WASHINGTON – The national Democratic and Republican party organizations consider a world of factors when deciding which candidates to back with the invaluable resources of time and money.
Against the backdrop of the past two tightly contested presidential elections, incumbents are viewed as vulnerable if, for instance, they won their last election by a close vote in a district whose registered voters’ party affiliation would have predicted either a larger margin of victory (more Republicans voting Republican in a Republican district) or the outright defeat of an underdog candidate (fewer Democrats crossing over to vote Republican in a Democratic district).
In both such cases, national campaign managers are apt to make a move for party-affiliated voters, either by luring them back to their usual voting pattern or by persuading them to stand by the new pattern established in the past election(s).
In other cases, if the last election was so close it could have gone either way, strategists simply hope to try again, harder, with the same basic takes on a different set of issues and similar candidates, hoping for that little bit of difference that will turn another close election – in their direction this time.
And finally, when a popular incumbent seems to line up on the wrong side of current issues, opponents will tend to sense their opportunity.
Four candidates with direct significance for Indian country enter the November midterm elections under each of these scenarios. In each case, the opposition is making concerted efforts to gain a seat.
In Montana, Republican Sen. Conrad Burns, a three-term veteran, barely won re-election in 2000 despite the state’s enormous preference for Republican President George W. Bush.
In Arizona, Republican Rep. Rick Renzi couldn’t win a majority of the vote in his Democratic-leaning district in 2002, and did better in 2004 only with the benefit of illegal campaign financing.
In Washington, Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell won by just a whisker in 2000. In California, Rep. Richard Pombo is used to winning handily, but finds himself under an ethics cloud for reasons that might not have troubled anyone in the past.
<b>Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont.</b>
Burns’ troubles may have begun back in 2000, when the state’s Republican voters returned him to office by 3 percentage points, despite favoring Bush by 20. The performance suggested that Burns lacked unshakeable backing in Republican circles. Six years later, the Republican Minority Leader in the state Legislature, Bob Keenan, seeks to exploit the weak showing in a June 6 primary election. Polls show Burns running ahead of his fellow Republican in the primary, but Keenan supporters argue that Burns has already maxed out his name recognition while the challenger stands to make steady gains.
But Burns has made plenty of trouble for himself. Keenan’s announced reason for running is that the GOP would lose the statewide election if Burns were to win the Republican primary. As chairman of the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, with a thumb on the budget of Interior and the BIA, Burns became a favorite go-to funder of “toxic lobbyist” Jack Abramoff, who in turn directed $150,000 to his re-election campaigns. In the course of his many misdeeds with tribal fees and donations totaling anywhere from $55 million to $82 million, Abramoff told Vanity Fair magazine, “Every appropriation we wanted we got” from the Appropriations Subcommittee Burns chaired. One of the best-known among them was a $3 million school construction “earmark” from Burns to the Saginaw Chippewa, a casino-wealthy Abramoff client that has since returned the funding to the federal treasury. The former lobbyist described the downtown Washington restaurant he owned as “a cafeteria” for Burns staff members. Staff members are under federal investigation in the bribery scandal, and Burns himself has hired a top-drawer Washington criminal attorney. The consensus of opinion seems to be that if Burns is indicted anytime prior to the November elections, his political career will be finished.
The “earmarks” for Abramoff client tribes are the most famous example of Burns’ largesse. But as chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Communications, Burns has showered favor on former top aides now in the telecommunications industry. The tens of millions of dollars in lobbying fees, the hundreds of millions of dollars in federal contracts and benefits that have changed hands through Burns’ influence, direct or otherwise, are not known to be under federal investigation.
While favoring Abramoff and his clients, former top aides and their clients, and of course the non-Indian community in Montana, Burns has opposed Indian program funding on many occasions. Indians make up approximately 10 percent of the state’s population, but Burns has consistently opposed funding for Indian education, Indian health care, and other Indian-specific programs. In the 1990s, he proposed a bill that would have exempted non-Indian land within the exterior boundaries of reservations from tribal authority.
The senator’s Democratic challengers are state Auditor John Morrison, who has ethical problems of his own stemming from an extramarital affair; and state Sen. Jon Tesser, a farmer. Both are running close to Burns in early polls.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (co-founded, it should be noted, by a protege of Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York) has named Burns one of the 13 most corrupt lawmakers in Washington. Time magazine recently named him one of the five worst senators on Capitol Hill.
<b>Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.</b>
Cantwell won her Senate seat by little more than 2,000 votes in 2000. Many Indians considered the man she outdistanced, former Republican Sen. Slade Gorton, a menace to tribal sovereignty and prerogatives. Voter turnout among the many tribes in Washington state probably made the difference for Cantwell. She has become a regular voice in the Senate for Indian health funding, and has also moved Indian-specific measures through the Senate on tribal forestry authority and renewable energy grants.
The close vote in 2000, along with several Cantwell votes that have antagonized the state’s strong liberal community, has led Republicans to hope they have a chance against her. They’ve fielded a Gorton protege, his former chief of staff, Mike McGavick.
The trouble for Republicans is that Bush antagonizes voters statewide more than Cantwell ever will. And her signature achievement – leading the Democratic resistance in the annual struggle against opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and development – plays well in the state and across Indian country.
McGavick supports drilling in ANWR.
The Libertarian Party has promised to provide voters in the state with a third candidate for the Senate.
<b>Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz.</b>
In Arizona’s politically moderate District 1, Renzi won a place in the House of Representatives in 2002 with only 49 percent of the vote – helped in large part by half a million dollars from his own pockets (he ran for Congress as a millionaire businessman in insurance and real estate) and out-of-state contributions.
In 2004 he increased his majority, and kept his seat despite a Federal Election Commission finding that he used illegal funds to finance the campaign.
It recently turned out that Renzi’s campaigns have taken $30,000 from the discredited political action committee of Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas. As if all that were not enough, he has come under investigation for steering federal contracts to his father, a defense contractor. Citizens For Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, the same left-of-spectrum watchdog group that tagged Burns as one of the 13 worst lawmakers in Congress, bestowed the same recognition on Renzi.
But none of this seems to matter so far in Arizona. Renzi’s best defense may be that Democrats have not been able to field a strong candidate against him. One front-runner bowed out in March, and the next best-known Democrat, Michael Caccioppoli Jr., isn’t showing much of a presence in the polls. In one of the nation’s largest congressional districts, all of that funny money has apparently bought Renzi the holy grail of name recognition.
But he has another strong suit going for him. Numbering the Navajo Nation, the Hopi, the San Carlos and White Mountain Apache among his constituents, Renzi has enjoyed the relative backing of tribes. In particular, he has delivered funding for housing and education programs, as well as an important clarifying amendment on tribal standing under the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Assistance Act.
Finally, he stands shoulder to shoulder with the Navajo against uranium mining, citing the tribe’s sovereign right to enforce recent bans.
<b>Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif.</b>
As chairman of the Resources Committee in the House, Pombo has a large presence in Indian affairs. His current legislative priority, putting an end to “reservation shopping” for casino sites, is so high profile in California that whether he succeeds or not, even giving it a good try is apt to help his chances at re-election.
That he may need the help comes as a surprise. He’s in his seventh term from California’s somewhat conservative 11th district, east of San Francisco, and drew more than 60 percent of the vote in his last campaign.
But between now and then, business as usual in Washington has come to be seen in light of the Abramoff-inspired lobbying scandal. Pombo finds himself cast in a different, darker light than before, having received more from Abramoff and his client tribes than any other congressional member from California.
Although Pombo’s legislation to recognize the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe in Massachusetts is in no way at odds with his campaign against reservation shopping (the tribe doesn’t operate a casino), still the bill and the hearings leading up to it look less innocent.
Given Mashpee Wampanoag donations before and after Pombo meetings and committee hearings on their issue, indeed, they begin to look more of a piece with the donations Pombo’s political action committee received from allies of the Shinnecock Indian Nation in New York, which has guarded hopes of opening a casino; from the Forest County Potawatomi, which has a Milwaukee casino to protect; and from other tribes that have fed almost a quarter of a million dollars to Pombo political action committees.
How dark could the picture get for Pombo? He rose to the chairmanship of the Resources Committee over the heads of numerous senior committee members, following new rules crafted by former House Majority Leader DeLay that emphasized party loyalty and fund-raising prowess. Delay’s chief of staff has been indicted in the Abramoff investigation, and DeLay has hired high-powered attorneys. Pombo is occasionally said to be under investigation in the Abramoff case. Pombo denies wrongdoing and has re-donated only the $7,000 contributed to his PACs by Abramoff personally.
The Abramoff cesspool is not the only ethical hot water that has gathered around Pombo. In naming him one of the 13 most corrupt lawmakers in Washington, Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington charges him with abuse of incumbent mailing privileges, excessive payment to his wife and brother for work on his campaigns, and charges him with the backing of wind farm and freeway proposals that would enrich his family.
Pombo spokesman Brian Kennedy dismisses the charges as election-year attacks from the left.
But while the matters of pay to family members and official maneuverings to boost the property value of family holdings must be the province of larger inquiries, it seems more or less inarguable that Pombo abused the so-called “franking privilege” when he mailed off 175,000 brochures praising the Resources Committee and the Bush administration for liberalizing a snowmobile policy in national parks – on the eve of the 2004 presidential elections. Federal law prohibits incumbent use of the “franking privilege” for mass-mail purposes within 90 days of an election.
Further attacks on Pombo have come from the environmental community, a strong interest group in California, but Pombo has asked for these attacks. He attempted the legislative overhaul of the Endangered Species Act in the last Congress, and regularly calls for expanded development of the nation’s energy resources, including those in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Pombo is being challenged in the Republican primary by former U.S. Rep. Pete McCloskey, by no coincidence a co-author of the Endangered Species Act. The Democratic candidate will be either Steve Filson, a Navy veteran, or Jerry McNerney, the candidate who managed to get almost 40 percent of the vote against Pombo in 2004, despite a late start on the campaign trail.
All polling shows that Pombo remains the favored candidate to date.
