City Atty.’s Office Assailed on Growth of ‘Slush Funds’

Sponsors of the Los Angeles campaign contribution Charter amendment passed by voters last April assailed the city attorney’s office Tuesday, calling it a “gross misinterpretation” of the law to permit city officials to amass what the sponsors called “slush funds” in violation of the amendment.

“A number of city officials and candidates for city office may not be complying with the campaign finance limitations and . . . it appears that (in) at least some of these instances, the parties violating the campaign finance law are purporting to rely on ambiguous and/or misleading advice from the office of the city attorney,” said a letter sent to City Atty. James K. Hahn and signed by officials of Common Cause and the Center for Law in the Public Interest.

The law was passed by 77% of voters in response to complaints that special interests had too much influence over local officeholders, who were allowed to receive as much from contributors as the donors were willing to give. The amendment established a $1,000 ceiling per contributor to candidates running for mayor and other citywide offices. A $500 limit from each donor was placed on contributions to City Council candidates.

According to recent campaign disclosure reports filed last month with the city clerk’s office, at least four council members--John Ferraro, Joan Milke Flores, Gilbert Lindsay and Michael Woo--have received campaign contributions larger than $500 since the law took effect July 1.

Walter Zelman, executive director of Common Cause of California, said in an interview that the advice being given by the city attorney’s office is creating “slush funds” for local officials.

“The city attorney is apparently allowing incumbents to raise as much money as they want as long as it’s not being used specifically for a city election,” Zelman said. “If money is raised for so-called general purposes, under the law, we’re saying that’s a slush fund.

“We’re not saying anybody has done anything wrong,” he added. “We’re saying the informal advice the city attorney’s office is apparently giving is not accurate, it’s a gross misinterpretation of the Charter amendment.” Mike Qualls, a spokesman for Hahn, said Tuesday that Hahn “has not personally received Zelman’s letter yet” and declined specific comment. Fred Woocher, an attorney with the Center for Law in the Public Interest, said that he and Common Cause officials wanted to raise the questions now because several fund-raisers are planned by city officials in the next few weeks “and we want to cut down on potential problems.”