WASHINGTON -- When Texas Gov. George W. Bush met recently with home-state fund-raisers for his presidential campaign, he needed an auditorium to hold them all.
The 550 well-heeled Texans, expected to collect at least $10,000 each, are part of an army of fund-raisers in both parties who have launched a feverish, and record-breaking, money hunt on behalf of presidential hopefuls. This rush to collect tens of millions in donations is regarded as the first important test of the 2000 presidential campaign.
More than bragging rights is at stake. Since 1976, the presidential contender who pulled in the most cash in the year before the election has, with one exception, become his party's nominee.
Because of changes in the nominating process, early money could prove even more valuable in 2000. More states are advancing their primaries to the start of the primary season, creating a de facto national primary next winter and giving a big advantage to the best-funded candidates.
"This will make campaigns more expensive," says Haley Barbour, former Republican national chairman. "It will also put tremendous pressure on a candidate's ability to raise money in 1999."
To be competitive, campaign officials say, a candidate must raise at least $15 million by Dec. 31. That money will be needed to run television ads in advance of coast-to-coast voting on March 7, when at least 10 states, including Maryland, California and New York, will conduct presidential primaries.
Pushed by the expense of TV ad time, campaign costs continue to rise. But the limit on individual donations, set in 1974, remains at $1,000. Raising $20 million in $1,000 chunks translates into 20,000 contributions.
The economic boom of the 1990s made many rich, expanding the ranks of potential donors. According to Treasury Department figures, more than 1.5 million income tax returns of $200,000 or more were filed for 1996. That is more than 28 times the number of $200,000 returns in 1977.
"The economy has created a lot more people who can give $1,000 than could 10 years ago," says Eric Hauser, a spokesman for former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley's presidential campaign.
Still, few Americans give to campaigns, making presidential fund raising a formidable test of organizational and political talent. Especially for lesser-known candidates, dialing for dollars can be almost a full-time occupation.
This week, the first milestone in the money chase will be reached as campaigns begin releasing their fund-raising figures for the first quarter.
Vice President Al Gore is expected to report $7 million in contributions, the initial installment on what is likely to be a record $55 million. Bradley, his lone challenger for the Democratic nomination, is expected to report $4 million to $5 million in donations.
Bush's campaign committee refused to confirm a report that he has collected $3 million to $4 million since his team was formed a month ago. Among other Republicans, Arizona Sen. John McCain, who has held two-dozen fund-raising events, will likely announce that he has collected more than $2 million, putting him well ahead of Elizabeth Hanford Dole, who might not exceed $1 million.
Former Vice President Dan Quayle, former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander and conservative activist Gary Bauer are expected to report contributions in excess of $1 million. And wealthy publisher Steve Forbes, who spent more than $35 million of his own money on his 1996 candidacy, stands ready to open his wallet again.
The first round of finance reports is considered important because the amount a candidate raises is considered a reflection of political viability. And that, in turn, can make it easier -- or harder -- to attract future contributions.
There are limits to the predictive power of early money, however. At this point four years ago, Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas boasted the largest bank account of any GOP presidential contender. But by the first primary of '96, Gramm's candidacy had ended.
Gramm was repeating the unhappy history of another presidential hopeful from Texas, former Gov. John B. Connally, who won the Republican fund-raising race in 1979 and wound up with only one delegate vote at the 1980 convention.
'The 800-pound gorilla'
Once again, a Texan is the talk of the world of political money.
"There's no question that George Bush is the 800-pound gorilla of fund raising," says Jim Rappaport, chief money-raiser for Ohio Rep. John R. Kasich's presidential campaign.
Bush's enormous fund-raising potential has led his strategists to quietly prepare a plan that could allow him to blow the roof off previous fund-raising records for an American political campaign.
Under the presidential campaign finance system Congress put in place after the Watergate scandal, contributions of up to $250 are matched dollar for dollar with public funds. The law's spending limits mean that the most a candidate can raise this time will be about $33 million.
With the added public funds, the amount available for a candidate to spend on the 2000 primaries will be about $47 million.
By refusing to take federal matching funds, a decision he won't have to make until November, Bush would be freed from the spending limits. There would be no ceiling on what he could raise, though he would be bound by the $1,000 limit on individual contributions (political action committees can give up to $5,000).
Passing up federal funding "is an enormous leap," says Donald Evans, the Texas oilman who heads Bush's national finance committee. "It would mean raising substantially more money than has ever been raised in a presidential [election] in the history of the country by a factor of at least 50 percent or more."
Two other Bush campaign officials said they thought Bush could raise and spend $65 million to $75 million if he were to go all the way to the nomination.
Only Connally in 1979 and self-funded candidates such as Forbes and billionaire Ross Perot have opted out of the matching funds. Others, including President Clinton in 1996, have considered passing up federal funding, but said they did not do so because it would appear to violate the spirit of the post-Watergate reforms.
Bush's ostensible reason for skipping matching money would be to allow himself to compete on a more equal footing with Forbes, whose personal fortune helped finance an aggressive campaign that damaged former Sen. Bob Dole, the eventual Republican nominee in 1996.
The real benefit
But strategists in both parties, including some for Bush, say that argument is just political cover for the real benefit Bush would gain: It would allow him, unlike his Democratic opponent, to keep raising and spending money after March, when the primary race is over.
In 1996, Dole reached the spending limit months before the national convention, putting him at a severe disadvantage. His opponent, Clinton, had nearly $20 million to spend in the months leading up to the national conventions, when the nominees receive public funds for the fall election.
Pub Date: 3/31/99