By Coral Davenport, CQ Staff

Henry A. Waxman , who last week launched a bid to unseat veteran House Energy and Commerce Chairman John D. Dingell , made unusually large campaign contributions to several freshman Democrats whose votes could prove key in determining which man takes the gavel of one of Congress’ most powerful panels.

Many lawmakers have called Waxman’s challenge to Dingell audacious and unprecedented. Dingell of Michigan is the current longest-serving House member and has been the chairman or ranking Democrat on the Energy Committee since 1981. He has lined up powerful support from members of the moderate Blue Dogs as well as the Congressional Black Caucus.

Waxman of California is the panel’s No. 2 Democrat, and is drawing strength from liberal members and fellow Californians. Both men and their surrogates are working the phones to whip up further support, and backing from the 20 newly elected Democrats could help tip the balance.

Many observers of the race expect moderate or centrist new members to line up behind Dingell. But Waxman and his political action committee gave more generously — in some cases, two to five times as much as Dingell and his PAC — to the campaigns of many of those newly elected moderates.

That represents a different pattern from the lawmakers’ contributions to the Democratic caucus generally: While Waxman gave more generously to many individual new members, Dingell contributed more broadly, giving $500,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and raising an additional $1.6 million for the committee, to which Waxman gave $350,000 and raised $16,000, according to DCCC figures.

“You can read quite a lot into that kind of campaign giving,” said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for the advocacy group Public Citizen. “The point of these leadership PACs is to buy leadership, especially from new members — to solidify that base of loyalty. Waxman is playing this interestingly. New members particularly are cash strapped. He’s playing this as well as anyone could by trying to play to the loyalties of freshman members.”

In the 2007-2008 election cycle, Waxman and his LA PAC gave out $38,000 to newly elected members, compared with $24,000 given out to new members by Dingell and his Wolverine PAC. The two men gave money to many of the same candidates, especially moderate Democrats in tight races.

Dingell, who created his first-ever PAC in June, made contributions of $1,000 to $2,000, a typical range for most incumbents giving to new member campaigns. Waxman, on the other hand, gave out bundles of $4,000 and $5,000, putting him in a tiny top echelon of donors. That generous giving appears to have targeted members who might lean towards Dingell philosophically, but may feel obligated by loyalty to the member who gave them more financial backing.

Several of the newly elected members were backed by the “New Democrats,” a centrist coalition whose chair, Californian Ellen O. Tauscher , is working the phones for Dingell.

Among the New Democrat-backed freshman who received contributions from Dingell and Waxman are: John Adler of New Jersey, who got $1,000 from Dingell and $5,000 from Waxman; John Boccieri of Ohio, who got $1,000 from Dingell and $5,000 from Waxman; Michael E. McMahon of New York, who got $1,000 from Dingell and $5,000 from Waxman; Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, who got $1,000 from Dingell and $2,000 from Waxman; Dan Maffei of New York, who got $1,000 from Dingell and $5,000 from Waxman; and Debbie Halvorson of Illinois, who got $1,000 from Dingell and $2,000 from Waxman.

Neither Waxman nor any of those newly elected members responded to requests for comment.

One expert said Waxman’s donation pattern this election season repeats the approach he used successfully in 1979, when he unseated Richardson Pryor of North Carolina as chairman of the panel’s Health Subcommittee.

Waxman contributed generously at the time to new members and committee Democrats, leading to allegations that he was buying himself a chairmanship.