Ambiguities Force Interpretations : Law on Using Campaign Funds Is Still Unclear

Because there have been no prosecutions under the law that bars personal use of campaign funds, just how far an officeholder can go without violating it remains unsettled.

The law, which went into effect in January, 1982, flatly states that campaign funds “shall not be used for personal use.” But the act was purposely constructed with loopholes to win legislative approval.

The ambiguities have forced many state and local officials to turn to the state attorney general for help in interpreting the law.

In a series of advice letters and formal opinions, the attorney general’s staff has in recent years become increasingly tough on how campaign money can be used.

Among the issues covered in that advice are:

- Legal fees. Officeholders and candidates can use campaign funds to pay legal costs for cases that are connected to their conduct in office or in a campaign. A number of legislators have done so, most notably Sen. Barry Keene (D-Benicia), who paid about $10,000 from his campaign treasury to take a case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Keene unsuccessfully challenged a 1942 federal law that required three Canadian films on acid rain and nuclear war to be labeled as “propaganda.” Keene said that the court case was connected to his state office because the films, which he showed in the Capitol, raised issues of importance to his constituents, and because an opponent might have used the “propaganda” label against him in an election campaign.

But when former West Hollywood Mayor Valerie Terrigno asked last year if she could use campaign money to pay for her defense on federal embezzling charges, Deputy Atty. Gen. Ted Prim said no. Prim pointed out that the charges against Terrigno stemmed from events prior to Terrigno’s taking office, when she headed a federally funded anti-poverty program, and that they did not arise from campaign-related activities. Terrigno was convicted and forfeited her office.

- Health care. Sen. Jim Ellis (R-San Diego) asked the attorney general’s office last year if he could use campaign funds to pay for a physical examination at San Diego’s Scripps Clinic. “The result,” he wrote, “will determine whether or not I will be a candidate for reelection in 1988.” But the answer was an emphatic no.

Similarly, Assemblyman Bill Bradley (R-San Marcos) was flatly refused when he asked if he could use contributions to pay health club dues.

- Funeral expenses. When the campaign treasurer for former Long Beach City Councilman Jim Wilson asked if campaign money could be used to pay for Wilson’s hospital bills and funeral expenses, Prim concluded that the use would be improper. (Wilson died from a heart attack last year, only weeks after he was sentenced to three years in prison for mail fraud.) Under the statute, when an official leaves office, any remaining campaign money can be used only to fund a future campaign, support another candidate or ballot issue, pay off campaign debts, make charitable contributions or repay contributors.

In a 1983 opinion, Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp made it clear that officeholders cannot even decide how any surplus campaign funds might be used should they die in office. Van de Kamp told Sen. Alfred E. Alquist (D-San Jose) that a campaign committee is free to follow distribution of funds outlined in an elected official’s will, but is not bound to do so.

- Sports events. Last year, Assemblyman Curtis R. Tucker (D-Inglewood) asked if he could use campaign funds to purchase tickets to Los Angeles Lakers games. “The Forum is in my district, and because of this, I guess, a lot of people think I get free tickets,” he wrote in a letter to Van de Kamp. “I do not get free tickets, I never have, and I probably never will.” Deputy Atty. Gen. Prim responded that Tucker could use campaign funds to purchase and give away Lakers tickets, something that Tucker subsequently decided not to do. But a number of other lawmakers do pay for tickets to sports events with campaign funds.

- Refrigerators. Soon after the ban on personal use of campaign funds, Assemblyman John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara) sought advice on whether he could use campaign funds to buy a refrigerator for his Capitol office. He could, Chief Assistant Atty. Gen. Richard D. Martland wrote.

A refrigerator “fosters ambiance, collegiality and good will among colleagues and staff,” Martland wrote. “Only a grunch (sic) would deny its indispensable features.” Subsequently, many state elected officials have used campaign funds to purchase refrigerators and microwave ovens for their campaign and state offices.

- Clothes. When a candidate in 1982 asked whether he could spend campaign funds “to purchase clothing or other apparel (for) image building as suggested by a campaign consulting firm,” Assistant Atty. Gen. Martland replied that “the purchase of a reasonable wardrobe for campaign purposes would, in my opinion, constitute a lawful use of campaign funds.” However, Martland said in a recent interview that today he might not be so liberal in his advice on clothing that could also be used for non-campaign purposes.