For Sale: One Seat, California

Some quirk of gerrymandering years ago in my town's Congressional district has turned this year's race into one of the most tightly contested in the nation. To complicate matters, the incumbent is 43-year old Rep. James Rogan (R-Calif.), one of the more outspoken of the House impeachment managers. With control of the House in question, these factors have turned the wide, palm-lined streets of the San Gabriel Valley north of Los Angeles into a high-profile political battlefield. The New York Times Magazine cover story two weeks ago reported the race in California's 27th Congressional district is the most expensive in history. Democratic challenger and state senator Adam Schiff and Rogan have raised a combined $10,104,475 according to Federal Election Commission numbers released Tuesday.

Is one seat worth so much? Although the sub-headline in the Times calls the race "absurdly expensive," how much does this money affect how citizens vote? From living in California's 27th and from examining how the money is actually spent: not much. The more important question in this particular election is how contributed money will affect the way the winner votes once in office. Because of the need to accept money from special interests to stay competitive with the other guy, whoever wins will be even more beholden to special interests when he takes office.

Part of the irony of the race in the 27th district is that no matter who is elected this year, the district will almost certainly go Democratic by 2002. One reason is the continued influx of minorities into Los Angeles County. Indeed, the Census Bureau reported in August that the 2000 census pegs "whites" in California at 49.9 percent, with minorities forming the new majority. In Los Angeles County, there has not been a majority ethnic group for over a decade. The 27th district has been no exception and has seen increases in populations of Latinos, Asians, and Armenians. The district is also firmly titled towards the Democrats in terms of registered voters. The most recent numbers show 44 percent of registered voters as Democrats and 37 percent as Republicans. Rogan, who was first elected to Congress in 1996, counters that he has already won two elections with the district's demographics against him. But even if he survives another year, when the state congressional districts are redrawn later this year, the heavily Democratic legislature is likely to ensure that any future Republican wins are unlikely.

With the long-term outcome so clear, why have donors--often from outside the district and even outside the state--poured so much money into this race?

The short answer is impeachment. Rogan was one of the most vociferous impeachment managers in President Clinton's 1998 Senate trial. The congressional race has become a proxy war for those in both parties who are bitter over the impeachment ordeal. According to the Los Angeles Times, the national and state parties will have spent almost $2.2 million in soft money by Election Day.

This money is in addition to the over $10 million the candidates will spend themselves. And much of the candidates' money has come from organizations and individuals outside of the district. The largest individual contributions for Schiff have come from west Los Angeles, zipcode 90210; Rogan gets a third of his individual contributions from out of state. The same ideological fervor that drove the impeachment has prompted politically involved citizens from across the country to donate. Rogan's mailing list includes over 50,000 people from 46 states, and as of Tuesday, 83 percent of donations to the Rogan campaign came from individual donors.

Much of the influx of money into the campaigns has been spent on making more money. About 20 percent of what a campaign brings in is usually spent to raise more money. Large amounts are also spent on campaign staff, consultants, pollsters and fundraisers. The spending that voters do see often comes in the form of television advertising, both on cable stations and broadcast stations. Because broadcast advertisements on television are so expensive, it is often brief and, some consultants claim, ineffective. Thus, the very size of the campaigns does not mean that whoever wins will have bought the election. The problem with all the money is not that citizens' votes are being bought, but that the candidates' votes already have been.

The three top contributors to Schiff's campaign are Moveon.org, a Silicon Valley-based political action committee (PAC), Dreamworks SKG and Time Warner. Rogan's top contributors are Verizon Communications, Outback Steakhouse and Philip Morris. Although federal regulations limit contributions from corporate PACs to $5,000, the top-donor organizations have easily found loopholes. Philip Morris, for example, has contributed over $11,000 to Rogan. Whichever candidate wins, these corporations will expect a return on their investment in the form of votes in Congress. The voters of the 27th district will still choose which man to send to Washington. Whomever they choose, however, will represent both the district and the corporate interests that allowed him to be competitive.

Although comprehensive campaign finance reform is the only real solution, I'm looking forward to the race in 2002, when the district will have been safely redrawn, the national money spigot directed on other places and Monica's dress stashed safely at the bottom of a drawer. Then, the voters in the 27th district will no longer be pawns in the continued controversy over impeachment and will have to share less of their political voice with the likes of Verizon and Dreamworks.

Jonathan H. Esensten is a first-year living in Hollis Hall.