allow that,” Ms. Waters said in a brief interview during a long evening of debate on the House floor. “I’m not trying to prove anything to anybody. Some years I’ve raised a lot, some years I’ve not raised so much, so I’ll do whatever I do.”

At the same time, contributions from more than a dozen Democrats have far exceeded their dues. Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York contributed twice as much as his $300,000 assessment and Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania has nearly doubled his $250,000 requirement. Both men have their eye on leadership positions.

“When I see what some of these guys have to do to scratch for money, it’s really too bad,” Mr. Murtha said. “They can’t raise the money, so we help them out.”

At least once a quarter, Democrats receive a fund-raising report card. To increase the motivation — or, perhaps, to embarrass them in front of their peers — the statement also points out how much money is available in individual campaign bank accounts.

The most recent document, for example, pointed out that Representative Robert E. Andrews, Democrat of New Jersey, had a balance of $2,054,562 but had paid only $40,000 of a $125,000 bill.

“I’ve held on to my money because New Jersey politics can be volatile,” said Mr. Andrews, who has told some Democrats that he had been keeping a close watch on his state’s Senate race if Senator Robert Menendez stumbles. “But there’s no doubt I’ll be contributing the full amount.”

For Republicans, each member of the House is expected to make a contribution to the Battleground Program. The amounts range from $70,000 to $600,000, depending on the member’s position. Since July, when the program began, party leaders said, about 90 percent of the members have contributed to the program, which they hope will raise $22.5 million.

There is no public disapproval for those who do not participate. Arm-twisting is conducted privately, which is why Republican officials said at least five members were summoned this week for a meeting with Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois; the majority leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio; and the majority whip, Roy Blunt of Missouri.

“Oftentimes Wall Street gauges a business’s future success by the number of employees investing in their company,” said Representative Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, who heads the House program. “I view Battleground the same way.”

In the Senate, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats employ a rigorous system of dues and contributions.

Many senators raise more money for their respective party committees than their colleagues in the House, but committee assignments in the Senate depend on a tradition of seniority.

Still, in the House, where financial contributions and other demonstrations of party loyalty can trump seniority, not all longtime Democratic members believe this year’s strong push to collect dues will ultimately raise, or lower, a member’s prospects of winning an influential committee seat.

“No Democrat really believes that if you’re going to be the chairman and you don’t give the money that you’re going to lose your seat,” said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts. “If you’re a Republican, you do.”

Showing some admiration for Republicans’ efficiency, Mr. Frank said: “They threaten. We shame.”

Mr. Frank has surpassed his dues of $300,000. His current tally? $310,700. And if Democrats win in November, he is poised to become chairman of the Financial Services Committee.