Peter Fitzgerald, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, said from the opening day of his campaign that his would be a statewide grass-roots effort. But records show Fitzgerald’s finances are rooted closer to home.
Nearly $1 of every $3 Fitzgerald raised from individual contributors from July 1997 to July 1998 came from people who live within 5 miles of his Inverness home, finance reports show. And $1 of every $4 he raised can be traced to three suburban towns where his family has roots.
Fitzgerald has been traveling the state for the past year repeatedly saying, “We are building our support from the grass roots.” In the process, he raised nearly $730,000 from individual contributors who were listed on disclosure forms for giving $200 or more. The total does not include contributions from other candidates’ political funds or from political action committees.
But more than $242,000 of that $730,000, or 33 percent, came from just 14 towns within 5 miles of Fitzgerald’s house, an analysis of his reports show. And nearly $181,000, or 25 percent, came from a trio of towns where his family and business interests are rooted: Inverness, Barrington and Palatine.
Fitzgerald’s campaign on Monday maintained that it is broadly supported and that Fitzgerald is living up to the standard he set for his own candidacy.
“When he first announced for the Senate, no one outside of his (state Senate) district knew him,” said Fitzgerald’s spokesman, John McGovern. “So it’s not surprising that his first contributors were friends and neighbors who knew him.
“He is building grass-roots support. He’s traveled to all corners of Illinois, and he’s met voters from across the state.”
McGovern said Fitzgerald’s support is not fully reflected in the campaign-disclosure forms because many of his backers give in small amounts that do not have to be reported. Federal law requires contributions of more than $200 be disclosed.
McGovern declined to release information on smaller contributors that he said would back the campaign’s claims, including its assertion that Fitzgerald has received support from all of Illinois’ 102 counties. The finance reports identify individual givers from only 41 counties.
It is not unusual for a statewide candidate to raise the majority of his or her money from one region, particularly if that candidate already holds a lower elected office. But statewide candidates typically need financial support from across Illinois to run a campaign.
Fitzgerald has raised the standard for his own fundraising by repeatedly denying that he is another multimillionaire underwriting his own campaign. The wealthy banker-lawyer spent a state-record $7 million of his own on the GOP primary. (The $730,000 that Fitzgerald raised from individuals from July 1997 to July 1998 doesn’t include any of the candidate’s own money.)
Fitzgerald’s opponents have long been skeptical of his claims that the majority of his campaign money will come from anywhere other than his own wallet. Fitzgerald is heir to a family banking fortune, and his own net worth has been estimated at $40 million.
The Republican’s fall opponent, Democratic incumbent U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun, has for months been trying to turn Fitzgerald’s fortune against him, telling voters that he is trying to buy a Senate seat.
Fitzgerald has good reason to emphasize smaller contributions from others in order to downplay the role of his personal wealth in his campaign. Some voters are reluctant to write checks to well-to-do candidates, figuring that the money could go to needier office-seekers.
Some recent data also indicates that voters who have long decried the influence of special-interest groups in elections are becoming wary of self-financed candidates, whom they perceive to be “buying” a seat.
This spring, the Public Policy Institute of California found that 60 percent of the voters surveyed didn’t care if a candidate spent his own money. But a month later, after watching how candidates used their fortunes in campaigns, 52 percent said they preferred a candidate who took outside money. Three wealthy candidates in that state lost their primaries.
The Center for Responsive Politics found similar trends in the 1996 congressional and presidential races. Of the 115 candidates spending more than $100,000 of their own money, only 19 won office.
“The biggest self-spenders have historically tended to lose more often then they win,” the center concluded in a report.
