Judge Lifts $250 Limit on Gifts for Mayor’s Defense

San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock, burdened with rising legal costs as he enters his second trial for perjury and conspiracy, received what he called “good news for a change” Wednesday as a judge ruled that there is no ceiling for contributions to the mayor’s defense fund.

Superior Court Judge Mack P. Lovett rejected the contentions of City Atty. John Witt, who in February had ruled that the Hedgecock defense fund is subject to the city ordinance limiting political contributions to $250. Witt’s ruling prompted Hedgecock to sue.

However, while Lovett removed the dollar limit, he stressed that the amounts and sources of the donations to the defense fund must be publicly disclosed.

Lovett’s ruling is a big relief to Hedgecock and his lawyers. The mayor, who has reportedly paid $33,000 in legal fees so far out of his own pocket, is counting on the help of friends and political supporters to defray legal costs that one of his lawyers says could ultimately run as high as $250,000.

Moreover, Hedgecock’s lawyers claimed that the ruling could lead to a better day-to-day trial defense.

“I am absolutely delighted and it’s nice to get good news for a change,” Hedgecock said in a statement released by his office.

The Hedgecock defense committee, which goes by the name “Californians for the Future,” has raised $49,099 in its first six months working within the $250 limit, according to Nancy MacHutchin, coordinator of the fund.

MacHutchin predicted that another $50,000 would be raised in the next six to eight weeks. “I have people ready and willing to give $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000,” she said. “All it will take is a call.”

Leo Sullivan, Hedgecock’s civil attorney, said the ruling was “significant.”

“We think he’s going to be able to buy a more adequate defense for himself,” Sullivan said. “There were a lot of shortcuts taken during the first criminal trial because of lack of funds.”

For instance, Sullivan said, Hedgecock had to do without daily transcripts of court testimony during the first trial. Defense attorneys use the daily transcripts as a way to prepare for the next day’s cross-examination, he said.

With the $250 limit lifted from fund-raising efforts, Hedgecock may be able to pay for the kind of services that will counter the district attorney’s staff of investigators and its full-time psychologist, Sullivan said.

Besides the second criminal trial, Hedgecock also faces huge legal bills to defend himself in a civil suit filed against him and other political supporters by the state Fair Political Practices Commission. If the FPPC suit goes to trial, Sullivan and MacHutchin said, Hedgecock’s defense could cost as much as $250,000--five times the amount that has been raised thus far.

MacHutchin stressed that the defense fund was working within the $250 limit while it raised the $49,099 during the first six months of 1985. Half of that has been paid as a retainer to Oscar Goodman, Hedgecock’s defense attorney.

Hedgecock still owes about $72,000 to Sullivan’s firm and $16,000 to Michael Pancer, his attorney in the first criminal trial, MacHutchin said. MacHutchin receives a percentage for raising and managing the defense fund.

MacHutchin said that in addition to the $33,000 paid by Hedgecock personally, Californians for the Future has already paid about $47,000 in legal costs, leaving a balance of about $1,900. The mayor’s reelection committee also helped cover some legal costs last year.

Thus far, Hedgecock has not been reimbursed by the defense committee for his out-of-pocket expenses, MacHutchin said.

Under the reporting guidelines, MacHutchin said, the names, addresses and businesses of the donors must be disclosed for contributions of $100 or more.

MacHutchin said she is planning an immediate direct-mail appeal targeted to supporters who have already contributed to the defense fund. A special fund-raising event such as a dinner may be scheduled in the next few weeks, she said.

Ted Bromfield, assistant city attorney, said he was encouraged that Lovett’s ruling stipulated that contributions to the defense fund must be publicly reported.

Bromfield said that Hedgecock’s original suit argued that the public disclosure was not required under the law, but that Sullivan conceded the point in briefs filed later.

“At least we’ll know the origin of the contributions,” Bromfield said. “We want to make sure there is a record.”

Lovett had had the case under submission since July 22. The judge emphasized in his ruling that “the term ‘candidate’ as defined in the ordinance applies only to persons engaged in an election campaign or a recall election.

“The ordinance does not apply to a legal defense fund if all funds received are (i) reported, (ii) designated for legal defense and (iii) utilized to pay legal defense costs.”

Bromfield said he would prepare a report on the case for his “clients”--the City Council--who would then decide whether to appeal Lovett’s ruling.