NEWS ANALYSIS : Beilenson Bucks Rules of Politics--and Wins : Fund raising: Westside Democrat held his House seat despite being outspent by a GOP challenger. He sees it as a vindication of his principles.

WASHINGTON —  Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Los Angeles), long a critic of congressional fund-raising and spending practices, looks back on last November’s election as a vindication of sorts.

Beilenson was one of only 11 incumbent House members nationwide who were outspent by their 1990 challengers, according to a Times study of campaign spending. He spent $201,510; his opponent, $364,662.

Beilenson is also one of only 14 House members who accept no contributions from political action committees. He does no public opinion polling, has not had a campaign headquarters since 1982, and hires only a part-time political consultant to help reach voters in his affluent, Democratic district.

Moreover, Beilenson, a maverick, has a penchant for offending vocal constituencies, such as veterans and seniors, and has consistently called for significant tax increases to reduce the federal deficit.

The 58-year-old lawmaker was even intemperate enough to tell a reporter in 1989: “I don’t care about California problems very much.” He later insisted that the comment was taken out of context; not surprisingly, his opponent plastered it all over his cable television ads.

That opponent, Jim Salomon, was an attractive, articulate Republican described by one insider as “the candidate from Central Casting.” He campaigned full time for two years in his second bid to oust Beilenson.

Amid last year’s wave of anti-incumbent sentiment, such circumstances might have left Beilenson primed for early retirement.

Yet his constituents stood by him. Many colleagues saw their margins of victory dwindle, even though their opponents had raised little money. But Beilenson was reelected with a secure majority of 61.7%, only two percentage points less than his 1988 tally.

For all his money and effort, Salomon picked up only one percentage point. And the 34% of the vote he received was less than the percentage of GOP registration in a district that stretches from Malibu through Beverly Hills to West Hollywood and over the Santa Monica Mountains to take in the West San Fernando Valley.

Beilenson had defied conventional wisdom again. Although other factors were involved--including Salomon’s inefficient voter outreach effort--it’s quite possible that the traits that seemed to make Beilenson vulnerable in fact served to inoculate him against last year’s anti-incumbent fever.

Most Los Angeles congressmen, who receive little media attention in the vast Southern California market and spend most of their time far from home, are not well known to their constituents. De spite 28 years in state and federal elected offices, including 14 years in Congress, Beilenson is no exception.

But among a core of frequent voters, particularly on the Westside, the Harvard-educated lawmaker appears to have succeeded in positioning himself as something of an anti-politician. He has done so by repeatedly touting his refusal to accept speaking fees (before the House banned honorariums, starting this year) and special-interest PAC money and by advocating publicly financed campaigns.

“Ten years ago, we had a little more convincing to do,” says Craig Miller, Beilenson’s campaign consultant, referring to the integrity issue. “These days it’s already at the top of the public’s concern.”

Beilenson’s image-building has been particularly artful, since he clearly has mastered the system, Republicans say. They cite his roles in recent years as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and as a member of the prestigious Rules Committee--a preserve of party loyalists--as well as the advantages of publicly funded mail and professional staff.

“He was Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside at the same time,” maintains Chris Nelson, a GOP consultant. “He espouses views that run against conventional wisdom, but he has also risen to positions of prominence in the House. You don’t do that by being a polemicist against the institution.”

With reapportionment and 435 new congressional districts looming in 1992, could other lawmakers, seemingly preoccupied with constant fund-raising and nonstop campaigning, follow Beilenson’s unorthodox example?

“Many of my colleagues are too nervous about reelection. They raise and spend much more money than they need to,” Beilenson says. But, he adds: “as long as there is a strong anti-incumbent sentiment loose in the land, I suppose they shouldn’t take my advice.”