Deukmejian Far Ahead of Bradley in Race for Money

Mayor Tom Bradley has lost major business contributions, has failed to establish a statewide fund-raising network and has relied on his home county of Los Angeles and out-of-state supporters to finance his campaign, with little help from a traditional Democratic bastion, the liberal San Francisco Bay Area.

Republican Gov. George Deukmejian, on the other hand, has raised $8.8 million--far beyond Bradley’s $3 million--because Deukmejian has contributors all over the state, plus the overwhelming financial support of the state’s business leaders, who are backing an incumbent whose philosophy is consistent with theirs.

Those were the findings of a Los Angeles Times Poll study of campaign contributions for the gubernatorial campaign. It shed light on why the Democratic candidate is so far behind Deukmejian in fund-raising and is now planning to borrow up to $2 million to finance television commercials in the final days before the election.

Power of Incumbency

One example of the power of Deukmejian’s incumbency--and business approval of his policies--is Arco. The big oil company gave $21,500 to Bradley and $64,350 to Deukmejian four years ago, according to Al Greenstein, manager of media relations. This year, Arco has given $50,000 to Deukmejian and only $6,250 to Bradley.

Another is Security Pacific National Bank. “We gave to both candidates four years ago (when they ran against each other the first time) and it was an open race (with no incumbent),” said Owen Guenthard, vice president in charge of public relations. “Now we feel the incumbent has done a good job so there is no reason for a change.”

The study of more than 9,000 contributors by The Times Poll, directed by I. A. Lewis, covered the first six months of this year. It does not reflect a major Los Angeles fund-raising dinner by Bradley last week, which aides said brought in about $350,000, or other recent Bradley efforts, including a $500-a-person dinner this week to be staged by Westside Jewish supporters at Jimmy’s Restaurant.

Nor does it include fund-raising by the governor through much of the summer. Those activities will be reflected in reports due to be filed this week.

Among the major findings of the Times Poll study were:

- Deukmejian collected $8,816,467 to Bradley’s $3,080,911 in the first six months of this year.

- Deukmejian, in contrast to Bradley, is collecting money from all over the state, ranging from Los Angeles County, through the agricultural-rich Central Valley, in the high-tech Silicon Valley, even collecting more than Bradley in the San Francisco Bay Area, which, for the most part, is Democratic in registration and in voting patterns.

- Deukmejian’s support is overwhelmingly white, while Bradley’s backers are more of a racial mix and include substantially more blacks. Deukmejian got the vast majority of Catholic and Protestant contributors. But Bradley got more Jewish contributors.

- Business, never strong for Bradley in this year’s gubernatorial race, is slipping away from him even more as Election Day approaches. In the latest survey, Deukmejian had received $6,260,387 from major business interests. Bradley had received $1,804,073 from these same business sources.

Backbone of Economy

The biggest reason Bradley is trailing Deukmejian so badly is because he has been snubbed by most of the firms that are the backbone of California’s economy--manufacturing, oil, aerospace, electronics, computers, agribusiness, power utilities, banking and insurance.

Deukmejian’s biggest business support came from real estate, which includes builders, developers, engineers and architects--$1.6 million, three times as much as they gave to Bradley.

That fact--and the size of contributions--points up how Deukmejian’s incumbency has allowed him to broaden his base over 1982, when both men were trying for the governorship. At the same time that year, Deukmejian was getting 12.6% of his money--$281,395--from agribusiness, then his No. 1 contributor at a time when growers, processors and other farm-related businesses were an early mainstay of his support. This year, agribusiness has given more money, $668,000. But, showing how broad-based the incumbent’s contributor list has become, this is just 7% of Deukmejian’s total.

What is also striking is the size of Deukmejian’s 1982 gubernatorial campaign contributions as compared to this year, another indication of the power of incumbency. At this time four years ago, Deukmejian had raised $2.3 million--a quarter of what he has in the bank today. Bradley had raised $2.27 million, slightly less than the $3 million that he has raised this year.

In 1982, Bradley got the biggest chunk of his campaign funds--12.3%, or $210,895--from labor unions. This year, the unions gave him $203,420, but other sources gave him much more.

Pressure From Merksamer

Tom Quinn, Bradley’s campaign chairman, said one reason that business interests--particularly those affected by state regulations, such as oil, utility and banking companies--are not contributing to Bradley is because of pressure from Steven A. Merksamer, Deukmejian’s executive secretary and chief of staff.

“I was told by several people that Steve Merksamer went to business interests and urged them not to contribute to Bradley,” Quinn said in an interview.

Asked to specify the business interests, Quinn said “it might be wise” to check Southern California Edison Co., Arco, Unocal and Security Pacific National Bank. Asked what the results were, Quinn said: “They seemed to resent the tactic a bit, but it was effective. There is a feeling that Deukmejian is willing to use his power to the maximum to help or not to help those that he likes or doesn’t like.”

Merksamer vigorously denied Quinn’s charge. “That’s just a bunch of nonsense,” he said. “Rather than point the finger at us for Bradley’s lack of ability to generate support in the business community, he (Quinn) ought to realize that it is the fault of his own candidate. He (Bradley) obviously is not generating any enthusiasm or support among the business community. That is why they are experiencing fund-raising difficulties.”

Spokesmen for Edison, Arco, Unocal and Security Pacific all denied Quinn’s charge.

Lewis Phelps, Edison’s manager of corporate communications, said, “To the best of my knowledge, there has been no pressure from the governor’s office on the matter of campaign contributions.”

Hal Shawlee, manager of civic and regional governmental affairs for Unocal, said: “I know nothing about that. I have never heard of it. I am surprised anyone would even suggest Steve Merksamer would do anything like that.”

Creative Financing

The Bradley campaign’s shortage of money has forced it to use creative financing to pay for television commercials in the final weeks of the campaign to match Deukmejian’s advertising blitz, which is already under way.

A series of loans totaling up to $2 million is planned, double what the mayor borrowed in 1982, Quinn said. Bradley “has given me authority to put it together but not to spend it,” Quinn said, and the mayor will make the final decision.

Key Bradley supporters throughout the state are being asked to assemble loan packages. Last Saturday in Modesto, Frank Damrell, a prominent Democratic attorney, was invited to ride in a car with Bradley from the airport and the mayor asked him to contact potential Modesto-area lenders.

Damrell said although the mayor mentioned no specific amount, he felt the campaign would like to see him put together a $25,000 loan package. “I did not commit a specific figure to the mayor, but $25,000 is a goal we would shoot for and I reasonably expect to see that,” he said.

Quinn said Bradley was reluctant to borrow, saying, “The worst thing would be to lose the election and end up with a big deficit.”

But Quinn said he replied: “I said, no, the worst thing would be not to have any debt and barely lose the election. My concept is that it is better to borrow and win than be debt-free and lose.”

Asked if he saw anything wrong with a candidate going so deeply into debt, Quinn said: “No, it is very standard in Democratic campaigns because costs are so enormous at the end. You can’t raise enough money.”

TV Exposure Curbed

The shortage of money has sharply limited Bradley’s television commercial exposure. And Deukmejian’s big campaign treasury has increased the pressure on the mayor to raise more money.

“If McDonald’s spends a certain amount of money on advertising, Burger King and Wendy’s have to do it too,” Quinn said.

So far, campaign aides have canceled previously booked time to save money. “If we can match Deukmejian in television spending we can win, but we are not going to match his spending. The question is, is one-half enough, is one-third enough?”

The Times Poll study of contributors points up the difficulty of Bradley matching Deukmejian or even coming close in campaign contributions.

Looking at the contributors geographically reveals bad news for Bradley.

The biggest share of Bradley contributors--74%--comes from Los Angeles County and 13% from out of state, many of them from Eastern financial houses and attorneys involved in handling the city’s municipal bonds. On the other hand, just 38% of Deukmejian’s contributors are from Los Angeles, and 2% are from out of state. However, in dollar amounts, Deukmejian leads Bradley 2 to 1 in Los Angeles County fund-raising.

The governor is strong throughout the state, receiving four times as much money as Bradley from the Silicon Valley, the Santa Clara County high-tech center. In the Central Valley, he has all but shut out Bradley. And in the San Francisco Bay Area, where Bradley hopes to strongly outpoll Deukmejian, the governor has three contributors for every one listed by Bradley.

Bradley has been working hard to increase his Bay Area total. A $200-a-person fund-raiser was held for Bradley in San Francisco’s Fairmont Hotel in mid-September.

Republican Strongholds

Bradley’s failure to pull money out of his potential stronghold contrasts with the governor’s ability to tap his Republican areas for money. In Orange County and the Inland Empire, the governor lists four times as many contributors as Bradley. In the San Diego area, the Deukmejian margin is a whopping 8 to 1 over Bradley.

Another indication of Bradley’s failure so far to pull money from his base are the contributions from those who say they are union members. Although the unions themselves are overwhelmingly supporting Bradley, 52% of the union members who contributed as individuals gave to Deukmejian.

And Deukmejian is receiving more contributions from Democrats than Bradley is getting from Republicans. While 21% of Deukmejian’s contributors list themselves as Democrats, only 7% of Bradley’s contributors are Republicans.

There are two bright spots for Bradley. One is that more blacks are contributing to his campaign, and the other is that he is retaining Jewish support, despite Deukmejian’s effort to chip away at it.

Blacks have contributed $130,941 to Bradley’s campaign, but more significant is the fact that their percentage has jumped from 9% in the primary to 28% now. That reflects an intensive Bradley effort to raise money from the growing number of young black professionals.

Melanie Lomax, a black attorney who gave $5,166 to Bradley, said: “I am a reasonably young woman, a lawyer and black. I am interested in professional opportunities for the younger generation, particularly minorities. I think that minorities and women will have a better opportunity with Tom Bradley in the Statehouse.”

Jewish contributors gave $288,575 to Bradley, but their percentage declined from 34% earlier in the year to 26% of his total. Some of Bradley’s supporters blamed the decline on the mayor’s poor showing in polls during the spring and on continued fallout over his delay in criticizing Louis Farrakhan, the black Muslim minister who made anti-Semitic remarks at a speech at the Forum.

“The Farrakhan thing faded away, as we knew it would,” said Bruce Corwin, a Jewish community leader who backs Bradley. “He apologized, in effect, to the Jewish community, and that issue is not an issue. Jews are primarily Democrats, and the Democrats in general are coming back into the fold, so it is not a Jewish issue anymore. I think early on people were creating it as an issue so they wouldn’t have to give because they did not believe Tom Bradley could win. It was a pass-the-buck kind of thing. Now they think he can win. Winning is everything and Bradley, outspent by a huge margin, is gaining.”

Research for this story was coordinated by Susan Pinkus of the Times Poll, assisted by Cecilia Rasmussen, city-county bureau administrative aide.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE GOVERNOR’S RACE These figures result from a Los Angeles Times Poll analysis of campaign reports filed with the Secretary of State’s office covering contributions from individuals and corporations between Jan. 1 and June 30. Tom Bradley Total Contributions: $3,080,911 DONORS BY GEOGRAPHY

% of Donors Los Angeles County 74% Orange County-San Diego 4% San Francisco Bay Area 3% Out of State 13%

MONEY FROM BUSINESS

Amount % of Donors $1,804,073 59%

DONORS BY BUSINESS CATEGORY

% of Donors Real Estate 501,196 24% Finance 444,541 18% Attorney 219,866 15% Service 247,504 15% Ent./Sports 159,961 11% Medical 90,503 7% Indus., Mfg. 61,537 4% Media 39,490 3% Hi-Tech 21,375 2% Transport. 18,100 1%

DONORS BY RACE

% of Donors White 59% Black 28% Asian 9% Latino 3%

DONORS BY RELIGIOUS GROUP

% of Donors Protestant 47% Jewish 26% Catholic 18%

George Deukmejian Total Contributions: $8,816,467 DONORS BY GEOGRAPHY

% of Donors Los Angeles County 38% Orange County-San Diego 22% San Francisco Bay Area 11% Out of State 2%

MONEY FROM BUSINESS

Amount % of Donors $6,260,387 71%

DONORS BY BUSINESS CATEGORY

% of Donors Real Estate 1,606,165 25% Finance 1,398,685 18% Service 939,402 17% Attorney 582,163 13% Medical 559,925 12% Indus., Mfg. 561,400 7% Hi-Tech 274,205 3% Ent./Sports 157,350 2% Media 93,645 2% Transport. 87,447 1%

DONORS BY RACE

% of Donors White 95% Asian 3% Black 1% Latino 1%

DONORS BY RELIGIOUS GROUP

% of Donors Protestant 61% Catholic 20% Jewish 5%