Bid to Cap Campaign Donations Stirs Passions : Charter Measure Is Hottest of 7 on City's Ballot

By VICTOR MERINA

Feb. 11, 1985 12 AM PT

Times Staff Writer

Supporters call it one of the most meaningful campaign reform measures in the history of Los Angeles politics. Detractors label it a farce and a sham that will have little effect on the runaway costs of local elections.

But both sides agree on one thing about Charter Amendment 1 on the city’s April 9 ballot: Voters are likely to approve the measure and set--for the first time--limitations on campaign contributions to City Council and citywide candidates.

“It cost a lot of blood and money,” said Councilman Ernani Bernardi of the decade-long push for a campaign finance limitation measure. “But believe me, it’s going to be worth it.”

Councilman David Cunningham, an outspoken critic of the plan, conceded that the Charter amendment would pass--not because of its merits but because current officeholders are reluctant to oppose a measure that could benefit them. He said he agrees with skeptics who have labeled the measure an “incumbent’s protection bill.”

Cunningham Not Opposed

“I’m not going to spend one dime to oppose it,” Cunningham said. “Any elected official who spends one dime opposing it ought to have his head examined.”

Despite Cunningham’s assurances and other signs that opposition to the measure is fizzling, wary supporters are still mounting a major effort to ensure its passage.

In addition to Charter Amendment 1, voters will be asked to approve six other measures. They include proposals to add two seats to the 15-member City Council and to streamline recall procedures for citywide officials and Board of Education members.

Other ballot measures would increase the current $500 limit on misdemeanor fines to match state law--now $1,000--and update and simplify the ways in which residents can initiate their own laws and recall elected officials.

Still another Charter amendment proposal seeks to assure that residential property will not be subject to special taxes for the proposed Metro Rail subway.

The contribution measure, however, has been the most hotly debated.

Common Cause Support

“It’s been a long time coming,” said Walter Zelman, executive director of California Common Cause. “If it works as anticipated--and it won’t work perfectly--it still could have a really major impact on city politics.”

Zelman, a supporter of the measure, said that the effect would be felt on major contributors including developers, cable companies, downtown business interests and labor unions who donate large sums of campaign dollars and help influence government decisions. Candidates, who now stockpile campaign funds and share their largess with other politicians, would also be affected, Zelman said.

Under the measure, for example, donors would be able to lend or give only $500 to each City Council candidate and $1,000 to candidates for mayor, city attorney and city controller during any single election. A $500 limit would be set for donations to all independent committees and a tighter rein would be placed on how much money is given to committees controlled by political candidates.

Other provisions include a requirement that money raised for a specific political race be spent only on that city elective office. Candidates would have to return any leftover funds beyond $5,000.

Candidates who contribute more than $30,000 to their own campaigns, would have to deposit the money in a checking account 30 days before the election and tell the city clerk and their opponents. Opposing candidates could then match those funds over $30,000 without being bound by the $500 or $1,000 limitation. For example, if one candidate gave himself $40,000, his opponent could raise $10,000 without the restrictions.

Violations would be misdemeanors and conviction could disqualify candidates or lead to their removal from office.

Characterized as Tough

“I think it’s one of the most stringent local ordinances in the state,” said Deputy Mayor Tom Houston, a former chairman of the state Fair Political Practices Commission, which oversees state campaign laws.

If passed by a majority of city voters, the provisions would take effect on contributions accepted after July 1 and would not be in force until the city’s 1987 elections.

With only half of the council seats up for grabs every two years, the measure will affect members in different ways.

For example, Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky has accumulated more than $945,000 in contributions but has no opponent this spring. Yaroslavsky, a mayoral hopeful, can use the money for his current reelection campaign but would not be able to use any of his funds for a future city race. He could, however, use the funds for a state, federal or county election.

On the other hand, Councilman Joel Wachs, who will not have to run until 1987, would be able to use the $750,000 he has banked in his reelection campaign.

“I think it’s a farce. I think it’s bad legislation,” Councilman Hal Bernson said of the discrepancy. “All it’s going to do is make people more devious in how monies are given . . . plus it’s virtually a job insurance bill for incumbents.”

“There are some loopholes that all of us are going to take advantage of that were not addressed,” said Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores, who agreed that incumbents will amass large war chests by just relying on more and more politically active groups. Challengers, meanwhile, would be severely hampered, she said.

Stifling Influence Foreseen

“I think we need campaign reform, but this really stifles some people who may have a very legitimate interest in giving,” Flores said.

Even some supporters of the measure like Council President Pat Russell expressed reservations. “I’m supportive of it because of the amount of money (spent in campaigns), but I have serious questions as to whether this solves the problem we’re talking about. . . . Since I can’t offer anything better, I’m supporting it.”

The council, fearing Bernardi’s threat of a tougher campaign limitation measure, agreed to put it on the ballot despite those concerns and some legal reservations by the city attorney’s office.

But the measure has been embraced by a coalition of supporters including the League of Women Voters, California Common Cause, Mayor Tom Bradley and his chief rival for mayor, Councilman John Ferraro.

Some major donors, who have given tens of thousands of dollars during city elections, are hoping the measure will help stem the spiraling costs of elections and have joined efforts to help raise nearly $150,000 to back the measure.

“I don’t think this is a one-sided issue,” said Bruce Corwin, president of Metropolitan Theaters and a large contributor to city and state campaigns. “The politicians themselves are abusing the process by having so many (fund-raising) functions, and we, the givers, on the other hand are supporting those efforts.”

But Corwin was wary about forecasting victory.

Last-Minute Blitz Feared

“We haven’t seen any visible signs of opposition, but I’m concerned about a last-minute blitz from those who are against it or who are very quiet about it,” he said.

If it does pass, Los Angeles would join 32 other cities and counties with campaign financing limitation measures, according to an FPPC survey. Those local ordinances range from a $20 limit on individual contributions in Del Mar to a $1,500 limit for individual contributions and a $3,000 limit for donations from political action committees in Sacramento city elections. In San Francisco, there is a similar $1,000 cap on contributions, while in San Diego there is a $250 cap.

The results of those measures have been mixed, said Robert M. Stern of the California Commission on Campaign Financing, a nonprofit organization that studies legislative campaigns.

Stern said that while smaller contributions can be expected and large individual loans would diminish under contribution limits, it is unclear whether less money will be spent on city races in Los Angeles. Stern, formerly with the FPPC, also said it was uncertain whether the contribution limits would mean more or less competition for city offices.

Meanwhile, the other Charter amendments on the April ballot are:

- Charter Amendment No. 2, which would add two new seats to the City Council. Starting in 1987, the number would increase from 15 to 17 council members. Supporters like Bradley claim that the added seats would increase chances for a Latino or Asian council member. Opponents like Councilman Marvin Braude and the Los Angeles Taxpayers Assn. charge that the expansion would promote divisiveness and prove costly.

Recall Petitions

- Charter Amendment No. 3 would simplify the number of signatures needed to qualify a recall petition, among other provisions. The number of valid signatures needed would be changed to 15% of the registered voters in a school district. Supporters claim the current formula, which depends on the total votes cast in the last election, is too complex.

- Charter Amendment No. 4 is aimed at streamlining recall procedures involving the mayor, city attorney, city controller and council members. Provisions include shortening the length of time allowed to gather signatures--from six months to four months--and eliminating the 10-day grace period now used to collect additional signatures if a petition is ruled invalid.

- Charter Amendment No. 5 would simplify the city’s initiative procedures by allowing, among other things, the city clerk to verify a “random sampling” of signatures instead of proceeding name by name. It would also eliminate requirements specifying the size and weight of petition papers as well as establish an appeals process if the city clerk rejects recall petitions.

Misdemeanor Fines

- Charter Amendment No. 6 would raise the city’s maximum $500 fine for misdemeanor violations to comply with state law, which now sets a $1,000 ceiling on misdemeanor fines.

- Charter Amendment No. 7 would prevent city officials from taxing residential properties for the Metro Rail subway. It would apply to residential properties along the subway route in use or under construction before April 9, 1985.

In seeking to exempt residential property, the measure would require the city to withhold any funds for the subway unless the Southern California Rapid Transit District also agrees not to levy such a tax.

Worried homeowners and renters near the subway route--and their representatives on the council and in Congress--are pushing for the amendment to assure that they will not be included in any benefit assessment district that raises money to help pay for the $3.3-billion line. Los Angeles’ April Ballot Measures

THE MEASURE Charter Amendment 1: Limitations on campaign contributions in city elections WHAT IT WOULD DO Would limit individual loans and contributions to City Council candidates to $500. A $1,000 limit would apply to candidates for mayor, city attorney and controller.

If a candidate contributes more than $30,000 to his or her own campaign, limits on contributions to opposing candidates would be relaxed enough to let them match the sum in excess of $30,000.

ARGUMENTS FOR Would curb spiraling campaign costs by setting reasonable and enforceable limits on amount and use of contributions. Since contributions would be limited, candidates would have to find more contributors, thus encouraging more people to participate in elections.

Supporters: Mayor Tom Bradley, council members Ernani Bernardi and Joy Picus, California Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST Instead of bringing real campaign reform, would merely enhance the advantage incumbents already have in elections.

The contribution limits could be circumvented by funneling money through politically active groups. Some provisions also may prove unconstitutional.

Opponents: City Council members David Cunningham, Gilbert Lindsay, Robert Farrell and Joan Milke Flores.

THE MEASURE Charter Amendment 2: Increase in number of council districts. WHAT IT WOULD DO Would add two new City Council seats, increasing the council from 15 to 17 members, starting in 1987.

ARGUMENTS FOR At a reasonable cost, would provide the additional seats needed to better represent a growing and more ethnically diverse population.

Supporters: Mayor Tom Bradley and Council President Pat Russell.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST Is an ill-considered version of previously rejected proposals. Would cost more money and promote divisiveness without guaranteeing increased minority representation.

Opponents: Councilman Marvin Braude, Los Angeles Taxpayers Assn.

THE MEASURE Charter Amendment 3: Revision of procedures governing recall of Board of Education members. WHAT IT WOULD DO Would simplify the formula for determining whether attempts to recall school board members qualify for the ballot. Present formula for determining the number of valid signatures needed on recall petitions is based on vote count in last school board election. This proposal would require valid signatures from 15% of registered voters in a particular board member’s district, the same method now used in recalls of elected city officials.

Would shorten the time allowed for signature gathering--from six months to four months.

ARGUMENTS FOR Would make it easier to qualify recalls for the ballot and simpler for the city to administer the recalls.

Supporters: Councilwoman Peggy Stevenson, chair of council’s Charter and Elections Committee.