Housecleaning Time?

By LAURENCE I. BARRETT WASHINGTON

There was a time when Congressmen and Senators boasted that their experience in Washington was a reason to send them back for another term. That was before public disgust with congressional pay hikes, the savings-and-loan debacle and the government's inability to devise an acceptable deficit-reduction plan erupted into a throw-the-bums-out mood so intense that many lawmakers are afraid to face their constituents. As a result, incumbents from both parties are finding that the very tenure in office that used to be a political asset can now be a liability. They are scrambling to recast themselves as populist crusaders whose main reason for being in the nation's capital is to fight against its wicked ways. Says Larry Harrington, a Democratic Senate campaign strategist: "Everybody is playing the outsider. That's this year's shtick."

The widespread revulsion with Congress has lent spice to an otherwise boring midterm campaign. Public-opinion polls confirm that a cynical electorate has not been paying close attention to the race. But the anti-Washington mood has made some contests closer than expected -- and added some distracting mud.

Take New Hampshire, where Democrat John Durkin, a former U.S. Senator, and Republican Robert Smith, a three-term Congressman, are battling for a Senate seat. A Durkin TV commercial indicts Smith as the only candidate who has "spent the last six years in Washington." Durkin also accuses Smith of taking money from political-action committees and pandering to "Big Oil." Not to be outdone, Smith has reminded voters that Durkin has Washington ties of his own. During his Senate term, Smith charges, Durkin voted against tax cuts. He still, says Smith, accepts donations from the national Democratic Party, which takes PAC contributions. "He's the worst kind of hypocrite," Smith fumes. Though the state is conservative, the contest has become competitive.

For incumbents nothing is so damaging as being linked with the S&L scandal. Republican campaign tacticians in particular reasoned that some House Democrats would be vulnerable because of their ties to the scandal-plagued industry. One plump target: Chicago's Frank Annunzio, who had two relatives on the payroll of an S&L lobbying group, took campaign donations from S&L PACs and promoted legislation sought by the industry. His Republican opponent, state senator Walter Dudycz, seemed capable of making a strong challenge. Then Dudycz ran into an ethics problem: the accusation that he had double dipped by taking pay from both the legislature and the sheriff's department for the same workdays. He denied any impropriety.

Republicans too are endangered by their connections with the scandal. One example is Congressman Charles Pashayan of California. A six-term veteran who appeared safe, Pashayan is now struggling to survive a challenge from Democrat Cal Dooley because the Congressman accepted $26,000 from Charles Keating's Lincoln Savings & Loan four years ago. In Oregon, Republican Denny Smith is also vulnerable. He was a director of a failed S&L, and Democrats charge that he tried to influence federal regulators. His opponent, Mike Kopetski, a former state legislator, had a 10-point lead last week. Ironically, Smith won his seat in 1980 by defeating Al Ullman, then chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, because Oregonians thought Ullman was too much of a Washington insider.

The anti-incumbent mood largely accounts for the defeat of the deficit- reduction package endorsed by the White House and congressional leaders. Most lawmakers who feel remotely threatened -- as well as every House member attempting to graduate to the Senate -- came out against it. Braver souls who supported the unpopular combination of tax hikes and service cuts are now being savaged for their stand. In Vermont, Republican Peter Smith, a freshman Congressman, is running no better than even against a well-known independent, Bernard Sanders. A former Socialist mayor of Burlington, Sanders has railed for years against establishments of all kinds. This fall, his populist appeal seems in sync with the times.

To protect themselves, some lawmakers have tried to blur their incumbent status. In Illinois, for instance, Democratic Senator Paul Simon is airing a TV commercial that shows his opponent, Congresswoman Lynn Martin, next to a copy of the Congressional Record while an announcer reels off her votes. Simon is described as "fighting" for this or that cause, rather than "voting" on anything. The spot leaves doubt as to just who has been in the Senate for the past six years. The motif of fighting for the home folks against Washington shows up in many ads in other states.

A favorite gambit of challengers is to call for new blood. In Oregon, for example, Democratic businessman Harry Lonsdale is trying to topple Senator Mark Hatfield by arguing that "most of our elected officials have been in Washington too long." This tactic dovetails with the widening effort to limit the service of lawmakers at both the state and federal level. Last month Oklahoma voters approved a measure that will restrict state legislators to a maximum of 12 years in office. Californians will have their choice of ballot initiatives next month to do the same thing; public-opinion polls show overwhelming approval. In Colorado a proposed amendment to the state constitution would go even further: it would limit state legislators to eight consecutive years in office and members of Congress to 12. The Colorado proposal raises the question of whether states have the constitutional right to restrict congressional tenure; the answer is probably no. But the movement is picking up so much momentum that Congress may be forced to consider the issue.

If it does, the incumbency factor could become a major issue in future elections. Republicans, including George Bush, believe that limiting the number of terms a Congressman can serve would boost their efforts to break the other party's stranglehold on the House by forcing popular Democrats to quit long before the voters would force them to retire. But any broad effort to restrict the tenure of lawmakers could have an unintended negative effect: it might deflect public attention -- and rage -- away from what the people's representatives are actually doing in Congress to a debate over whether they should be thrown out on a set schedule regardless of their performance.

Despite its intensity, the antipathy toward Congress will have negligible impact on the midterm elections three weeks from now. Odd as it may seem, most voters exempt their own representatives from the contempt they hold for Congress in general. The local officeholder who does favors for constituents, attends parades and sends newsletters to the home folks often comes across as a benign exception to the general image. Of the 406 members of the House seeking re-election this November, only about 30 face serious opposition. The rest either are running unopposed or enjoy such a huge financial advantage that they might as well be. Thus no one in either party expects an explosion that could result in the wholesale slaughter of incumbents. "The gunpowder is on the floor," says R. Marc Nuttle, executive director of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, "but so far no one has struck the match." It is only a matter of time before someone does -- in, say, 1992.

With reporting by Robert Ajemian/Boston and Gavin Scott/Chicago