By Lindsay Kastner

Money may not guarantee campaign donors any influence with state legislators, but it certainly buys access to the Capitol’s corridors of the power, says Steve Calos, executive director of the political watchdog group Common Cause of Virginia.

These days, access can cost a pretty penny.

During the 1999 election cycle, members of Virginia’s General Assembly collected $17.7 million from about 10,500 groups and individuals.

But more than half the money came from a relative handful of donors: The top 150 contributors gave $9.5 million, according to an analysis of campaign finance data by Virginia Commonwealth University’s legislative reporting class.

In other words, the current crop of legislators got 54 percent of their money from just 1.4 percent of the donors. The top contributors include political party organizations; groups representing doctors, trial lawyers, bankers and labor unions; such businesses as Philip Morris and Newport News Shipbuilding; and some individuals with deep pockets.

Is it a bad thing when lawmakers get the lion’s share of their campaign funds from a fairly short list of donors?

"Not necessarily," Calos said. "It just means that a very small number of people have an inordinate amount of say in politics."

Bob Holsworth, director of the Center for Public Policy at VCU, agreed that having a small pool of mega-donors isn't automatically bad.

"This is such a sticky area," he said.

Some people view hefty donations as a way to buy legislators’ votes, Holsworth acknowledged.

He pointed out, however, that it's perfectly logical for large corporations and groups to try to affect legislation. After all, they have the most to gain or lose from decisions made by the General Assembly, Holsworth said.

Access, not influence, is what big contributors expect, he said.

"I don't think most donors believe that giving will simply get them their way," Holsworth said. Instead, he said, they hope their contributions will make it more likely their voices will be heard.

Because of their generosity, mega-donors hope that in the heat of debate over bills affecting them, they’ll get a chance to state their case to legislators.

But Delegate Albert Pollard, D-Irvington, fears that high-dollar contributions undermine democracy.

In an opinion piece published this month, Pollard wrote, "Special-interest money shackles much of the debate, preventing well-intentioned legislators from voting their consciences and fighting for their constituents."

Virginia has no limits on campaign contributions, a distinction it shares with only seven other states, according to the Benton Foundation, which provides campaign finance information for all fifty states.

Limitless donations can be a powerful force in politics, Pollard said. "Anyone who tells you that these contributions don't affect the legislative process is lying," he wrote.

In Virginia, the cost of a successful political campaign has skyrocketed in recent years.

In the 1991 General Assembly races, spending totaled $5.7 million for House candidates and $5.8 million for Senate candidates, according to Virginia FREE, a non-partisan group that provides political research to the business community.

By 1999, spending in Senate races doubled to $11.9 million, and spending in House elections tripled to $17.1 million.

The average House candidate spent $36,000 in 1991 but almost $104,000 in 1999, Virginia FREE said. Spending by the average Senate candidate jumped from $79,000 in 1991 to $186,000 last year.

Neither political party seems eager to limit campaign contributions, but it’s the donors who would like to see some restrictions, Holsworth said. Without limits, he said, contributors feel they have to spend a lot just to be noticed.

Calos, who calls money the "mother's milk" of politics, said better disclosure of campaign financing is more important than placing limits on donations.

Holsworth echoed that idea. Often, efforts to limit campaign contributions don't produce a better system of government, he said.

While Virginia has no limits on campaign donations, he said, it is consistently ranked as one of the top state governments in the country.

Holsworth and Calos both say electronic reporting of campaign finance information would be helpful. Currently, most legislators and candidates report their donations on paper to the State Board of Elections.

The Virginia Public Access Project, a nonprofit organization funded by the state’s newspapers, compiles the data electronically and makes it available to the public on its Web site.

But in many states, the government does that job, eliminating the need for an independent group to step in, Calos said.

In addition to electronic record keeping, Calos advocates auditing the reports to insure that information is accurate.

"Schoolchildren have their work audited by the state government," he said. "Teachers do and doctors and lawyers and even beauticians have their work audited."

During the legislative session that ended March 10, bills to require auditing of campaign finance records were introduced in both chambers. But all were killed or carried over to the next session.

Pollard said that instead of reforming the campaign finance system, lawmakers "maintain a Code of Silence about the influence of money in the legislative process and turn a blind eye to the bad apples of the group."