A political invention, new to Illinois, is revolutionizing the way legislative election candidacies are financed and as a result may profoundly affect the legislative process itself.

This is the partisan legislative campaign committee. In both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly each party operates a committee to raise and expend funds in support of that party's legislative candidates: the Republican State Senate Dinner Committee-Republican State Senate Campaign Committee (tandem committees, actually), the committee to Re-Elect a Democratic Senate, the House Republican Campaign Committee, and the Illinois House Democratic Majority. Committees of this kind afford the most direct way a legislative party can work toward a primary goal: electing a majority of its own party in a specific chamber.

Although financial disclosure laws have been in effect in Illinois since 1974, relatively little public attention has been given to how legislative campaigns are financed except for a 1986 article in the Chicago Tribune. (The article reported such committees accounted for 23 percent of all funds raised by Illinois state legislators, legislative parties and candidates in 1984-1985.) Now a pilot survey of reports filed with the State Board of Elections covering the period 1974-1987 reveals that the comitees named above spent close to $3 million in 1986-1987. Further analysis is needed to pinpoint how this new method of campaign financing affects the legislative process, but these factors may be suggested:

• Control by a party leader over raising and spending such funds may translate into his power to deliver votes on key issues.

• The committees can be used to buttress party solidarity by making candidates beholden to the party -- rather than interest groups ("lobbies") -- for support.

• The committees help shape the character of their own parties by determining which candidates receive support -- and which don't. Mavericks can be punished.

• Political contributors may find this form of giving maximizes their influence. Giving to the committee rather than to many individual candidates may be cheaper, and it may be easier to shape the outcome of legislation by going to partisan leaders rather than individual legislators.

• Operation of campaigns becomes more sophisticated as the partisan committees provide in-kind services, e.g., professional campaign coordinators, rather than only cash to candidates. Table 1 starkly illustrates the growth in the funds raised for the different campaign committees. From modest beginnings in the 1970s, all committees have become proficient at raising significant amounts. Since 1982-1983 there have been quantum leaps in the amounts raised by these committees. Especially significant are totals for 1985-1986 and 1986-1987. They clearly show an unprecedented emphasis by all committees on raising funds.

Republicans have traditionally held an edge in raising funds, and that is true of the committees surveyed in table 1. Totals for the House Democratic Majority more nearly match those for the House Republican Campaign Committee, mainly because of a large influx of funds from "Friends of Michael J. Madigan" in election years. Also Friends of Michael J. Madigan supports Democratic House candidates at a higher rate than any of the other legislative leaders' campaign committees. The result is that Democratic candidates in the House are near parity with House Republican candidates in funds available from party and legislative leaders.

There is a much greater imbalance in the Senate. The tandem committees of the Senate GOP outraise the Committee to Re-Elect a Democratic Senate by a large margin, while the campaign committees of the Senate leaders, James "Pate" Philip (R-23, Wood Dale) and Senate President Philip J. Rock (D-8, Oak Park), are approximately alike in the funds they provide Senate candidates. The result is that Republican candidates have a substantial edge over Senate Democratic candidates in the funds available from party and legislative leaders combined. The profiles of interest group donations to these committees are revealing. Republicans received more support from business and individual givers; Democrats received more support from labor and professional groups. Despite these differences, the partisan legislative campaign committees draw most support from the same universe of donors. Many groups contribute to both sides.

The starkest trend to emerge from interest group profiles is that the partisan legislative campaign committees rely heavily on large donors ($1,000 or more). In the 1970s, large contributions accounted for from one-quarter to one-third of the total funds raised by these committees. Since 1982-1983, all committees surveyed have obtained 50 percent or more of their funds from large contributions. In 1986-1987 this figure increased to 70 percent or more. (For more information on Illinois campaign financing, see "The PAC man cometh in Illinois" by Ronald D. Michaelson, May 1987, pp. 10-12, and "Financing gubernatorial campaigns: via special interests or public financing?" by Chris Gaudet, May 1987, pp. 13-14.)

Another important factor in this trend is the rise of the "super" donor ($10,000 or more) in 1986-1987. The tandem committees of the Senate Republicans benefitted from donations of $25,000 from the Illinois Medical Society Political Action Committee (PAC), $107,900 from Manufacturers' PAC and $15,500 from the Illinois Harness Horsemen's Asssociation PAC. The Committee to Re-Elect a Democratic Senate similarly benefitted from $32,100 from the Illinois Trial Lawyers' PAC, $10,000 from Project 500 Illinois and $10,000 from the Illinois Harness Horsemen's Association PAC. The House Republican Campaign Committee received $31,750 from the Manufacturers' PAC and $20,000 from the Illinois Medical Society PAC. The Illinois House Democratic Majority obtained $10,000 from Project 500 Illinois, $40,000 from Richard J. Dennis and $20,000 from Teamsters' Volunteers in Politics. Party sources in 1986-1987 also gave large amounts to the committees. The House Republican Campaign Committee received $28,500 from national GOP committees, and the Senate Republicans' tandem committees received $60,000 from the

Republican National Committee. Citizens for Jim Thompson gave $10,000 to the House Republican Campaign Committee. Legislative leaders were also heavy donors. Friends of Michael J. Madigan gave $400,000 to the Illinois House Democratic Majority; Philip J. Rock Campaign Fund contributed $10,000 to the Committee to Re-Elect a Democratic Senate; James "Pate" Philip Campaign Committee contributed $70,000 to the Republican State Senate Campaign Committee.

These fundraising patterns of the partisan legislative campaign committees indicate that they are becoming more proficient and aggressive. They are receiving increased attention from their national parties and interest groups. Large contributions are now common and the ranks of large contributors are growing. To those who perceive a natural relationship between giving funds and the output of the General Assembly, this is a disturbing trend.

Expenditures by the partisan legislative campaign committees are shown in table 2. Amounts mirror the funds raised, except that the bulk of funds is usually spent in election years. Off-election year spending often pays for fundraising activities. In election years most funds go for the support of legislative candidates.

The GOP advantage in funds remains. Amounts spent in election years have escalated steadily. The 1986-1987 figures show high-water marks for expenditures for the 1986 election by all of the campaign committees. The million dollars spent by the tandem committees of the Senate Republicans seems to be the most spent by any legislative campaign committee in Illinois history on a single election. Partisan legislative campaign committees are also changing the ways they provide support to candidates. This is especially true of Democratic campaign committees. In the 1970s, the Democratic committees handed out a little money to a lot of candidates. In the 1980s they have shifted to providng more in-kind services. These include providing campaign coordinators, telephone services, mailings and voter lists. They still provided much support in straight cash contributions. Republican campaign committees have always leaned heavily on in-kind contributions. The Republican committees place the bulk of their support in mailings, preparation of brochures and media support of their candidates. They also spend considerable money on outside consultants. In the last two elections they have put more emphasis on providing campaign coordinators for some candidates. Republican committees provide some cash support, but most support is in the form of inkind services.

The present emphasis on in-kind support by all of the partisan legislative campaign committees does have implications. These services may allow the committees to have considerable say in the day-to-day operation of a candidate's campaign. It gives the committee more control and tends to make the campaign more professional. Control is most evident when campaign coordinators are supplied to individual candidates. Another feature of the partisan legislative campaign committees is their increasing reliance on targeting candidates and districts. Targeting involves the committee's selection of a district or candidate that looks promising and pouring money or services into that campaign. Factors leading to targeting include an open seat (no sitting incumbent seeking reelection), an incumbent perceived as weak, an attractive challenger or a competitive district (a district where margins in legislative contests are consistently 10 percent or less). The practice of targeting in the most basic form means putting money where the best chance of success seems to lie.

In the 1980s targeting has become commonplace. Senate campaign committees generally target six to 10 races. House committees tend to target 10 to 20 races. In 1986, the committees examined here displayed a willingness to target races "heavily," or to spend huge amounts of money on a few candidates before the 1986 election. House candidates had seldom received $20,000 in support from either House campaign committee. From partial figures on the 1986 election, unprecedented amounts were spent in some races. In the 94th House District, the GOP incumbent, David Hultgren, received $49,000 in cash. In the 100th House District, the GOP incumbent, Karen Hasara, received $33,000 in cash. When figures for the 1986 election are complete, several races will be seen to have received support in record amounts from House partisan campaign committees.

Before the 1986 election, Senate candidates had seldom received $50,000 in support from any Senate partisan committee. But in that year, the Republican Senate Campaign Committee spent over $100,000 in support of its candidates in each of five districts. Never before had this mark been surpassed by any of the partisan legislative campaign committees. These candidates were John Bourg (42nd District), Robert M. Raica (24th), Thomas C. Setchell (38th), James H. Rupp (51st) and Charles J. Carpentier (54th). Only one, Raica, won. Partial records from the Committee to Re-Elect a Democratic Senate indicate record levels of support as well, though their figures are dwarfed by GOP figures.

The targeted races for the Senate in 1986 provided a newsworthy item. Two incumbent Democratic state senators, Patrick D. Welch (38th) and William O'Daniel (54th), ran against Republicans Setchell and Carpentier, respectively, who received high levels of support. The incumbents won reelection and have made an issue of the alleged "smear" tactics used by the Republican Senate Campaign Committee. The latter had financed brochures that made allegations about the pasts of both Welch and O'Daniel. O'Daniel vowed to bring litigation. Welch made good his promise to lead the fight against the Senate confirmation of Roger Sweet as the director of the Department of Revenue. Sweet, who was chief of the Senate Republican staff during the election campaign, is blamed by Welch and O'Daniel for the production of the brochures. In mid-May, confirmation of Sweet's appointment by the governor was still uncertain.

Obviously money is playing a much larger role in the election of state legislators than in the past. The day when a candidate could campaign by going from door to door introducing himself and by taking a bow at area chicken dinners has ended. It also seems obvious that as long as partisan campaign committees are controlled by legislative leaders, legislative power is centralized in a few hands. Yet longtime observers of the legislative process will recall names from the past — the late Paul Powell. House minority leader, then speaker, then secretary of state, comes to mind — who wielded tremendous legislative power. But the difference this time is that where the money comes from and where it goes is a matter of public record. Nobody kept books on Powell's shoeboxes — or, if they did, they never admitted it.

Richard R. Johnson is a graduate assistant in the Illinois Legislative Study Center at Sangamon State University. This article is based on his master's thesis. ''Partisan Legislative Campaign Committees in Illinois General Assembly."