ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Monday, January 29, 1996 TAG: 9601290018
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: RICHMOND
SOURCE: ROBERT LITTLE STAFF WRITER
STUNG BY WHAT THEY consider the nasty tone of last year's elections, some lawmakers want to restore civility to the process. But they probably won't get far.
When Del. Marian Van Landingham welcomed new members to her Committee on Privileges and Elections this year, the Alexandria Democrat dubbed the panel "The Committee of the Perennials."
Term limits. Contribution limits. Party affiliation printed on ballots. Every year, members of the General Assembly consider the same campaign reform issues. And every year, those issues go to the same place: Nowhere.
The 1996 session won't likely be much friendlier to such touchy, politically charged topics. But the legislature that survived last year's electoral drubbings seems to be warming to some less-weighty attempts at making Virginia's elections more fair.
One proposal would specifically ban one of last year's more celebrated dirty campaign tricks. Other partisan tactics would be discouraged by things like tightened disclosure requirements. In-your-face campaigning would be prohibited too close to the polls on Election Day.
The crescendo of reform-minded lawmakers: Creation of Fair Campaign Practices Commissions that would monitor mailings and rhetoric and pass public judgment on their fairness and truthfulness.
Do that and you create a fire-with-fire deterrent to dirty politics, supporters say - turn one candidate's nasty tactic into his or her opponent's brochure headline.
All of the proposals face some controversy, and most have failed in the past. But many lawmakers, still stinging from the less-than-mannerly tone of last year's General Assembly election, say they feel a heightened calling to somehow restore civility to the election process.
"The past campaign had some glaring examples of where reform is needed," said state Sen. Edd Houck, D-Spotsylvania County. "If we want to change anything, I think the mood is right to do it."
The 1995 election was hardly a golden thread in the fabric of Virginia politics. Republicans mailed out bogus literature purporting to come from Democrats. Democrats ripped Republican legislators by criticizing Congress. Campaign researchers became historical contortionists, pinching and twisting the facts to match whatever vitriol suited their needs.
And several legislators are seeking new laws, hoping it won't happen again.
Among the campaign's more publicized trickeries was a mailing critical of Charlottesville Democratic Senate candidate Emily Couric. It was mailed by Republicans, but disguised as a brochure from discontented Democrats. To lend the piece authenticity, Republican Caucus director Scott Leake created a political action committee called "Dems for Day" - a reference to a liberal independent candidate in the race.
The mailing was, the Republicans concede, a dirty trick intended to siphon Democratic votes away from the party's nominee. A month later, with the election comfortably behind them, they apologized.
"We made a mistake," said Leake. Couric won by a voting margin of 5 percent.
Houck has offered a bill prohibiting the use of a candidate's name without his or her permission. "We won't let that happen again," he said.
There were other examples. Democrats repeatedly criticized their Republican opponents by linking them to measures enacted by members of Congress, for instance. In Hampton Roads, candidates called opponents liars. One implied his opponent was a felon. Incumbents who voted for last year's welfare reform were painted as critics of the plan for opposing early versions that never became law.
In response to those less tangible indiscretions, several legislators want local governments to name three-member panels to monitor local elections and make sure candidates keep it clean.
The commissions would have no power to sanction or punish offenders, except to release public, campaign-brochure-friendly condemnations when candidates cross the line.
Republicans generally oppose the idea - not, as Democrats contend, because they are the most egregious offenders, but because of some fundamental differences in philosophy. And because Democrats have turned the concept on them in the past.
Fairfax County had an election review board in the late 1970s. Each party appointed a member, and a county judge named a third - the same arrangement called for in this year's bill.
But the "non-partisan" offering from the Democrat-appointed judge was Leslie Byrne, head of the local League of Women Voters who would eventually become a Democratic delegate, member of Congress and is now seeking the party's nomination for the U.S. Senate.
"They'd drag us into those hearings, rule against us and already have their press releases ready," said Pat Mullins, chairman of the Fairfax County Republican Party. "It was a political tool for them, to castigate Republicans and then campaign saying we were against fair elections."
Today, Mullins refuses to participate in the board and won't appoint a member. If parties do that across the state, the fair practices bill would be meaningless.
"No one opposes the goal," said Leake. "But I guess it's fair to say that Republicans view government as the solution of last resort."
Supporters are undeterred.
"Every election has some campaigns that curl your hair - where something might not be illegal but is certainly unethical, unwise and unfair," said Del. James Dillard, R-Fairfax County. "Those boards might not even work. But we're trying, at least. We've got to try something."
It won't likely be easy. Lawmakers haven't been quick to restrict and regulate themselves, for various personal, ideological and political reasons.
And while all politicians decry it, they also acknowledge it: Candidates push the limits because it works.
Del. William Barlow, D-Isle of Wight County, wants to head off the traditional last-minute spin at the polls. Last November, he campaigned at polling places where voters had to "run a gauntlet" of the placard-waving faithful. Many of them were rude, he said. And much of their literature was misleading.
Barlow has submitted a bill to prohibit confronting voters within 200 feet of the polls, up from the current 40 feet.
"I just don't think citizens should be accosted and put under that kind of pressure just because they decide to go vote," said Barlow.
"We're not trying to put people in jail, we're trying to keep the voters as well-informed as possible. That's not always easy the way campaigns are these days."
LENGTH: Long : 119 lines KEYWORDS: POLITICS GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1996by CNB