ThLJ VOL. 66, NO.6 JANUARY 1990 University ofVirginzeu NEWS LETTER

Virginia 's Race, 1989

PART 2: THE GENERAL ELECTION by Larry]. Sabato

The author is professor of government and foreign affairs at both for the history books and in headlines across the University of . This News Letter is drawn from the world. Virginia did what no American state the author's forthcoming Virginia Votes 1987-1990. Part 1 had ever done: it chose a black citizen to serve as of this series, on the nomination stage, was the July 1989 is­ its chief executive. That it did so in the closest guber­ sue; part 3, covering election issues, will appear as the Febru­ natorial contest in modern Virginia's history added ary issue. to the drama and the in- Not soon to be forgotten, trigue of the event. Not soon Virginia and Virginians to be forgotten, the 1989 mac;ie a great portion of this the 1989 election for governor election for governor not nation's history in the early not only transformed only transformed the state's years of the Republic. The the state's image beyond its borders image beyond its borders Old Dominion was arguably but was brimming with but was brimming with the most influential state, implications for the nation's and four of the first five U.S. implications for the nation's and and other states' politics. presidents were drawn from other states' politics. its citizenry. But for the nearly century and a quarter following the Civil War, General Election Results few would have characterized Virginia as a trend­ setter or history-maker. In a cliffhanger election night that saw the lead It was the 1985 election that first gave some seesaw back and forth, Democrat L. Douglas Wilder observers pause; the political triumphs of a black finally emerged the victor by the slim recounted candidate for lieutenant governor and a woman margin of 6,741 votes out of 1,789,078 cast. Both contender for attorney general could hardly be Wilder and his Republican challenger, J. Marshall ignored. But was it a fluke occurrence? The election Coleman, received far more votes than any winning of 1989 gave the answer-a response written gubernatorial candidate in past years-testament somewhat tentatively but in bold print nonetheless, to a large turnout as well as the closeness of the

.*.~ *.. !!!!.* The University of Virginia News Letter is published by the Center for Public Service, 2015 Ivy Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-1195. (804) 924-3396; TOO (804) 982-HEAR *.* THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA NEWS LETTER

contest. The less than four-tenths Wilder won five of the ten Demographic Analysis of one percent difference between congressional districts: the New­ Remarkably, Wilder's the candidates' vote totals made port News-Hampton First, the Perhaps in response to the abor­ plurality was built this the closest gubernatorial elec­ Norfolk-Virginia Beach Second, tion issue, women disproportion­ from just twenty-two tion of the century, eclipsing the the Tidewater Fourth, and the ately favored the Democratic tight 1973 contest that had been Eighth and ticket, and especially Doug Wilder. cities and twenty­ won by Republican Mills E. God­ Tenth. Wilder's 59.3 percent in the There was a six-point "gender two counties. win by the relatively comfortable Tenth was exceptionally large for gap" in the results, with women No statistic does margin of 1.4 percent.1 any Democrat; this was the only giving Wilder a 53 percent major­ more to illustrate the Making the victory sweeter district where Wilder exceeded ity while men backed Coleman by changing center for state Democrats was their third 's proportion from the same margin. As is usually the of population gravity straight sweep of the top offices. four years earlier. His margins in case, women comprised a narrow in Virginia. Novice Donald Beyer and incum­ the Second and the Eighth (over majority of Virginia's election day bent easily won 55 percent in each case) were also turnout, and this gave Wilder the the offices of lieutenant governor handsome, but his edgein the First edge even as the sexes split sym­ -. and attorney general; respectively (51.1 percent) was below normal metnca y. 1 e e gender gap Beyer breezed past the presumed for a Democrat. In the Fourth, is nothing new in either Virginia frontrunner, Republican Edwina regularly the most Democratic or American politics, it was double Dalton, with 54.1 percent of the district in the state, Wilder's pro­ the three-point gap that existed in vote, and Terry crushed the GOP's portion was remarkably low (52.2 the 1985 gubernatorial contest. Joseph Benedetti to secure her percent). Wilder's own 1985 race had exhib­ second consecutive landslide (this The usually Democratic ited no gender gap at all. time with 63.2 percent of the vote). Southwest Ninth fell entirely to the Terry's race also featured a Wilder's winning edge came GOP, with Coleman winning 51.8 significant 5 percent gender gap, in good measure from large mar­ percent. The Republican also up from just two points in 1985. gins accumulated in Northern captured the Richmond Third Interestingly, there was virtually Virginia and Hampton Roads. He narrowly (51.6 percent), and the no gender gap in the lieutenant lost most of the rest of the state, Roanoke Sixth and Piedmont governor's race, with men back­ except for the coal counties in Seventh with very comfortable ing Beyer at nearly the same rate Southwest Virginia, his hometown totals (54.0 percent and 57.2 per­ as women. This is remarkable in of Richmond, and a scattering of cent, respectively). A Coleman light of Beyer's targeted appeal to other places, including the col­ landslide (57.9 percent) was reg­ women on the abortion issue, an lege locales of Charlottesville­ istered in the Southside Fifth, the approach not unlike Wilder's. One Albemarle, Williamsburg, and old heart ofthe racially conserva­ possible explanation is that some MontgomeryCounty. By contrast, tive Byrd Organization. men, despite Republican leanings, Coleman captured the lion's share Both of the other statewide were simply unable to support two of territory, though not the vote­ races yielded lopsided results in women simultaneously for state­ rich population centers. He gained the congressional districts. Beyer wide office.2 majorities in seventy-three of the carried eight of the ten, losing only In an encore of the 1985 ninety-five counties and nineteen the Fifth and the Seventh (both pattern-but in contravention of of the forty-one cities-the most much more narrowly than Wil­ the national norm-younger vot­ localities won by a losing general der). His home region of North­ ers heavily favored the Democrats election candidate in this century. ern Virginia gave him enthusias­ while older voters were more Remarkably, Wilder's plurality tic backing that topped 60 percent. Republican. Wilder's support was was built from just twenty-two Terry of course swept all ten dis­ cities and twenty-two counties. tricts. The Fourth was her electoral No statistic does more to illustrate zenith (72.0 percent), the Seventh 2 Many reliable political observers re­ the changing center of population her nadir (55.4 percent). Only one ported such resistance during the campaign. The mood seemed espe­ gravity in Virginia. city (Harrisonburg) failed to fall cially prevalent among white men, who to Terry, and Benedetti won just faced the prospect of a governing sla te 1 Godwin defeated Independent seven counties, all usually heav­ composed of a black man and two Lieutenant Governor Henry E. Howell, ily Republican. Beyer's geographic women. Incidentally, if Virginia had JI. See Larry J. Sabato, Aftermath of reach, while broad, was more actually elected Wilder, Dalton, and Armageddon: An Analysis of the 1973 Terry, it would have been thefirst state Gubernatorial Election (Charlottesville: limited than Terry's; he secured in American history to have excluded Institute ofGovernment, University of twenty-seven cities (to Dalton's whitemales from statewide office. Vir­ Virginia, 1975). fourteen) and forty-seven counties ginia may have not been ready for two 2 (to Dalton's forty-eight). doses of history in the same year. JANUARY 1990

especially sensitive to age differ­ votes among Catholics. Coleman candidacies and the most inhos­ ences: about 56 percent of those carried 55 percent of the Catholic pitable to a pro-choice position on aged 18 to 44 backed him, but only ballots, but fortunately for Wilder, abortion. 46 percent from ages 45-59 did so, Catholics comprised only 14 per­ Throughout the campaign, while just 38 percent over age 60 cent of the total vote (well behind polls showed that Wilder drew pulled his lever. This breakdown the 51 percent who were white disproportionate support from may reflect two factors. First, Protestants). those who had migrated to Vir­ younger Virginians have been Unsurprisingly, Wilder cap­ ginia, while Coleman was backed raised in an era of racial tolerance tured 82 percent of those who more often by native Virginians. and as a consequence are proba­ characterized themselves as liber­ The CBS News/New York Times bly much more receptive to a black als, but remarkably, he also won exit poll did indeed find a differ­ candidacy than their elders. Sec­ a quarter of the conservatives' ential here, although a modest one. ond, women of child-bearing votes. Most importantly, though, About 44 percent of Wilder's vot­ years, especiallyyounger working the ideological center held for ers spent most of their childhood women, are especially sensitive to Doug Wilder: moderates gave him outside Virginia; only 38 percent the abortion issue and more likely a 58 percent landslide. Inciden­ of Coleman backers had done so. to adopt Wilder's pro-choice po­ tally, most voters saw the candi­ sition. Older voters of both sexes dates as poles apart ideologically. tend to be less libertarian, more Among all voters, Wilder was Ticket-Splitting socially conservative, and less pro­ viewed as a liberal by 41 percent, choice on abortion. a moderate by 42 percent, and a Judging from exit poll results, at Like Wilder, both Beyer and conservative by just 9 percent. least a third ofthe voters split their Terry's support fell as age in­ Wilder's voters were far more tickets on election day, voting for creased, but not nearly as sharply. inclined to see him as a moderate; at least one Democrat and at least Beyer won 58 percent of those 61 percent of his followers called one Republican. This was a under age 45, but still held 48 him that, while an identical per­ substantial increase from the 23 percent ofthose over age 60. Terry centage ofColeman's voters called percent that reported splitting their was the choice of 67 percent of Wilder a liberal. Coleman mean­ ticket in 1985. About 42 percent those under 45, and 57 percent of while was pegged as a conserva­ said they cast a straight­ those over 60. tive by 54 percent, a moderate by Democratic ballot, 25 percent The vote by party affiliation 26 percent, and a liberal by 12 voted straight Republican, and the suggested Coleman's problem in percent of all voters. Coleman's remaining 33 percent mixed and holding his own base. Normally, followers were twice as likely to matched various combinations Republican candidates secure the characterize him as a moderate; (the most common being a votes of90 percent or more ofGOP Wilder's supporters were some­ Coleman-Dalton-Terry ticket, voters, but Coleman got only 81 what more inclined to term Cole­ which 10 percent favored). Only percent. Despite the defection of man a conservative. The voters about 15 percent of Wilder voters some conservative Democrats themselves were overwhelmingly moved over to Dalton's column, probably dueto race, Wilder held moderate (39 percent) and conser­ but nearly a quarter ofColeman's 84 percent of the votes in his of­ vative (35 percent). Just 14 per­ backers cast a Beyer ballot. This ten fractious party. The two cent characterized their political figure suggests the dimensions of nominees split the independents philosophy as liberal. the drain of some normally Demo­ about evenly. Virtually all of Support for Wilder was cratic voters from Wilder. The Coleman's voters said they had greatest among those with the GOP defection rate was of course supported George Bush for presi­ highest level of education, while even greater in the attorney gen­ dent in November 1988. Yet an­ Coleman ran best among voters eral's contest, whereTerry picked other measure of Wilder's appeal without a college degree. In terms up almost 30 percent ofColeman's to Republican-leaning citizens is ofincome levels, Wilder drew dis­ votes. Benedetti gained just 11 the fact that about a third of his proportionate support among the percent of Wilder's supporters. votes came from those who had poorest and the reasonably well From the perspective of backed Bush a year earlier. off. Coleman's most significant recent history, ticket-splitting was Abortion was not an unal­ edge was concentrated intheblue­ at a moderately high level in 1989, loyed plus for Wilder; his pro­ collar income category ($25,000­ with 48.5 percent of all localities choice position may well have cost $34,999); blue-collar workers are voting a mixed ticket. This is more him some regularly Democratic usually the most resistant to black than in 1981 and 1985, but less than 3 THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA NEWS LETTER

in 1973 or 1977. Forty-three local­ increased turnout.) Wilder's ur­ Beyer displayed much ities (twenty-two counties and ban support, especially in the greater strength than Wilder both If rural turnout had twenty-one cities) voted straight Urban Corridor, where he received in rural areas, which he narrowly matched the 1985 Democratic, while just eight 53.1 percent overall, provided lost, and in the suburbs, which he level, Coleman would localities (seven counties and the many times his narrow statewide won handily with 53.4 percent. have been an easy City of Harrisonburg) voted plurality (see Table 1). Beyer's landslide in the central victor. straight Republican. The most Coleman compiled a solid cities (64.9 percent) trailed Wilder common combination was a majority of the suburban votes by a few points, however. Terry Coleman-Dalton-Terry ticket, (53.0 percent), but the suburbs exceeded Wilder's proportion which won sixty localities (forty­ provided only 48.6 percent of the everywhere, as she swept to vic­ eight counties and twelve cities). statewide total, down from 52.6 tory in every demographic cate­ A Coleman-Beyer-Terry combina­ percent a year earlier. Had the gory, closely paralleling her ear­ tion captured twenty-four local­ suburban proportion approached lier 1985 triumph. ities (eighteen counties and six the level in the presidential cities). Wilder, Dalton, and Terry election, Coleman would likely carried just one small city-John have won handily. The pattern in Black and White Voting Patterns Dalton's hometown of Radford. rural Virginia was even more There were no ticket-splitting favorable-and ultimately frus­ It will come as no surprise that the counties or cities involving trating-to Coleman. The Repub­ first black elected governor in Benedetti; all eight localities he lican secured 54.6 percent of the American history received nearly carried were won by the entire rural vote, easily reversing Wil­ monolithic support from black GOP ticket. der's 1985 rural majority of 50.3 voters throughout Virginia.3 percent. Yet rural localities (Wilder garnered 96.2 percent in amounted to just 26.6 percent of the 44 selected precincts in Tab1e Urban Vote the total vote, well below the 31.7 3, about the same as his 96.6 per­ percent in 1985. If rural turnout cent in 1985). The turnout ofblacks Wilder's victory was built on a had matched the 1985 level, startled even the Wilder campaign, massive majority (68.5 percent) in Coleman would have been an easy however: black turnout (72.6 the central cities, which contribu­ victor. percent of the registered) was ted a phenomenal 22.5 percent of Comparisons with previous about 8 percent higher than white the statewide total-far above the statewide elections involving 17.1 percent recorded when Wil­ Coleman and Wilder are reveal­ 3 The nation's first black governor was der won election as lieutenant ing (see Table 2). Again, the cen­ P. B. S. Pinchback of , a governor four years ago. (As we tral cities enabled Wilder to com­ Republican who succeeded to the of­ fice for about four weeks in late 1872 shall see in a later section, black pensate for a slight decline in his while the incumbent governor was voters accounted for much ofthis suburban vote and a significant enduring an impeachment trial in the drop in his rural support. legislature.

Table 1 Urban Vote, 1989 Virginia General Election

Percent of Votes Cast for Urban Percent of Governor Lieutenant Governor Attorney General Measure Total Vote Coleman(R) Wilder(D) Dalton(R) Beyer(D) Benedetti( R) Terry(D)

Urban Corridor 59.9 46.8 53.1 43.8 56.2 36.2 63.8

Metropolitan Statistical Areas 71.1 48.2 51.8 44.1 55.9 35.9 64.1 Central Cities 22.5 31.5 68.5 35.1 64.9 27.3 72.7 Suburbs 48.6 53.0 47.0 46.6 53.4 38.4 61.6

Rural Areas 26.6 54.6 45.4 50.2 49.8 38.9 61.1

SOURCE AND NOTES: See the author's Virginia Votes series. 4 JANUARY 1990

turnout (65 percent of the regis­ undoubtedly had a special impact a Republican, with 12.2 percent of tered). This was a far better black on the black community and the sample total; few statewide participation rate than those in the stimulated participation. GOP candidates cross the 10 last three gubernatorial elections, Beyer and Terry also posted percent threshold. Terry's 94.7 where black turnout only margin­ overwhelming victories in black percent was about average for a ally exceeded that of whites. precincts, though their totals ran Democratic nominee and similar Blacks accounted for about 17 somewhat behind Wilder's. Eddy to her 1985 performance of 95.6 percent of the total votes cast, an Dalton fared reasonably well for percent. exceptionally large proportion.4 In many black precincts, turnout was at presidential levels. Partly, the turnout was due Table 2 to an elaborate, well financed get­ Comparison of Support for Candidates, out-the-vote effort by Wilder's 1989 Virginia General Election and Previous Statewide Elections organization and to Wilder's extensive campaigningin the black Central Rura\ community. (Four years earlier, Cities Suburbs Areas when black voting was relatively sparse, neither condition was Percent Supporting present.) But also into the mix Coleman must be added the "history­ 1981 Governor 35.5 50.5 46.5 making" aspect of the election. 1989 Governor 31.5 53.0 54.6 The intense concentration on the Gain or (Loss) (-4.0) +2.5 +8.1 contest by the national news media, and their unrelenting focus Wilder 1985 Lieutenant Governor 64.4 48.8 50.3 on Wilder's race and his potential 1989 Governor 68.5 47.0 45.4 to become the first black governor, Gain or (Loss) +4.1 (-1.8) (-4.9)

Terry 4 The black proportion of the total in 1985 Attorney General 71.3 58.6 60.4 recent elections has been lower: 15 1989 Attorney General 72.7 61.6 61.1 percent in 1981, 14 percent in 1985, and Gain or (Loss) +1.4 +3.0 +0.7 10 percent in 1988.

SOURCE AND NOTES: See the author's Virginia Votes series.

Table 3 Voting in Selected Predominantly Black Precincts in Virginia Cities, 1989 General Election for Statewide Offices

Percent of Votes Cast for Number Total Percent of Governor Lieutenant Governor Attorney General of Votes Registered Coleman Wilder Dalton Beyer Benedetti Terry City Precincts Cast Voting (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D)

Black Precincts Charlottesville 1 736 67.8 13.5 86.2 20.2 79.8 10.3 89.7

Virginia Beach 1 11131 59.7 24.5 75.5 28.9 71.1 20.2 79.8

Hampton 2 31258 74.4 9.4 90.6 11.1 88.9 6.2 93.8

Newport News 8 61117 68.6 1.7 98.3 8.4 91.6 3.5 96.5

Norfolk 10 11 1816 65.3 2.0 98.0 10.1 89.9 3.4 96.6 Portsmouth 2 3)16 81.0 1.4 98.6 8.7 91.3 3.3 96.7 Richmond 15 12)802 70.9 3.1 96.9 15.0 85.0 6.7 93.3 Emporia 1 288 74.0 7.8 92.2 13.9 86.1 5.6 94.4

Petersburg 4 21919 74.5 4.0 96.0 12.0 88.0 4.1 95.9

Total or Average 44 42)83 72.6 3.8 96.2 12.2 87.8 5.3 94.7

SOURCE AND NOTES: See the author's Virginia Votes series. 5 THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA NEWS LETTER

Among the three Demo- an unprecedented way. Then, too, Campaign Financing • cratic winners, only Terry man- both candidates invested huge • aged to secure a majority of the sums in canvassing and get-out­ If money is the mother's milk of • white vote, repeating the 1985 the-vote operations. Nowhere was politics, then Virginia's 1989 • pattern. Terry's 57 percent of the this more evident than in the campaign was extremely well fed. • white vote was only slightly be- black community, where voter Spending by the gubernatorial • low 's 59 per- participation soared (as previously candidates eclipsed all previous • cent. Beyer won 47 percent and discussed). records, placing Virginia in the • Wilder captured 41 percent (three Turnout was not the same front ranks of the states for cam­ • points off his 44 percent share in everywhere, of course, and this paign expenditures. Only recent 1985). was one of the keys to this ex­ gubernatorial contests in a few Of course, viewed from tremely close election. Voter par­ mega-states such as California, • another perspective, Wilder's ticipation was high and approxi­ Texas, and Florida have exceeded • proportion of the white vote was mately the same (71 to 73 percent) the enormous cost of the 1989 startlingly good. Rarely does a in half of Virginia's congressional Virginia election. Overall, the black candidate win such a large districts (the Hampton First, general election candidates for the percentage; for example, David Richmond Third, Tidewater three statewide offices together Dinkins, elected the first black Fourth, Southside Fifth, and spent nearly $22 million, a little mayor ofNew York City the same Roanoke Sixth). Rates in the mid­ over $12 for every vote cast on • day as Wilder's breakthrough in 60s were recorded in the Norfolk­ election day and about $10 million • Virginia, attracted less than a third Virginia Beach Second, the Pied­ more than the 1985 candidates of white voters. While Wilder mont Seventh, and the Southwest expended. In a single election • could obviously not have been Ninth. The lowest turnouts by far cycle, campaign spending soared • elected without a large, solid black occurred in the Northern Virginia by 83 percent. In the governor's • vote, fully two-thirds of his total Eighth (56.7 percent) and Tenth race alone, spending doubled. In • votes were cast by whites-a (58.8 percent). This is traditional; the lieutenant governor's contest, phenomenal statistic given residents of the region are more it skyrocketed by over 150 percent. • Virginia's racially polarized Washington, D.C.-bound than Mainly because ofthe hard­ history.5 Richmond-oriented. Nonetheless, fought GOP primary, Coleman given Wilder's impressive support greatly outspent Wilder when all in both districts, Northern Vir­ 1989 outlays are grouped together • Voter Turnout ginia's low turnout almost cost the ($9.27 million for Coleman to $6.86 Democrat his election. What million for Wilder). But the Demo­ • Participation in this gubernatorial Northern Virginia gave, it very crat came much closer to match­ • election was exceptionally high. nearly took away. ing his opponent in the general • Turnout easily topped 1981, the As usual, virtually all citi­ election period, when a substan­ • previous modern high watermark, zens who went to the polls voted tial majority ofhis funds was spent • as 66.5 percent of the registered in the race for governor, though compared to $6.34 million of • population voted. This compared 1.8 percent did not. The next Coleman's total. • with 64.9 percent eight years greatest participation was in the Several factors combined to • earlier and 53.0 percent in 1985, the attorney general's contest, where produce the orgy of spending. • latter figure held unnaturally low 95.2 percent took part, followed by With only NewJersey for compe­ • by natural disaster (flooding) that the lieutenant governor's election tition inthe off-year, and with New • plagued the Old Dominion on in which 94.8 percent cast a bal­ Jersey's race a runaway for Demo­ • election day. Wilder's candidacy lot. Just as in 1985, black citizens crat James Florio, national party was undoubtedlya major causeof displayed special interest in contributors channelled their larg­ • the record turnout. The issue of Douglas Wilder's contest by vot­ esse to Virginia. The history­ • race as well as the enormous ing far more frequently in his race making and publicity-attracting • amount ofnational news attention than in the other two statewide nature of Wilder's candidacy showered on the state brought the elections. While 97.9 percent of augmented the national concentra­ election to the voters' attention in those in the sampleblack precincts tion on Virginia, and enabled cast a ballot for governor, only 88.4 Wilder to tap the generosity of percent voted for an attorney celebrities such as (who • 5 Both Beyer's and Terry's vote totals were drawn approximately three- general candidate and just 83.0 sent $100,000) as well as more • quarters from whites and one-quarter percent participated in the voting modest gifts from a growing black 6 • from blacks. for lieutenant governor. middle class. More fundamental, JANUARY 1990

however, was Virginia's new and Beyer together spent almost percent or, ideally, 100 percent) for wealth in Northern Virginia, es­ $4 million for a part-time office that individual contributions of$100 or pecially the burgeoning bank pays about $28,000 a year. As­ less to parties and candidates. A Spending accounts of developers. sisted greatlyby an extraordinary tax credit would make it consid­ by the gubernatorial Several Northern Virginia total of$1.18 million in loans pro­ erably easier to raise campaign candidates eclipsed developers took full advantage of vided byhis father, Beyer outspent money; and it would stimulate all previous records, Virginia's complete lack of limi­ Dalton by over a million dollars precisely the kind of gifts-small placing Virginia tation on contributions in making ($2.55 million to Dalton's $1.43 mil­ amounts from many individuals­ in the front ranks record donations tothe candidates, lion). Fully 61 percent of Beyer's that would generate the fewest especially Coleman. The Repub­ expenditures was derived from concerns about undue influence of the states lican received $395,600 from loans, none of which was repaid. and produce the greatest benefits for campaign Dwight C. Schar, $409,000 from By contrast, Dalton drew just in broad-based participation for expenditures. Gordon V. Smith, $306,000 from $75,000 from her family's re­ the political system. William A. Hazel, and $100,000 sources, and that was also her only These two suggestions cer­ from MiltonV. Peterson. Schar's unpaid loan. tainly do not constitute a compre- • family and business associates Only in the attorney gen­ hensive package of reforms. But gave another $300,000. Coleman's eral's contest did spending drop many agreeable solutions to largest single contributor was the compared to four years ago, and Virginia's campaign finance woes, Republican National Committee, the decline was a modest one due such as requiring broadcasters to which gave $520,000. The cam­ entirely to the uncompetitive na­ give candidates free advertising paign proved costly to Coleman ture of the 1989 matchup and time, are beyond the purview of personally, too; he spent $485,000 Republican Benedetti's inability to state government; while other from his own coffers. raise funds. Incumbent Terry proposals, including a system of Wilder was certainly more spent $1.36 million, only a slight full public financing, are unlikely frugal-he made no personal gifts increase over her first campaign, to be passed in Virginia. At least to his campaign-but he also while Benedetti could muster the enactment of a tax credit benefitted from several large do­ expenditures of just $478,000. The coupled with contribution limita­ nations. Albemarle billionaire GOP nominee spent less than any tions would break the logjam that John Kluge, reputedly the nation's other statewide candidate in 1985 has kept this eastern seaboard state richest person, gave Wilder or 1989. in the Wild West of pre-Watergate $200,000, and Fairfax developerJ. The contribution patterns of campaign financing. Bahman Batmanghelidj contrib­ 1989 bring to mind both the un­ uted $146,000. regulated reality of Virginia cam­ The expenditure total of paigns and a couple of ideas for Races for Lieutenant Governor $16.1 million for both party nomi­ reform of the state's almost "any­ and Attorney General nees produced an astounding thing goes" election finance sys­ increase of98 percent over the 1985 tem. First ofall, absolutely unlim­ Rarely have the contests for lieu­ level. This doubling rate was far ited contributions by individuals tenant governor and attorney above the already impressive 58 and groups should not be permit­ general received less attention than percent growth recorded in 1985 ted. The potential for corruption in 1989. So dramatic and intrigu­ compared to 1981. Partly, of always exists when "fat cats" are ing was the governor's race that course, this was due to the cost of permitted to exercise the dispro­ the four candidates for the two the Republican primary. But even portionate influence that was on lesser offices had to be content if Coleman's primary spending is grand exhibition in 1989. Reason­ with leftover time and space in the subtracted from the total-an ar­ able contribution limits should be free media and the voters' own tificial exercise-1989 campaign enacted, perhaps a cap of some­ schedules. costs shot up by63 percent. Given where between $10,000 and In the battle for the lieuten­ competitive pressures and the $25,000 perelection for a statewide ant governorship, Republican rapidly escalating price of televi­ candidate. (The amount decided Eddy Dalton can be said to have sion advertising time (especially upon should be indexed for infla­ lost the race as much as Democrat in the Washington, D.C. market), tion.) To substitute for the "fat cat" won it. Dalton, the this trend will not likely abate money that would be lost to can­ widow of former Governor John soon. didates facing rapidly escalating N. Dalton, started with an enor­ The lieutenant governor's costs, the state ought to encourage mous lead, based mainly on name race was also a record-setter for "skinny cats" by providing for a recognition. But she frittered it campaign expenditures. Dalton state income tax credit (either 50 7 THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA NEWS LETTER

away with poor debate perform­ lack of effectiveness in the image of intelligence, sincerity, ances, as well as public and edi­ Democratically controlled Senate. and fluency. torial board appearances that left With a significantly larger war­ Thereis less to analyze in the the distinct impression she was out chest (discussed above), he was contest for attorney general be­ of her depth. She may also have able to outspend Dalton on tele­ cause there was far less of a cam­ been damaged by her occasionally vision bya large margin, especially paign. Democrat Mary Sue Terry deceptive television advertise­ in the crucial final days of the adopted the classic incumbent's ments, such as one that claimed campaign when voters were strategy (little campaigning and an she had "thirtyyears' experiencell finally attentive to the contest. above-the-fray stance), and it when most observers could count Beyer also clearly benefitted from worked well for her. Her absence only six (two in the state Senate a strong Democratic vote in black from the hustings was frustrating and four as first lady). Dalton also precincts and in his native to Republican]oseph Benedetti­ dissembled on the key issue of Northern Virginia; in this sense he some joked that Elvis was sighted abortion, taking her basically pro­ may have been helped by "party more frequently during the cam­ life position and attempting to coattails" rather than the phantom paignthanTerry-and his poorly package it as a pro-choice one in coattails of the Democratic guber­ financed effort could not make a television advertisement.6 In the natorial candidate. The final factor much headway under the circum­ process Dalton alienated both in Beyer's victory was the most stances. A little-known, money­ sides, losing the backing of many important one ofall: Beyer himself. bereft challenger was simply no pro-life activists while enabling A made-far-television candidate in match for a well-known, popular, Beyer to capitalize on her fudging. the mold of , Beyer dollar-rich incumbent running in In his media advertise­ projected a smooth, handsome a good year for her party. ments Beyer pressed the abortion issue hard, as well as Dalton's To get on the mailing list to receive the NEWS LETTER each 6 After proclaiming herself in favor of month, just write to News Letter, Center for Public Service, IIa woman's right to choose" (but oniy University of Virginia, 2015 Ivy Road, Charlottesville, VA in cases of rape, incest, and the life of 22903-1795. Please print or type the complete mailing the mother), Dalton assured viewers that changing Virginia's abortion laws address, including the Zip Code. was not on her agenda.

Entered as * ~ * second-class rna il Charlottesville IIII l Virginia * * ISSN 0042-0211 Executive Editor: Carl W Stenberg Managing Editor: Sandra H. Wiley Assistant Editor: George E. Barnes

Published monthly by the Center for Public Service, University of Virginia. The views expressed are those of the authors and not the official position of the Center or the University. Entered as second class matter January 2, 1925, at the post office at Charlottesville, Vir­ ginia, under the act of August 24, 1912. © 1990 by The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia. Printed by the University Printing Office. POSTMASTER: Please send address changes to Center for Public Service, UVa, 2015 Ivy Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903-1195.