ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, March 16, 1996 TAG: 9603180098
SECTION: BUSINESS PAGE: A6 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: NEW YORK
SOURCE: FARRELL KRAMER ASSOCIATED PRESS
WHAT DOES $30 MILLION buy? In the erstwhile presidential candidate's case, some see a notable and profitable acquisition of prestige and political power.
Steve Forbes spent about $170,000 a day on his presidential gambit, a sizable amount to sink into a losing cause regardless of his wealth.
But the $30 million burned over six months, worth roughly half the Forbes family's dozen Faberge Imperial Eggs, isn't viewed as ill-spent by the eldest son of the late Malcolm Forbes. On the contrary, the magazine publisher sees it as one of the biggest nest eggs of all time.
``Let me tell you I believe I made the best investment any of us can make,'' he said Thursday in bowing out of the race. ``I tried to make my country a better, stronger and finer place.''
As an investment, there's a case to be made that the money he spent, most of it his own, will work for him. For a man worth more than $400 million, it's not even an onerous amount, coming to less than 8 percent of his estimated stake in Forbes Inc.
In fact, Forbes spent roughly half of the more than $60 million that Texas businessman Ross Perot pitched in during his 1992 independent bid for the presidency.
``He is a big winner in terms of prestige and influence,'' said Larry Sabato, a professor of government at the University of Virginia. ``He's a big winner in terms of political power and, lastly, he's going to be a big winner financially in the long run.
``This will probably help his magazine,'' Sabato continued, ``and my guess is there's a book or two in the works.''
The analyses of what Forbes got for his money have so far been strictly mathematical - 76 Republican delegates, working out to $395,000 each. But the gains also come in the personal, professional and political dividends that aren't so obvious.
Professionally, Forbes, editor in chief of Forbes magazine and chief executive of Forbes Inc., got exposure that any marketing executive would kill for. Frank Perdue, eat your heart out. During his campaign's height, Forbes' face was everywhere.
``This was pretty effective advertising,'' said John Ward, a professor at Loyola University in Chicago who specializes in family businesses. ``It's one thing to have a piece of mail in a bundle of junk mail, it's another thing to be on the front page of a newspaper or the 10 o'clock news.''
Cost-wise, the spending wasn't too far out of whack for marketing. The $30 million, the campaign's most recent overall cost estimate, comes to about 11 percent of Forbes Inc.'s 1994 revenue from media activities, as estimated by Advertising Age magazine.
On the political side, the advantages are fuzzier. Forbes has certainly bought himself influence among Republican thinkers, particularly concerning economics and taxes. He grabbed the idea of a flat tax and made it the centerpiece of his campaign.
Dollar for dollar, though, not all agree Forbes' multimillion-dollar presidential bid was the best use of his money.
William Kristol, the conservative strategist and editor of The Weekly Standard, says Forbes' political career would have been better served by spending $8 million to $10 million to seek a Senate seat.
``There were other ways to impact the Republican agenda and get the message of economic growth and tax cutting out there,'' said Kristol, who argues Forbes even hurt the idea of a flat tax by losing so badly.
Even those who say Forbes gained nothing politically concede he's won a personal triumph. Working for years under the shadow of his flamboyant father, who died in 1990, Forbes finally made his own mark.
``His father didn't do it for him. He got up there himself and ran around campaigning,'' said Muriel Siebert, an investment banker and contributor to Forbes' campaign. ``I think that's terrific.''
LENGTH: Medium: 77 lines ILLUSTRATION: PHOTO: headshot of Forbes KEYWORDS: POLITICS PRESIDENTby CNB