Baucus' campaign spending from October through December included numerous events at expensive restaurants blocks from the U.S. Capitol, including two tabs of more than $1,400 each at Charlie Palmer steakhouse and a $1,560 bill at the Monocle restaurant.
The Montana Democrat, who is running for re-election to his sixth term, also held fundraising events across the country. Some of the meals or catering costs included nearly $3,000 at the Harvard Club of Boston and more than $3,500 at the Hyatt Hotel Chicago.
Nearly all senators running for re-election host such receptions or dinners and travel to fundraise. Although recent restrictions prevent lobbyists from taking lawmakers out for expensive meals, it is legal and accepted practice for members of Congress to host events for potential donors.
“When donors (back home) contribute to a politician's campaign, they may have a naive notion that all of this money is going to buttons and yard signs and campaign advertisements,” said Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks money in politics.
“But the truth is, particularly for incumbents, much of the money is spent in Washington - and really, it would be hard to call it an expense for campaigning per se,” Ritsch added. “You could say it's money for self-preservation and maintaining your seat in Congress. But it's not money that's spent on campaigning as most people think about it.”
Baucus faces no primary opponent, but six Republicans have entered the contest for his seat. Political analysts have rated Baucus as having a solid or safe seat, meaning he is widely expected to win re-election.
The Republicans running against him have raised little money yet. As of the end of 2007, Baucus had taken in
$8.9 million for his re-election bid and had $6.3 million cash in the bank. During the final three months of the year, he listed operating expenses of $558,000 and spent
$2.5 million on the campaign by the end of the year.
The money for food, hotels and transportation to other states was spent largely on campaign fundraising events to take in more money.
“These are items we have to spend dollars on to raise funds - it takes money to raise money,” said Baucus spokesman Barrett Kaiser.
“No one likes to have to focus on raising money,” he added. “And I bet if you were to ask 10 candidates - from dog catcher to president - what their least favorite thing to do is - all 10 of them would say fundraising. Some people are better at it than others. But it's part of the deal. It's a reality in modern-day politics.”
Baucus thinks there's too much money in politics and has voted for campaign finance reform, Kaiser said.
“But until the system is changed, Max isn't going to unilaterally disarm,” he said.
Senators running for re-election in 2006 spent an average of $9.4 million on their campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Because of lower costs for television time and other factors, candidates in Montana generally shouldn't have to raise as much money as those campaigning elsewhere, Ritsch has said.
Former GOP Sen. Conrad Burns spent nearly $9.2 million on his failed 2006 re-election bid, while Democratic Sen. Jon Tester spent almost $5.6 million in defeating the incumbent.
Baucus' principal campaign committee, Friends of Max Baucus, paid three fundraising consultants in the last quarter of 2007. They included the Ashmead Group of Washington, D.C.; Tracey Ann Buckman of Alexandria, Va.; and Meyer Associates of St. Cloud, Minn.
The campaign also paid $213,000 during that time to the Washington-based firm GMMB for media, to create television and radio ads.
The campaign listed almost $31,000 for airfare and another $10,500 for ground transportation during the three months. The report detailed about $8,200 for hotels, including the Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills, Calif., the St. Regis Hotel in San Francisco, the Hilton Hotel Dallas, the Westin Galleria Houston, the Westin Hotel in Chicago and the Pfister in Milwaukee.
Of the nearly $37,000 spent on catering and meals, about 10 percent was spent in Montana.
“They're called campaign contributions, meaning they're supposed to help you campaign,” Ritsch said. “There are no votes to be had here (in Washington, D.C.) for his race. So when you see most of the money getting spent outside of the state, you wonder whether it's really for campaigning or financing a lifestyle or whatever it happens to be.”
However, the amount Baucus spent on campaign consultants and dinners at expensive restaurants doesn't seem out of line from what you would see from other incumbents, Ritsch said.
“You do have to spend money to make money,” he said. “If you're asking people to part with $2,000 or $5,000, then they're going to expect more than pizza and a beer, that's probably the logic there.”
Such dinners and fundraising events are the way business is done in Washington, said Mary Boyle, spokeswoman for the government watchdog group Common Cause.
“That's a lot of money spent entertaining, but basically that is the system we have now and another argument why we need public financing of campaigns,” Boyle said.
Lobbyists and other donors can use the events to their advantage, she added.
“It sets this kind of intimate relaxed meeting and environment, a nice restaurant, couple drinks, expensive meal, that is a kind of access-buying that you would not get if you knocked on the door at their offices and had that same conversation,” she said. “And that's what constituents do for the most part. How many people in Montana, when they need to talk to Sen. Baucus, call up Morton's to make a reservation for the two of them?”
Baucus' campaign also spent money on telephone, Internet, salaries, supplies, printing, postage, rent and legal fees.
House members, presidential candidates and political action committees must all file their campaign fundraising reports electronically, so it is easy for watchdog groups to compile databases and analyze how they spend money. But senators have exempted themselves from that requirement and still turn in paper reports. They can be accessed online page by page, but it is more difficult to scrutinize their expenses.
Ritsch called the paper filing “ridiculous in the 21st century.”
“You shouldn't have to sift through hundreds of pages of campaign finance reports to determine how a senator spent his campaign donations,” Ritsch said. “Without electronic filing, there is great potential for senators to use their money in ways I have a feeling many contributors wouldn't approve of.”
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)