Moriarty Contribution Becomes Key Issue in L. A. Council Race

The gaudy red-and-black campaign brochure recently sent to voters in Los Angeles’ 13th Councilmanic District pictured stacks of $100 bills, a brace of sizzling Fourth of July rockets and a message designed to defuse the candidacy of council challenger Michael Woo, who once again is giving the incumbent, Peggy Stevenson, a run for her money.

The title of the brochure, “Fireworks, Money & Michael Woo,” highlights a reported link between Woo and W. Patrick Moriarty, the Orange County fireworks manufacturer who pleaded guilty in March to making illegal political contributions to several California politicians. Before the brochure was distributed, newspaper accounts had named Woo as one of several people, including Gov. George Deukmejian, who received laundered Moriarty contributions.

Stevenson has not offered any evidence that Woo knew Moriarty or was aware that the disputed contribution came from Moriarty.

Nevertheless, she is making the issue the centerpiece of an election strategy aimed at questioning Woo’s independence from a host of influences, ranging from Moriarty to state Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica) to a loose alliance of liberal Democrats often referred to as the Berman-Waxman machine, named for Reps. Howard Berman and Henry Waxman of Los Angeles.

Seeks Fourth Term

At 61, Stevenson is running for her fourth term on the council. She is trying to battle back from a disappointing primary election performance when a field of five challengers led by Woo made the race a referendum on Stevenson’s record. In 1981, Woo lost to her in a runoff.

Woo, 33, a former aide to state Sen. David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles), is hoping to exploit the anti-Stevenson theme that helped him in the primary. He tells local residents that Stevenson cannot be trusted except when she is courting voters at election time.

The alleged Moriarty connection --which Woo has disavowed--has allowed Stevenson to turn the tables on Woo, who injected the issue of integrity into the race during the primary campaign. He accused Stevenson, who has received substantial contributions from lobbyists, of being a tool of real estate developers.

Moriarty became a factor in the campaign after a former business associate, Richard Raymond Keith, told reporters for The Times that Woo was one of several local candidates and public officials to receive disguised contributions from Moriarty. Keith said Moriarty’s contribution to Woo was in the form of two checks totaling $5,400 from Condo Vest Inc., a firm run by Keith.

Firm Called ‘Sham’

Chief Assistant U.S. Atty. Richard E. Drooyan, the prosecutor heading the Moriarty investigation, said Condo Vest was a “sham” company.

Woo insists that in 1981 he had no reason to believe that Moriarty was behind the contribution. Woo said he had spoken out against the legalization of fireworks.

Woo said he did not know who the principals of Condo Vest were and did not try to find out, even though the Condo Vest contribution was the largest he received from a source other than his father or his employer.

Further clouding the issue, Moriarty’s attorney, Jan Lawrence Handzlik, said recently that his client contended that he “never made a contribution directly or indirectly to Mr. Woo.”

It has been Woo’s confusion over some details of the contribution that has helped keep the issue in the forefront of the campaign.

During a May 7 press conference, Woo said the contribution was in the form of one check two days before the election. He said that in the rush of last-minute campaign activity, the origin of the check had not been scrutinized.

Error Noted

Stevenson later pointed out that Woo had erred. She noted that official campaign statements showed that Woo received two checks from Condo Vest, one 11 days before the election and one 10 days after the election.

In recent days, Stevenson has missed few opportunities to impugn Woo’s judgment. The Condo Vest contribution, she said, “raises serious questions about Michael Woo’s ethics and better judgment.”

In a sense, Stevenson’s strategy is a reprise of 1981, when she put Woo on the defensive by capitalizing on accusations that Woo was a tool of Asian businessmen who wanted a foothold in the district. She was widely accused of resorting to racism but was rewarded by an outpouring of support at the polls.

This year, however, there are critical differences in the district, and the candidates are responding with different campaign styles. Reapportionment has replaced Stevenson’s stronghold of support in the east end of the district with a cluster of expensive canyon neighborhoods just north of Hollywood, which both candidates see as crucial to victory.

Woo said he thinks he can do well in those areas by being himself--a student of city planning who warms to academic conversations about environmental protection and historical preservation.

Effective Tactic

Woo’s most effective tactic may be the finishing touch he often puts on campaign appearances.

“Just look around you,” he tells his audience. “And ask yourself: Is this district in good shape after 10 years of Peggy Stevenson?”

It is a question meant to evoke the most squalid images of Hollywood, of prostitutes, runaway children, impoverished refugees, dirty streets and crime. The image is not altogether fair. The crime rate is down in the district and redevelopment of Hollywood is, at least, in the planning stage.

But the image of squalor is a common perception and one that could hurt Stevenson, her campaign manager, Allan Hoffenblum, conceded.

“We are working on that perception problem,” Hoffenblum said recently. “But it’s hard. People don’t really believe that the crime rate is down.”

Hoffenblum’s presence in the campaign--he is new since the primary--is the key to Stevenson’s strategy. He is a former political director of the California Republican Party and knows how to appeal to conservative voters.

The race is a nonpartisan one and Stevenson, like Woo, is a Democrat with a liberal outlook on social issues such as abortion, rent control and gay rights. Yet Stevenson is gambling that, by portraying herself as less liberal than Woo, she can persuade Republicans who did not vote for her or Woo in the primary to come out for her now.

More From Republicans

To date, she has sought and received substantially more financial support from Republicans than Woo has. Each candidate has raised about $320,000 since early 1984; 44% of Stevenson’s donors are Republican, against 24% for Woo.

Woo has been endorsed by a number of prominent Democratic officeholders. They include several politicians associated with the Berman-Waxman group, including Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner, state Sen. Gary Hart of Santa Barbara and Assemblyman Burt Margolin of Los Angeles.

Stevenson is looking for conservative backing, partly because her staff admits that traditionally liberal neighborhoods, such as Silver Lake, are enemy territory. Her staff concedes that voters there are angry over Stevenson’s handling of development in the area.

Clearly stung by accusations during the primary campaign that she had turned her back on local residents, Stevenson has in the last few weeks sponsored a flurry of proposals to temporarily ban new commercial building in neighborhoods north of Hollywood and to protect historic buildings in the area.