Election, Power-Shift Changes in the Air for San Diego Politics : Raise Election Donation Limit, Allow Business Gifts, Panel Says

Despite objections from business leaders and some political activists that too much money already is spent on local elections, a special task force set up to review city election laws recommended Friday that the campaign contribution limit be doubled to $500.

During an occasionally acrimonious City Hall meeting, the task force also proposed other revisions of the city’s 12-year-old election ordinance, among them allowing now-banned corporate donations. It deferred action on other thorny issues--notably, whether to permit contributions from political action committees and whether to impose additional disclosure requirements.

Saying that the task force is “over the hump” on some of the most controversial issues, panel chairman Mark Nelson said Friday that he expects the group to conclude its nine-month study next month and forward its recommendations to the City Council for action early next year.

One major unresolved question, however, is whether the task force’s actions thus far have put it on a collision course with Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller, who opposes the higher donation limits and the recommendation to permit organizational contributions.

Two weeks ago, Miller warned the task force that he would refuse to enforce the election law if some of the proposed changes, which he said would “foster massive mischief,” were approved. Steve Casey, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office, said Friday that Miller will wait to review the task force’s final recommendations before deciding on a course of action.

Initially proposed by Councilman William Jones, the task force was set up in the wake of Mayor Roger Hedgecock’s indictment on charges stemming from alleged illegal campaign contributions. The mayor was found guilty by a Superior Court jury last month, but his lawyers are seeking to reverse the 13-count felony conviction because of allegations of jury tampering.

Another major motivation behind establishing the task force, however, was a widespread perception among political observers that the $250 limit needed to be increased to reflect inflation, and that current disclosure and enforcement procedures should be reviewed in light of the changing nature of campaigns--particularly, the larger amounts spent in local races and the increasing use of professional consultants.

The proposed increase in individual donations to $500 was approved by an 8-7 vote, with proponents arguing that the increase will help compensate for the effects of inflation over the last 12 years and perhaps help challengers to mount stronger campaigns.

“The campaign limit of $250 works to the detriment of challengers,” said James Leahy, a professor at California Western University School of Law who chaired the task force’s contributions subcommittee. “A $500 limit allows challengers to do a better job.”

Local politicians have complained for years that, at a time of million-dollar mayoral campaigns and six-figure council races, the $250 limit is a severe burden, particularly for challengers running against better-known incumbents, and may, in fact, prompt some candidates to search for loopholes. Moreover, critics argue that the current limit is an unrealistically low one that favors rich candidates (any candidate can spend an unlimited amount of his or her own money) over opponents of more modest means, and forces candidates to spend much of their time raising money instead of discussing issues.

Political consultant Ken Rietz argued that a higher contribution limit also could “broaden the base of candidates who can run for office in San Diego.” The current $250 limit, Rietz contended, has largely “narrowed the field . . . to candidates who have the ability to loan (their campaigns) money.”

A coalition of business leaders and developers strongly opposed the proposed increase, with some businessmen complaining that higher donation limits likely will cause candidates to view them as “deep pockets” that can be counted on to give even more money to campaigns. A position statement from the Building Industry Assn. of San Diego County, for example, predicted that doubling the contribution limit would merely produce “more money from fewer voters.”

“There’s a strong feeling . . . that there are already sufficient funds out there to run campaigns,” said John Leppert, a board member of the San Diego Chamber of Commerce.

Tempers flared briefly during the debate when Mark Zerbe, the San Diego coordinator of Common Cause, suggested that the only “people clamoring to raise” the contribution limit were some of his fellow task force members who “by their votes here today, will be putting more money in their own pockets.”

Zerbe’s comments apparently were directed at several consultants, professional fund-raisers and campaign treasurers who serve on the task force, and drew quick and sharp rejoinders.

“I’m tired of all this talk . . . that some members of this committee are lining their own pockets,” said Vic Ioppolo, a retired insurance executive who has worked in local campaigns. “I want an apology.”

Zerbe responded by praising some of his task force colleagues for doing “an excellent job,” but reiterated his belief that others should have abstained from voting on the proposed election-law revisions because they “are going to be directly benefiting” from the votes. Chairman Nelson stressed that the City Council, not the task force, will ultimately decide whether to change local election laws.

While the current law bans political contributions from businesses and other organizations, the task force recommended that corporations be allowed to contribute as much as $250 per election to candidates.

Noting that San Diego is one of the few California cities that allow only individual contributions, Leahy argued that permitting corporate donations could broaden the base of contributors.

Caryl Iseman, a real estate broker and unsuccessful state Assembly candidate, expressed concern that the proposed election-law amendment could produce a “proliferation of contributions that will be harder to track” and could encourage people to try “to circumvent the campaign limits by forming more than one corporation.”

Zerbe also contended that such a change would “build inequality into the system” because it would allow individuals who own various businesses to give multiple contributions.

“If I own a corporation, why should I be able to give more . . . than other people?” Zerbe asked.

Hoping to close one potential loophole--and also to address some of Miller’s concerns--the task force voted that only corporate checks “drawn on accounts formed for the sole purpose of operating a business” could be contributed to candidates.

That provision is designed to prevent donations from corporations formed more for political than business purposes. Casey said that he is uncertain whether the measure eliminates Miller’s concern that permitting organizational contributions would “subvert . . . this city’s goal of limiting the contributions permitted from any individual.”

Miller “regards that whole area as fraught with peril, not the least of which is enforcement,” Casey said. “Whether or not this satisfies all of his concerns is something we won’t know until we’ve had time to review it.”