Negative campaigns circumvent legislative issues

The election is over. And it's time for the survivors — mostly incumbents — to take their places in the General Assembly. During the next two years, thoughtful legislators will ponder many votes they cast and wonder if this one will be an issue in the next election. But if the next campaign is anything like the last — not to worry. Accountability. Issues. What are those? Such sweet, old-fashioned notions. They've been replaced by negative campaigns.

It's not easy to define where a positive approach ends and a negative one begins. The ideal model of a campaign is a thoughtful and dynamic discussion of issues by respectful opponents who are highly qualified and unreservedly devoted to serving the public. The other extreme is characterized by scurrilous and malicious distortions, personal attacks and innuendo launched by fierce combatants motivated only by a desire to win. In the middle is a large gray area where most campaigns function. But in 1986 many campaigns moved into the deeper shades of gray. Elections are only the beginning of a cycle of policy considerations. Little attention has focused on the consequences of negative campaigns for the people and policy process within the legislature.

Negative campaigning is in large part an attempt to counteract the power that comes from already being in the legislature. A negative approach is a purposive diversion from issues because an incumbent is likely to dominate an issue-driven campaign. Incumbency provides a tremendous advantage in mastering the substance of policy because the legislative process is an unparalleled training ground for understanding and articulating the opposing sides of an issue. But a negative campaign sacrifices the best weapon a challenger has against an incumbent — demanding accountability for votes cast in the legislature.

With a 31 to 28 split in the last Senate it was understandably a high priority for Senate Republican leadership to invest heavily in a few key races. As one Republican leader stated, "We'd be lying if we said we are happy with 28 members." The three most notorious Senate campaigns targeted Democratic incumbents: Sens. Patrick D. Welch (D-38, Peru),William L. O'Daniel (D-54, Mount Verno) and Leroy Lemke (D-24, Chicago). Only Lemke was unseated. It's not surprising that the Republican senators are one the basis of principle and second because it failed to produce a Republican majority in the Senate. "There's a substantial difference between seeking to be elected and attempting to 'kick the bum out,' " said Sen. Roger Keats (R-29, Glencoe), who has been outspoken in his opposition to the Republican Senate Campaign Committee tactics. "A positive campaign would have run better against Welch,'' Keats concluded. "It would have taken four years, but we could have had that seat."

Some senators believe a negative approach backfired in the Welch and O'Daniel races. But was Lemke's upset a situation where negative campaigning worked? It is fair to say that around the Capitol Lemke was perceived as vulnerable back home. He likely was defeated in spite of a negative campaign, not because of it. Senate Assistant Minority Leasder Aldo DeAngelis (R-40, Olympia Fields) stated, "If they're vulnerable, you don't need a negative campaign." In essence, a lack of performance overpowers even the resources of incumbency.

The 31 to 28 split remains in the new Senate, and on balance the negative campaigns didn't work. Nothing was gained. But after a very divisive campaign, the feeling of accord in the Senate was lost. In talking to legislators and staff during the final days of the fall session, it was apparent that there are wounds that may not heal quickly. An embittered Welch spoke of "getting even through legislation, appropriations, in the courts, or whatever it takes until the other side knows how it

34/January 1987/Illinois Issues

feels," Bill Holland, chief of staff for Senate Majority Leader Philip J. Rock (D-8, Oak Park), observed that the campaign "left some bad feelings that will linger on. How long they will linger and the repercussions — only time will tell." Linda Hawker, also of Rock's staff, agreed that there are consequences. "Generally the battles here are across the rotunda, and it's one chamber versus the other. But in the Senate, the fight now is across the aisle. After elections we can generally forgive and forget. But you can't get that ugly and expect it to go away overnight." On the other side of the aisle, DeAngelis concurred, "The retribution element is there, and that has an impact on the system. It forces people who might support issues on a broader public-minded basis to be more provincial. It heightens regionalism and partisanship. It creates cowardice. And it has a negative impact on public policy."

Negative campaigns are jeopardizing the viability of the legislative process? A bit melodramatic perhaps. After all, negative campaigns are nothing new. But what is new is the role of leadership-directed campaign committees deeply involved in the management of campaigns both positive and negative. Sen. Bob Kustra (R-28, Glenview) observed, "Leadership's role in campaigns is definitely increasing and that has brought about a greater centralization." Kustra joined many others in lamenting the direct-mail pieces that were generated in Springfield without the approval of the candidates.

But the depth of the repercussions with-in the legislature is rooted in the fact that these negative campaigns were designed well in advance by Springfield insiders who have the capability of waging an issue-oriented campaign but instead made a calculated decision to invest their resources to the contrary. Negative campaigns take a lot of hard work. They don't just happen out of expediency in the closing days of a nip-and-tuck campaign. As Welch noted, "One can only speculate about what it took to dig up my picture from college." Bill Holland added, "There are indications that the Welch and O'Daniel pieces were planned well-ahead, and the strategy in these races was planned at least as early as March of this year." Leadership involvement in campaigns is here to stay, but how leadership resources are directed is an open question.

In the next election, one can hope that leadership on both sides of the aisle will focus on positive campaigns. After all, the Decatur victory of Democratic senator-elect Penny L. Severns indicates that incumbents are not invulnerable. Holland outlined a streamlined strategy in that race. "It was a positive, upbeat campaign against a popular incumbent. Severns made a case and ran hard. People respond to positive campaigns," Holland concluded. Keats thinks a similar combination of factors can elect Republican challengers over present Democratic incumbents. Keats stated, "To beat an incumbent, you need something to hit him with — "I make a better mousetrap than he does.' But it has to be positive."

The campaign has begun again in the legislature. And there's a possibility the next election will focus on issues. If only legislators could stop focusing on negative campaigns, they could spend more time thinking about accountability for the votes they cast in the legislature.

Gayle L. Keiser is the legislative director for Common Cause/ Illinois.

35/January 1987/Illinois Issues