Campaign Limits: Yes on 1

When people talk about the pernicious effect of fat contributions to election campaigns, the big givers always say, “All I want is access.” Putting it another way, a prominent city lobbyist and contributor recently said, “In government, like business, the better customers get their calls returned first.” But government is not business, and access to government officials should not be used as currency parceled out in exchange for contributions to the last election campaign or, worse, to the next election campaign.

This is not to contend that every contributor expects some tangible return on his investment--an aye vote on a particular rezoning matter, for instance, or approval of a new development. But the word access has taken on broader connotations in recent years than just getting a phone call returned. Access must provide some measure of reward, since many of the same big contributors’ names keep appearing on campaign spending reports in election after election. And it is not unusual to see the same names contributing to both sides of the fence in the same campaign. Something more than political philosophy must be involved.

No one has devised the perfect campaign reform law. Write a law and a lawyer will find a loophole. But that is no excuse for not trying.

The Times thus recommends that Los Angeles voters support Charter Amendment 1 on the April 9 municipal election ballot.

The proposal would limit contributions to citywide candidates to $1,000 per contest in primary and general elections; to City Council candidates, $500 for each council district, and to an independent campaign committee, also $500. More important, candidates would be prohibited from amassing huge campaign war chests between elections. Once the election was over, the candidate could retain only $5,000 of leftover campaign funds. And when a candidate started to raise money for the next election he would have to stipulate the office for which he was soliciting contributions.

Opponents contend that the amendment favors incumbents because they are in a better position to attract large numbers of $500 and $1,000 contributions. But the ability of a citywide official or council member to stockpile huge amounts of money--as much as $1 million--is the incumbent’s biggest advantage of all. It gives him the ability to scare off any credible opposition without even having to say what office he is considering.

Another argument from opponents is that “you can’t legislate morality or ethics.” Perhaps not, but you can punish those who get caught violating the standards that the community decides to put into law. Skeptics claim that clever candidates and contributors will find a way around the law. Maybe. If that occurs, the council or the electorate will have to deal with it at that time.

For now, however, a Yes vote on Charter Amendment 1 will significantly reduce the opportunity for a few big contributors to unduly influence elected city officials. A $1,000 contribution ought to be sufficient to get a phone call returned.