Election Money--the New, the Old, the Bid to Limit It : Charter Amendment 1 Would Limit Campaign Donations

Developers, public employee unions, oil companies and other major contributors who donated more than $500,000 during the last Los Angeles municipal election would have been limited to giving only one-tenth that amount if a measure now on the April ballot had been in effect, the head of California Common Cause said Tuesday.

Fearing a possible last-minute media blitz by opponents of Charter Amendment 1, Walter Zelman, the executive director of Common Cause, released a report analyzing 14 leading contributors during the 1983 city election and said the study underscores the need for a proposed ballot measure curbing the size of campaign donations.

“Most of these major contributors would be very hard hit and we think that’s a positive step,” Zelman told reporters at a news conference.

Most Sweeping Effort

Charter Amendment 1, which was placed by the City Council on the April 9 ballot after a protracted political battle, represents the most sweeping attempt at limiting local campaign contributions. The provisions include a $500-per-election limit on contributions to City Council candidates and a limit of $1,000 per election on donations to citywide candidates.

Under the charter amendment--which would take effect July 1 if passed by voters--the total a contributor could give to a candidate would be $3,500 per election when there are no citywide races. The total limit would be $7,000 when the offices of mayor, city attorney and city controller also are being contested.

If those provisions had been in effect during the last municipal election, Zelman said, the result would have been a lot fewer dollars from heavyweight contributors who donated the largest amounts during the 1982 and 1983 campaign reporting periods.

Common Cause reported that of the $506,232 contributed to council candidates by 14 top givers, only $49,090 would have been allowed under Charter Amendment 1. In some cases, the largest contributors would have had to turn back more than 90% of the money they gave, Zelman said.

According to Common Cause, contributions ranged from $10,200 donated by the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City to the $55,100 given by Occidental Petroleum Corp. and the the largest of all--$99,650--from Engineering Technology Inc., a firm that specializes in aiding developers in City Hall.

Fear of Late Effort

“You have to be naive to think that this kind of money doesn’t have an impact and isn’t given with a goal of having an impact,” said Zelman, who added that he was worried that some of these major donors may throw money into the “No on One” campaign in a late attempt to defeat it.

“I don’t expect it. I can’t predict it. But I fear it,” he said.

However, Phillip Krakover, the chief executive officer of Engineering Technology, insisted that he has adopted a “wait-and-see attitude” about Charter Amendment 1 and would not give money to oppose it.

“It’s a motherhood issue,” he said, “and I think it’s probably going to win with two-thirds of the vote.” But Krakover, considered one of the most powerful City Hall lobbyists, said he thinks that if the measure passes, some contributors may be tempted to try “something more devious” to circumvent the new law and funnel more money to candidates.

Limited Debate

Ironically, the public debate over the contribution measure--which also seeks to prevent candidates from stockpiling funds for future campaigns--has been limited because both sides are strapped for cash. Proponents have raised $23,000 and plan only mailings.

“We would like to do more but there has not been the financial support to do more than that,” said Terry Pullan, whose Marathon Communications firm is running the “Yes on One” campaign.

The political consulting firm of Winner, Taylor & Associates has formed an opposition committee and produced a 30-second television ad that warns voters “to reject the politician’s protection plan”--a jab at those claiming that the amendment helps neutralize an incumbent’s advantage.

Opponents have charged that the measure would aid incumbents by limiting not only the fund-raising abilities of elected officials but of lesser-known and more needy challengers. However, the campaign firm’s Rick Taylor said no television time has yet been bought for the ad because of a lack of money.