Mayor’s Legal Fund Subject to Ordinance : City Atty. Rules Defense Contributions Cannot Exceed $250 Campaign Limit

City Atty. John Witt ruled Tuesday that Mayor Roger Hedgecock’s legal defense fund, established to defray thousands of dollars in legal expenses from his recent criminal trial, falls under the city campaign ordinance limiting contributions to $250 per person.

Because the fund was set up to pay for Hedgecock’s defense, and thus to keep the mayor in office, it is legally a campaign fund, Witt argued in a written legal opinion.

The decision is yet another blow to Hedgecock and his supporters, who in December established Californians for the Future to solicit contributions of $1,000 or more.

Leo Sullivan, attorney for the defense fund committee, vowed to challenge Witt’s ruling in a suit to be filed today.

Sullivan agrees, he said, that the defense fund is a campaign fund and should meet reporting requirements specified in state law, but he argues that to apply the city campaign limits to a legal defense fund would be a violation of Hedgecock’s constitutional rights.

“It’s just not fair that the government on one hand can bring a case against the mayor and then deprive him of the right to defend himself,” Sullivan said.

Hedgecock agreed. “The ordinance was never meant to cover expenditures to defend an elected official against criminal charges,” he said. “It was meant to inform the voters about the source of campaign contributions during an election campaign and the expenditure of those . . . I think the ruling turns the ordinance on its head.”

But Witt maintains, “We’re not actually limiting his ability to defend himself. That’s a question Mr. Sullivan will have to argue and litigate.

“No one has an absolute constitutional right to hold office. And it (the fund) is to keep him in office because of the effect a conviction would have.”

Hedgecock is accused of 15 felony counts and one misdemeanor count stemming from allegedly illegal contributions of tens of thousands of dollars to his 1983 campaign. On Feb. 13, a Superior Court jury was deadlocked 11-1 for conviction on 13 of the felony counts. The district attorney’s office recently announced that it plans to retry Hedgecock, who also would face two additional felony counts and one misdemeanor count.

If Hedgecock is convicted of a felony, he would be required by state law to vacate his office. He also faces a civil suit by the state Fair Political Practices Commission seeking $1.2 million in penalties for what it charges are 450 campaign reporting violations.

Hedgecock and his chief fund-raiser, Nancy MacHutchin, established the defense fund committee in December to raise money for legal expenses Sullivan estimated to be “in the tens of thousands of dollars.”

MacHutchin initially claimed that theirs was a “statewide committee” and that, therefore, contributions were not subject to city limits. The city’s ordinance, passed in 1975, limits campaign contributions to a maximum of $250 per person for each election, and stipulates that they may come only from individuals, not from businesses, unions or political action committees.

By mid January, the defense fund committee had accepted contributions of $5,000 and $2,000, and pledges of $10,000 and $25,000. The committee also received $3,000 to $5,000 in contributions of less than $250.

But after Witt saw MacHutchin’s solicitation letter and indicated that such contributions might be illegal, she voluntarily halted all fund raising. MacHutchin said Tuesday that the committee will return all contributions in excess of $250.

In a press conference Tuesday, Witt said his office will consider prosecutions for contributions to Californians for the Future that were in excess of the city campaign limit. However, Witt also said that, if the money were returned, he would not expect to prosecute.

MacHutchin on Tuesday called Witt’s ruling “over-reactive,” but she said she would start a new fund-raising campaign in the next few days that will comply with Witt’s restrictions. The mailing, to several thousand people, will seek the maximum $250 contribution, she said. (Under Witt’s ruling, those contributions must be counted toward the next local political campaign Hedgecock may mount, which means that if donors give $250 to the defense fund, they may not contribute to his next local political campaign.)

MacHutchin said that even under the best of circumstances, Californians for the Future can no longer expect to raise enough money to cover all of Hedgecock’s legal expenses. At best, she said, it might be able to raise a third of the money needed for his defense.

There appear to be few precedents in California law that take up the issue of whether a politician’s legal defense fund is bound by a city’s campaign contribution requirements.

Sullivan on Tuesday pointed to a January, 1983, libel case in which the district attorney’s office, in enforcing San Diego’s campaign ordinance, told former City Councilwoman Susan Golding that she could raise money to defend herself against a libel suit filed by former opponent Jamie Brierton and would not be bound by city campaign contribution limits.

Witt’s opinion cites a recent Fair Political Practices Commission decision involving Stockton Mayor Randall Ronk, who is facing criminal charges for falsifying city expense accounts. “Since the criminal charges against Mayor Ronk relate to his status as an office holder, all monies raised and spent for his defense are contributions and expenditures within the meaning of the Political Reform Act,” the commission said.

However, Stockton has no dollar limit on contributions to a political campaign, so the amount that could legally be contributed to Ronk’s defense was never an issue, Stockton City Atty. Gerald A. Sperry said Tuesday.

Witt’s lengthy opinion called the legal issues in the Hedgecock defense fund case “novel and complicated.” In his press conference Tuesday morning, however, he was more blunt. “It’s a whole can of worms,” he said.