Election Reform: Effect on City Campaigns Is a Question Mark

Now that 77% of the voters, acting in the name of political reform, have put a lid on campaign contributions in Los Angeles, the question remains: How much reform have the voters achieved?

Has this step, never tried before in Los Angeles, freed local officeholders from the grip of big-spending lobbyists if, in fact, such an unholy alliance ever existed? Or, as some critics claim, did the vote amount to a needless public spanking of politicians that will only make it harder for them to conduct responsible campaigns?

The major provisions of the limitation measure, known as Charter Amendment 1, will place a $1,000 ceiling on all contributions to candidates running for mayor, city attorney and other citywide offices. And it will put a $500 top on contributions to City Council candidates. It also will require candidates to return any money in excess of $5,000 that is left after a campaign. The limitations will apply toward campaign contributions accepted after July 1.

May End Fancy Dinners

Friends and foes of the limitation measure agree that it will change the way city politics are paid for. The fancy dress, $2,500 per table political dinner, a staple of municipal fund raising, may be replaced by direct mail solicitations, aimed at tapping thousands of small donations.

Had the limitations been in place during the mayor’s race, it would have forced the two major candidates, Mayor Tom Bradley and City Councilman John Ferraro, to make substantial changes in the way they raised money for their campaigns.

Of the $3.2 million raised by Bradley and Ferraro, 61% came from contributions of more than $1,000. A recent Los Angeles Times study of contributors showed that most of the people who made those donations represent a small segment of the local population made up of wealthy white businessmen and lawyers, many of whom have business interests with the city.

Clearly, the finance limitation measure struck a nerve with the people who voted in the election Tuesday. The measure got more votes--303,000--than Mayor Bradley--297,000--in his reelection landslide.

‘Greatly Broaden Base’

Supporters of the measure included Bradley, Ferraro and some of the city’s most prominent political fund-raisers, who joined City Councilman Ernani Bernardi, the chief patron of Charter Amendment 1, in touting it to the voters.

“The amendment will dramatically reduce the power of those whose main source of influence is in giving large campaign contributions,” said Deputy Mayor Tom Houston, who headed the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission for four years.

Houston said that similar measures in San Diego, San Francisco and Sacramento, for the most part, have done what they were meant to do--force candidates to look beyond traditional sources of campaign financing and bring more people into the political process.

“It (Charter Amendment 1) will greatly broaden the base,” Houston said. “It will force politicians to go back and work all segments of the community.”

But Houston and other city officials said they would not be surprised if critics of the measure challenge its constitutionality, in particular a provision that puts a $500 cap on all donations to independent committees.

Acting City Atty. Gary Netzer said he would not be surprised if the curb on contributions to such committees “does not hold up” as long as a committee can prove that it was neither set up to benefit a candidate nor controlled by one.

‘Substantial Loopholes’

Critics of Charter Amendment 1 continue to express reservations about the measure.

“I think it’s going to have some effect, but I think there are substantial loopholes,” said City Councilman Joel Wachs.

As Wachs sees it, the principal flaw is that it allows politicians to accept unlimited contributions as long as the money is not used to finance a city campaign. Thus, a councilman could accept a $5,000 contribution to be used to run for the state Legislature, or he could enhance his political stature by using the money to campaign for a popular cause, such as Charter Amendment 1.

As long as such contributions can be given, Wachs said, big givers will be able to place politicians in their debt.

Even Walter Zelman, the executive director of Common Cause in California who hailed approval of Charter Amendment 1, said that its restrictions could be sidestepped.

“Instead of a corporation giving several thousand dollars, the president can send a memo around to all the company officers urging them to give $500 or a $1,000 each,” Zelman said.

City Council President Pat Russell, a reluctant supporter of the limitation measure, said she was concerned that with less money, candidates will be less able to tell the public what they stand for, given the high costs of mass communication.

The costs, indeed, are high. It can cost between $50,000 and $75,000 for a council candidate to send out six pieces of campaign literature to all of the households in a district.