Political Gift-Giving Motivations Vary

Why do people give to political campaigns? The Ohio Republican Party counted the reasons and came up with seven big ones, among them fear, favor and access.

It turns out that actually believing in the cause or the candidate — surely the purest reason for getting involved in a campaign — counts for something, too, according to the list.

It counts for fifth place.

The list came out as part of a lawsuit over the nation's new campaign finance law. Jason Mauk, speaking for the Ohio GOP, said it was used at candidate training schools in the 1998 elections to offer politicians and fund-raisers insights into what works when asking people for money.

Habit is the No. 1 reason people give to a campaign, the research found. "Most people set aside money for a select number of causes," the paper says. "They will give to these causes over and over."

Personal relationships are the No. 2. reason. "People will give if someone they know asks for them to as a personal favor," the list says.

So it seems from another GOP document from 1998. In a note, GOP Chairman Bob Bennett asked then-Gov. George Voinovich to help solicit $100,000 contributions from four people, including Richard Jacobs, a former Cleveland Indians owner; and the late Al Lerner, former owner of the Cleveland Browns.

"I know that, because of your relationship with each of these individuals, we have a good chance of securing these contributions," Bennett wrote. "I will be happy to make the request of each of these individuals if you would make contact in advance of my call encouraging them to be helpful to the Party this year."

Mauk declined to say whether the four contributed. Voinovich, now a senator, doesn't remember whether he made the calls, said spokesman Scott Milburn. Jacobs couldn't be reached.

After personal relationships on the list comes the expectation that by giving money to a campaign, people will get something back.

"This is one thing to watch out for," the training paper says. "Never promise anything in return for a contribution. It may come back to haunt you."

The No. 4 reason for giving is similar: access. "People give to political candidates because they want the ability to have their phone call returned by this person."

Mauk said many people have tried to make the case that the list is an example of "pay to play" but it isn't.

"There's no doubt that some people participate in the political process financially because they expect access to elected officials, but that is not something we promise in exchange for financial support," he said.

Ohio Republicans found that "issues and ideology" — or supporting candidates or causes in line with their valued — was the fifth most important reason for giving.

"Fear of the other side" came next. These people were motivated less by liking Republicans than by disliking Democrats.

And, finally, a phenomenon the list delicately calls CYA. Many people give to both sides so they will have access no matter who wins.

One way of describing that is Cover Your Access.

Former Rep. Robert Walker, R-Pa., a Washington lobbyist, said the Ohio list sounded about right to him, including the emphasis on personal relationships. He said that with a safe district, he did little fund raising for himself, but did raise money for his party.

"I usually had a fairly elaborate background on the person I was calling," Walker said. As House Science Committee chairman, he was often asked to call people he knew in science and technology.

Now Walker is asked to give. When he does, No. 2 — "personal relationships," is usually why, he said.

Longtime Democratic donor Peter Buttenwieser said he had his own reasons for giving.

"I give because I want the best and most progressive government that we can possibly get," said Buttenwieser, a Philadelphia investment banking heir. That's "issues and ideology."

As for "people expect something in return" and "access," Buttenwieser said he likes to think that's not him, but he always checks his motivations.

"Do I think many, many people give for access?" he asked. "The answer is yes."

By Sharon Theimer