Defense contracting secure regardless of election's outcome.

The defense industry has favored President Bush with its campaign contributions, but the outcome of the November presidential contest might not have much impact on local military contracts--and with them, jobs.

Both Bush and his challenger, Sen. John Kerry, have pledged to strengthen the military and invest in home land security, which could translate well for scores of smaller Southern California companies manufacturing products like software, sensors, detectors and baggage-screening equipment. Both also favor high-tech weaponry, which has been a boon so far for large contractors such as Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman Corp.

What's more, the large contracts that have been driving local hiring are part of long-term programs, including the F/A-22 Raptor in Palmdale, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in El Segundo and C-17 cargo jets in Long Beach. No matter who wins, these programs are unlikely to see drastic cuts.

"I don't see a big threat either from who wins the election or from other (local) factors like the high cost of housing and workers compensation," said Philip Coyle, senior advisor of the Washington-based Center for Defense Information. "California is insulated from that."

Public opinion appears to be shielding Pentagon spending from any possible cuts. An August poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press shows 41 percent of respondents said the most important problem facing the nation was war, foreign policy and terrorism, a striking contrast to recent presidential election years when economic issues took priority. This time, according to the poll, the economy was the top issue for only 26 percent of respondents.

"Either candidate will not say they are going to cut back on security," said Randolph Hall, co-director of USC's Center for Homeland Security. "It's too popular an issue right now. They almost seem to be battling each other, saying: I'm the most secure candidate, I can protect you."

Support for Republicans

Not surprisingly, the defense establishment is hewing to the Republican incumbent. As of Aug. 2, the Bush campaign had received $681,443 in individual and political action committee contributions from the defense industry, versus $222,458 for Kerry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington.

Nearly as important are Congressional races, where the Republican party and its candidates hold an edge in defense-industry contributions from PACs, soft money and individuals. In all federal races, Republican candidates outdrew Democrats $7.7 million to $4.6 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The largest defense contractors, though, spread their contribution dollars around to key committee members on both sides of the aisle. (Federal law prohibits direct corporate contributions to candidates, so the campaigns are funded through "soft money" contributions from PACs and individual donations.)

Among the largest defense contractors, Lockheed Martin Corp. favored Republican candidates with a 60-40 split of its $1.3 million in federal contributions, while Northrop's $1.2 million was divvied up 64-36 toward Republicans. Raytheon Co.'s split was 53-46, also toward Republicans on $763,292 in donations, while Boeing Co. gave 57 percent of its $287,095 to Republicans.

One significant difference between Kerry and Bush: Bush is a fan of large missile defense programs, while Kerry, according to an analysis by investment bank Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin, would likely cut missile defense spending by up to a third, or $3.5 billion annually.

Another imponderable is how differently Kerry would deal with short-term military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and whether the growing budget deficit might cause him to curb growth in new weapons spending.

"Kerry could end up with more of a short-term orientation and the weapons are long-term investments," Hall said. "With tough budget times it's harder to sustain those programs. Bush may face the same tradeoffs. Supporting war in Iraq has been hard on the military budget."

Bryce Hallowell, a spokesman for Woodland Hills-based Alliant Techsystems, said the presidential election will have little impact on the firm, which is currently working on a $12.1 million contract to help develop the Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile.

"We make weaponry that supports those big items and extends the life of existing platforms," Hallowell said. "We're pretty insulated from anything that results from the election one way or another."

But Jim Hart, a spokesman for Northrop Grumman's Air Combat Systems unit, cautioned, "it's always hard to speculate on how individual programs could be affected by a presidential election."

Shift in spending

There was a time when the defense establishment would worry a lot more about presidential politics. In the 1972 election that pitted George McGovern against Richard Nixon, the differences were striking. McGovern pledged to pull the troops out of Vietnam and cut defense spending by $30 billion. Nixon, on the other hand, had asked Congress for the largest defense spending plan since World War II.

But even when the choices seem stark, making big changes in policy takes time.

"On any given election, no matter how it comes out, the next president's budget is similar to the last," said Coyle, who noted that Ronald Reagan's first defense budget was actually smaller than Jimmy Carter's last one, even though Reagan strongly supported a defense buildup.

In the past, California has been shaken by shifts in defense spending. At the high point in 1984, L.A. County's aerospace and defense industry had 274,000 workers. But as the Cold War ended and defense budgets were cut, the state's economy plunged into recession.

But since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. 2001. the local industry has reaped the benefits of a jump in military spending. Last year, the Pentagon spent $10.6 billion it] California, up from 87.6 billion in 2001. Local employment has finally begun to reverse a 20-year slide.

"Employment has hit bottom and we are slowly adding jobs," Jack Kyser, chief economist for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., who noted that employment in the industry dipped below 40,000 workers in August 2003. He expects to see an upswing in contracts lot top-secret projects in Southern California.

"Both candidates play to our strengths in sophisticated intelligence and advanced communications," Kyser said. "There is a lot of black program money coming in, like these unmanned aerial vehicles and sophisticated satellites. This speaks well to the future of the industry."