Copyright ©2001 Massachusetts News, Inc. Photocopying and data processing storage of all or any part of this issue may not be made without prior written consent. 

 

Will the GOP Survive in Massachusetts?

Is Its Purpose Only to Help a Governor Survive?

By Nathan Woodside
February 8, 2001

The Republican candidate for Congress from the Cape Cod area couldn’t believe it last year when he and two other Massachusetts candidates were turned away at the door of the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia.

 “We’re federal candidates for God’s sake,” Eric Bleicken recalled thinking.

The two other candidates, Jack E. Robinson III in the senatorial race and Paul McCarthy in the 6th Congressional District race, also arrived at the convention to discover that the State Republican Committee had left no tickets in their names.

 The three eventually managed to get tickets into the convention, but the ordeal became an ominous sign for their doomed campaigns and a telling anecdote to the relationship between the national and state GOP and last year’s squad of Massachusetts Republican congressional candidates.

“We are rudderless. The people running the party are hacks,” Robinson said.

Running a viable Republican congressional campaign in Massachusetts has been getting progressively more difficult since 1996, when both Republican incumbents were defeated by narrow margins. Massachusetts hasn’t sent a Republican to Congress since.

Three Close Races in 1996
 In 1996, there were three close races. James McGovern narrowly defeated Republican Peter Blute. The Democrat John Olver beat now-lieutenant governor Jane Swift in a competitive race. In the 6th Congressional race, the incumbent Republican, Pete Torkildsen, lost by less than 1 percent of the vote.

In that year, Massachusetts Republican candidates raised 34 percent of the total fundraising for congressional races in the state. In 1998, their share dropped to 17 percent. The decline continued into the 2000 race where the five Republican candidates struggled to pull 3 percent of total contributions, according to the Federal Elections Commission.

Financial support for the Massachusetts Republican Party is wilting away at a staggering rate. But despite having only 13 percent of registered voters, the party has managed to put a governor and lieutenant governor in the statehouse.

Some congressional candidates are skeptical about the head of the state ticket and partly blame Governor Paul Cellucci for the party’s declining financial support.

There is Republican money in Massachusetts, but it is just not going to congressional races.

George W. Bush raised $1,803,447 in Massachusetts for his presidential campaign with the help of the Cellucci fundraising machine. This was $739,405 more than Vice President Al Gore, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-profit organization that tracks campaign contributions.

“There’s a limited supply of Republicans in Massachusetts, and I think the Bush and Cellucci campaigns had some effect in draining the wallets,” Congressional candidate Pete Jon Abair said.

A longtime Boston Republican fundraiser who donated money to all six Republican congressional candidates, as well as to the Bush and Sen. John McCain presidential campaigns, thought Cellucci spent too much time raising money for Bush. He says this time could have been better spent getting a congressional “farm team” together.

Cellucci Is Blamed
 “All the major fundraising in the Republican Party went to the Bush campaign,” said one activist. “Cellucci didn’t help the five congressional candidates. He raises a million for Bush, but he didn’t raise anything for the congressional candidates. The five guys here didn’t have a prayer.”

Some congressional candidates are cynical about Cellucci’s aggressive fundraising for Bush, interpreting it as a self-serving campaign for a cabinet position in the new administration.

“Cellucci skimmed off the Republican Party,” said one activist. “He wants to play games in Washington. He raises all this money for Bush, but Bush still loses the state. Cellucci swept away Republican GOP money.”

Robinson and Bleicken partly blame the Republican State Committee for poor Republican support, but a member of the committee, Tom Fletcher, was not sure the state party was responsible for the dismal financial support of the congressional candidates.

“You might want to ask the Bush campaign and the Republican National Committee if anyone thinks they took money away from Massachusetts Republican candidates,” he said.

The Republican National Committee declined to comment on the specifics of the Massachusetts congressional race, but said they support all Republican candidates.

The conservative political action committees in Washington D.C. turned their backs when Massachusetts candidates asked for financial support.

The National Rifle Association, for example, didn’t support Bleicken, who ran on a conservative, pro-second amendment platform. Bleicken understood that PACs want a return on their money, something that couldn’t be guaranteed by a Massachusetts Republican congressional candidate. He was not surprised by the NRA’s refusal to donate money to his campaign.

“PACs in Washington are very pragmatic. They look at the numbers and only give money if the candidate looks promising,” Bleicken said. “They kissed off Massachusetts.”

Since the 1996 race, PAC support for Massachusetts Republican congressional candidates has practically vanished, and the trend is staggering. In 1996, Republican candidates received 20 percent of PAC money donated to congressional races in Massachusetts. In 1998, it totaled four percent. In 2000, less than one-half of one percent of PAC contributions made in Massachusetts went to Republican candidates, according to data provided by the FEC.

Abair found the same pragmatism frustrating, although he ran a relatively strong campaign, raising $132,442, of which 4 percent came from PACs.

 “You make the rounds in D.C. and if you are deemed a competitive race then the PACs open up their coffers,” Abair said. “We were never able to make inroads with those people.” Abair and McCarthy were the only Republican candidates in Massachusetts to receive money from PACs in the 2000 race, according to the FEC. 

For the most part, Massachusetts Republican candidates had to finance their campaigns independently. According to FEC data, 82 percent of their contributions came from individual donors.

Robinson Had Uphill Battle
 Jack E. Robinson III faced an uphill battle for a Senate seat by challenging popular Democratic incumbent Senator Ted Kennedy without an endorsement from the state party. Robinson didn’t look to the state or national parties for financial support but financed his campaign with his own money.

“The state party is in no position to do anything,” he said. “There is no leadership. Someone has to step up if he wants to do something.”

Robinson saw that Republican candidates across the state were struggling financially and no one seemed to care. With three weeks left in his campaign, he distributed over $10,000 of his own money to the 80 statewide Republican candidates, making him the first Republican candidate in Massachusetts history to donate money to every candidate in his party. An Oct. 17 press release from his campaign quoted the letter he included with each donation, which read, “It is my goal to do everything that I can to help rebuild the GOP in our state.”

Abair and Bleicken were very grateful for Robinson’s donation, which they said sent a message to the state and national committees. “Robinson’s contribution was much appreciated, and necessary,” Bleicken said.

Robinson wants to free up state GOP money for all Republican candidates. He believes that a clean elections law is the only panacea for Republican financial starvation in Massachusetts. “The real issue is state party leadership,” he said. “Things flow down.”

As in 1996 and 1998, Massachusetts didn’t send a single Republican to Congress this year. “Massachusetts Republicans have no representation in Washington D.C.,” Bleicken said. “We are powerless.”

With Republicans pocketing only 3 percent of the contributions made to congressional races, this year’s election results are painfully familiar for candidates and the small minority who donated to their campaigns.

Peter Quinn, of Braintree, gave $200 to the Bleicken campaign, even though he admits Bleicken had little hope winning against incumbent Democrat William Delahunt. Quinn believes the Massachusetts Republican Party has little hope of rebuilding a farm team as long as the national party continues to siphon money away from congressional races and abandons local candidates.

“The solicitations for money that I get from the national party end up in my waste basket,” Quinn said.

 

Editor’s Note: Although this article clearly points out some of the problems in the GOP, everyone realizes that the real solution will not come at the congressional level. The Republican Party must start its rebuilding at the municipal level and then move on to the state legislature. Only then will it have the infrastructure to give us a two-party state which is so necessary for a democracy to function.

Bibliography

Some of Those Interviewed
Abair, Peter Jon. He ran as a Republican in the 1st Congressional District in the western part of the state and was defeated by incumbent Democrat John Olver. I spoke with Abair on the phone and through email correspondence. He was a relatively successful Republican congressional candidate, raising over $100,000 in contributions and having Sen. McCain stump for him in October. His phone number is (413) 732-2787. Email is peteabair@yahoo.com

Bleicken, Eric. He ran unsuccessfully as a Republican in the 10th Congressional District in the Cape Cod area against incumbent Democrat William Delahunt. I had a few phone interviews with Bleicken and a string of email messages. His phone number is (508) 760-2045. His email is bleicken@mediaone.net.

Fletcher, Tom. He is with the Republican State Committee and I spoke with him over the phone on two occasions. His number is (617) 524-2929. He wasn’t very helpful and was a little defensive when I asked him questions about the Republican congressional squad.

Robinson, Jack E. III Robinson was defeated by incumbent Democrat Ted Kennedy for the Senate seat. Robinson’s interview was my best one. He was very bitter and resentful toward the national and state parties, who both left him hanging for support. Robinson donated $10,000 of his own money to the 80 Republican candidates statewide. I reached him at (617) 524-6333.

Quinn, Peter He donated $200 to the Bleicken campaign. I got his name and number off FEC and made a cold call to his home. Fortunately he was willing to talk with me about the state Republican Party. His phone number is (781) 848-3509.

Newspaper Articles
“A Raise for Expenses,” Editorial, Boston Globe 9 Apr. 2000, 3rd ed E6.
This editorial offers a few solutions in regard to improving the Massachusetts Clean Elections Law. There is debate among state legislatures that the Clean Elections Law hampers the necessary allowances of state legislatures. The Globe proposes that House expenditures be disclosed. By the time the law goes into effect in 2002, the Globe sees no reason why it should be contested in the state legislature. 

“The 2000 Campaign: The Finance Laws; Parties Accused of Running Illegal Ads,” New York Times 17 June 2000, final ed. A10. Broder, John M. and Don Van Natta Jr.
Article reports alleged violations on the part of both presidential candidates concerning the issue of using soft money contributions to fund political advertisements. This issue of soft money, i.e. money donated to a political party for the purpose of “issue building,” is in the background of any comprehensive story on campaign finance contributions. Though the article does not specifically talk about soft money donations in Massachusetts, it does bring up an issue to consider when looking into who, or what, from Massachusetts is contributing money to the presidential candidates. Article also gives a lead on a potential source, former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, who now heads up Common Cause, a watchdog for U.S. elections. 

“GOP To Focus on ‘Farm Team’ Rather than Risk Losing the Farm,” Boston Globe, 22 Mar. 2000, 3rd ed. A26. Cassidy, Tim.
This article discusses the financial relationship between Republican Jack E. Robinson III and the Mass. GOP. According to the article, Robinson pledged to spend $1 million on his own congressional campaign because the GOP refused to fund his race, a campaign Gov. Cellucci called a “kamikaze mission.” The GOP pledged to support community offices in the election, rather than congressional races against wealthy incumbent Democrats. This article helps explain why Republican congressional candidates received little funding, if any, from the state Republican Party. 

“Coalition Blasts Governor, Demands Election Funding,” Boston Globe 13 Nov. 1999, city ed., A1. Crowley, Michael and Frank Phillips.
This article reports that a coalition of groups had demanded changes to the Clean Elections Act, arguing that incumbents would receive an unfair advantage under the law to raise money while in office. The power of incumbents is a recurring point of discussion in Mass. politics, particularly last election season, in which all congressional candidates were Democrats. The power of the incumbency seems to have a hand in fundraising. 

“Political Capital; GOP Senate Hopeful Robinson Says He Plans To Crash Bush Fund-raiser,” Boston Globe 11 June 2000, 3rd ed., B3. Crowley, Michael, et al
GOP Senate contender Jack E. Robinson, in a desperate attempt to secure a few Massachusetts Republican dollars, attempted to crash a Gov. Bush fundraiser. Robinson, like many other Republican congressional candidates, seriously lacked party funding. While Bush continued to build up his war chest, state Republicans were in desperate need of campaign financing. 

“Political Capital; Cellucci Rattles the Massachusetts Money Tree In Support of Bush Presidential Effort.” Boston Globe, 18 June 2000, 3rd ed. B3. Ebbert, Stephanie, et al.
George W. Bush got more money from Massachusetts than his rival, Al Gore, and this article helped to explain a potential reason why. Massachusetts’ Republican Governor Paul Cellucci was a key fund-raiser for the GOP candidate. As recently as June, Cellucci held a $20,000-a-couple dinner, with the proceeds funneling into the Presidential trust, from which Governor Bush could draw generously. Though the article goes on to explain potential motives for Cellucci’s loyalty to Governor Bush, it still gets at a reason central to a story on why Bush gets so much money from a state long believed to be a bastion for the Democratic party. 

“In Mass., Bush Leaves Few Funds for His Rivals,” Boston Globe, 16 July 1999, city ed. A1. Ferrell, John.
Gov. George W. Bush has secured the purse of Mass. Republican money. This article discusses how Bush consolidated Mass. Republican donations made in the benefit of the presidential race. The article lists leading Republican contributors, both individuals and corporations. The scope of Bush’s fundraising in the state makes for a grim contrast to the war chests of other Mass. Republicans, who struggled to secure even modest financing.  

“Court Agrees To Review Restrictions on Spending,” New York Times, 11 Oct. 2000, New England ed. A20. Greenhouse, Linda
This article covers the decision on behalf of the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether spending limits on congressional campaigns are constitutionally valid. The article also provides a brief legal framework for understanding the evolution of campaign finance law. This background makes the article particularly helpful. 

“In Money Race, Robinson Faces Tall Order,” Boston Globe, 21 Apr. 2000, 3rd ed. A10. Hohler, Bob.
The financial disparities between the Mass. Democratic and Republican campaigns for Congress are presented in this article. It appears that the power of incumbency has enhanced the powers of fund-raising for the Democrats. This article is helpful in understanding the challenges state Republicans face as they campaign against powerfully connected and well-funded Democrat incumbents and explains why the Republican Party has had difficulty recruiting candidates. 

“Who Killed the Massachusetts GOP?” Boston Globe, 15 May 2000. 3rd ed. Jacoby, Jeff.
This article gives a good overview of the recent demise of the Massachusetts GOP. It offers a few explanations for the trend, but the real value of the article is that it names the key players in the state party and suggests that they aren’t doing enough  to build a congressional farm team. 

“GOP Reaps Harvest in Massachusetts Donations Flowing To Out-Of-Staters,” Boston Globe, 15 June 2000, 3rd ed. A1. Kornblut, Anne E.
“Massachusetts is a tempting place for republicans to raise money, especially this year,” writes the reporter, whose article in part suggests that George W. Bush is doing well in Boston because of dearth of local Republican candidates for donors to aid. Big spenders in Massachusetts are eyeing politicians from other states, using the logic that if they can’t make a difference in their home state, they might be able to make a difference elsewhere. This meant good news for Gov. Bush, who managed to out-raise his Democratic rival in a state that he lost convincingly during the primaries. This article also provides a lead on two potential sources: Ron  Kaufman, Massachusetts’ Republican National committeeman, and Priscilla Ruzzo, a Republican fund-raiser in Boston. 

“House Plan Would Limit Candidate Financing Legislature, Races May Get No Funds,” Boston Globe, 25 Apr. 2000, 3rd ed. A1. Phillips, Frank
The debate over the Clean Elections Law continues in the state legislature. This article is helpful in giving some background to the criticisms concerning the law. 

“Finneran Targets Election Law, House To Consider Changes in Campaign Finance Overhaul,” Boston Globe, 26 Apr 2000, 3rd ed. E3.
Again, the debate over the Clean Elections Law is of concern. Here, Common Cause director Ken White makes a few comments about the new law and its impact on voters and fair elections.  

“Law Makers Rewrite Massachusetts Campaign Rules,” Boston Globe 11 Nov. 1999, city ed. A1.
The power and influence of the Mass. incumbents, mostly all Democrat, is at the center of opposition to the Clean Elections Act. David Donnolley, director of Mass Voters for Clean Elections, is interviewed in the article, and he gives good insight into reasons why incumbents might oppose the new law.  

“The Fundraising: GOP Has Big Advantage in its Campaign Treasury,” New York Times, 11 Oct. 2000, New England Ed. A27. Van Natta, Don Jr.
This article highlights the huge sums of money both parties raised on the national level. More specifically, the article deals with the $100 million the Republican Party raised in the third quarter, which was a record amount. The article touches upon a few reasons explaining the success of Republican fundraising and the various strategies both parties used in their fundraising. The article gives some national perspective to the fundraising in Massachusetts. 

“Campaign 2000; Robinson Donating to GOP Races,” Boston Globe, 18 Oct 2000, 3rd ed. B3. Weiss, Joanna
Although Robinson did not get funding from the state GOP, he pledged to donate $10,000 of his own money to other Republican candidates across the state. The article highlights an interesting situation: Not only did Robinson lack Republican funding, other statewide Republican candidates were also struggling to maintain their own campaigns. This was all a stark contrast to the war chest Gov. George W. Bush raised in Massachusetts. Although the state Republican Party was strapped for cash, Mass. Republicans gave generously to the national ticket. 

Magazine Articles
“Oh, What a Sweet Soft-Money Machine,” Business Week, 22 May 2000 p 85. Woellert, Lorraine.
This magazine article explains how congressional joint-committees are used to raise large sums of money for both Republican and Democratic coffers. What is interesting is that Sen. Ted Kennedy, through the Massachusetts Victory Fund, managed to raise $121,402. The article outlines the use of joint-committees and even touches upon peripheral ethical issues. In respect to Sen. Kennedy, this article is useful in understanding a few of the lesser-known aspects of Mass. congressional fundraising. 

“The Money Machine,” The Economist, 30 Sept. 2000, p. 34-35.
This is a very general article that manages to provide some helpful insight into the role soft-money plays in elections. More importantly, however, this article makes some discussion about the role the incumbency plays in elections. This has direct bearing on the Massachusetts congressional races – all incumbents are Democrats. 

Journal Articles
“Hiding the Money,” National Journal, 32.27 (2000) p. 2154. Carney, Eliza Newlin.
Although this article is beyond the scope of my research, it does deal with one specific aspect of my article. Sen. Kennedy’s affiliation with a joint political group and his subsequent fundraising might make for an interesting side bar to my story. The role of the incumbency in Mass. fundraising is very interesting.

On the Internet
Tom Paine. Common Sense; A Journal of Opinion, 12 Oct. 2000. Funded by the Florence Fund.
This online journal contains an extensive archive of articles relating to clean money campaign reform and current campaign financing. More in-depth feature articles, such as the current article on clean money supplement the monthly article archive. Articles are written primarily by staff journalists and professors.

Public Campaign, Copyright 2000, President Ellen S. Miller. 
This web site holds an archive of articles and press releases related to campaign finance. The president served for 12 years as executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. The site is also useful for sorting through campaign finance law and history.

Public Integrity, founded in 1990, Executive Director Charles Lewis. 
This is an online newsletter that serves as a resource for articles relating to campaign finance while also monitoring campaign contributions. Campaign contributions can be examined for state or national candidates.

Open Secrets.
This web site houses records for campaign contributions and organizes them by state, zip code, metro area, candidate, PAC, congressional district and party. It is helpful in getting a quick picture of where campaign contributions are coming from. It is an ideal resource for making sense of mass donations to the presidential campaign and congressional race.

Campaign Finance. 
Operated by IRE and CAR, this resource center maintains an online archive of campaign finance stories. What is particularly helpful is its Massachusetts money flow, which tracks contributions made in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts Republican Party Home Page. 
This is the Massachusetts Republican Party’s official web site. It provides background information on state candidates and Bush’s race in Massachusetts.

Federal Elections Commission.
PAC financial activity and national party summaries are evaluated on this web site. Campaign contribution reports for national and state elections can be downloaded from this site. This site also provides clear definitions of campaign finance laws.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Home Page.
The official web site of Massachusetts contains databases of voters, maps, and descriptions of campaign finance laws. It is also valuable for information on state elections.

Office of Campaign and Political Finance.
This independent state agency administers the Clean Elections law. It also houses a database of contributors to statewide candidates. The office is directed by Michael Sullivan, and the data is managed by Dennis Kennedy. 

Books
Corrado, Anthony, Thomas E. Mann, Daniel R. Ortiz,

Trevor Potter, and Frank J. Sorauf, eds. Campaign Finance Reform: A Sourcebook. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1997.

Although this book was published prior to the passing of the Massachusetts Clean Elections Act, it provides a recent history of campaign financing and how campaign finance laws have evolved through legislative, judicial and executive means on both the national and state levels. It includes a number of relevant documents, court opinions and statutes. Hard data is coupled with a number of scholarly articles on the area of finance reform. It generally serves as a good reference book on campaign finance, as well as a guidebook to the complex legal issues surrounding campaign finance.

Donnelly, David, Janice Fine, and Ellen S. Miller. Money and Politics: Financing Our Elections Democratically. Boston: Beacon Press, 1999.

Janice Fine, one of the primary authors of this work, is the Organizing Director of the Northeast Citizen Action Resource Center, an institution significant in lobbying for 1998’s Clean Elections Act in Massachusetts. The first chapter of this book offers a balanced discussion of why campaign finance reform was needed throughout New England and the various steps that brought Clean Election Acts to fruition in states like Maine and Massachusetts. In that sense, the work will help add some perspective to the story by providing the “where did we come from?” element when considering the current state of campaign contributions in Massachusetts.

Gierzynski, Anthony. Money Rules: Financing Elections In America. Boulder: Westview Press, 2000.

This is a background book. Though this story focuses on Massachusetts campaign finance during the current election season, it is important to get some background on the ubiquitous issue of campaign finance. This book’s strength is that it is current, having been published in 2000. Its first chapter, or introduction, does much to analyze the current problems with campaign finance regulations, and it uses as a case study the 1996 election. Describing campaign finance as a “system in crisis,” the book’s early pages go on to not only describe the current deficiencies in campaign finance laws, but how the system can be improved. Though not focusing much on Massachusetts specifically, some parts of this book will be useful for putting the story into a national context.

Nathan Woodside is a graduate student at Boston University’s College of Communication.

Related:
Cellucci should not go to Washington