Billboard Firm Contributed to 3 Anaheim Election Funds

An outdoor advertising firm that is pushing to lift Anaheim’s longtime ban on freeway billboards has contributed thousands of dollars to three key city councilmen who are supporting the measure, campaign finance disclosures reveal.

While the councilmen said the contributions will not influence the way they vote, the issue has renewed debate in Anaheim over the importance of such contributions as a strategy to win favorable decisions.

“It’s certainly the case that they have been influenced (by the contributions),” said Mayor Pro Tem Miriam Kaywood, who opposes freeway billboards, even before a preliminary vote has been taken on the issue.

“It’s as plain as anything has ever been,” she said. “When you look at the amounts of money that have been thrown around, it is really quite amazing. If nothing else, it certainly gives off the impression of impropriety.”

Debated 3 Straight Years

The issue of whether to allow freeway billboards has led to contentious disagreement in nearly every city where it has been raised, but has been especially controversial in Anaheim, the county’s largest city, where freeway billboards have been debated for three straight years.

In 1986, the council gave preliminary approval to an ordinance that would have allowed some freeway billboards. But final approval was blocked after an intensive lobbying by outraged residents.

Campaign contributions became an issue in that debate as well. Financial documents revealed that in 1985, billboard firms contributed about $10,000 to three of the five Anaheim council members, with the largest amount--$5,750--going to Don R. Roth, now a county supervisor and then Anaheim’s mayor, who voted to lift the ban on freeway billboards.

The latest wrangle, however, involves primarily one company: Regency Outdoor Advertising Inc., a Los Angeles-based firm that has been the prime proponent in recent years of changing Anaheim’s 20-year-old ban.

Regency has been represented by Anaheim attorney Floyd L. Farano, one of the most active lawyers in representing business and development interests before the city.

Regency and Farano combined to contribute more than $22,000 in the last two years to Anaheim’s five City Council members.

In 1986-87, Regency contributed $9,050 to Mayor Ben Bay and Councilmen William D. Ehrle and Fred Hunter. All three have indicated support for lifting the freeway billboard ban.

Council members Kaywood and Irv Pickler, who have opposed allowing new freeway billboard construction, received no contributions from Regency in the last two years, although Regency has contributed to Pickler’s campaign in the past.

Ehrle, the newest member of the council, said campaign contributions are a political fact of life. He defended accepting Regency’s support. Of 1987 contributions totaling $232,000, about $3,700 was from Regency.

“The fact is, some people and businesses are going to contribute to campaigns and some parts of the public will perceive that in the wrong light,” he said.

“When people contribute to your campaign, it says that they believe in what you stand for, and it (the contribution) maybe ensures that you are going to give an issue a fair hearing. But I have a strong reputation of voting on a project based on its merits, not on who gave financial support.”

And Hunter, a lawyer, said he paid for his campaign for a council seat largely with his own money so he would not be indebted to special groups. Regency contributed $1,850 to Hunter in 1987, compared to $73,682 in total contributions to Hunter.

“I have the financial capability of running my own campaigns,” he said. “I can’t be bought by anyone. If somebody says I’m being influenced, they should go look at the records.”

Bay could not be reached for comment.

Money Ensures Access

Farano acknowledged that both he and Regency have contributed heavily to some council members but said the money merely ensures access to decision makers.

“Campaign contributions are not given for the purpose of influencing votes,” he said. “We give money to elect people whose philosophy is consistent with our own and who we want to see elected. At the most, it ensures that your calls are answered. If people think we have so much influence, they should look at the results. We have gotten zero from the council, and we have supported a number of candidates for a number of years.”

Supporters of the new proposal argue that it may be the only way to gain concessions from ad companies to remove existing billboards from inner-city locations.

The new law would reduce the city’s sign limit at street intersections from eight to four. It would also require conditional-use permits for all new billboards in the city and increase license fees charged to ad companies.

But opponents said lifting the freeway ban would mean more blight at a time when many cities are placing more restrictions on freeway billboard construction. They said the council can accomplish its goal of raising more revenues without lifting the freeway billboard ban.

And some opponents said such contributions raise broad ethical questions. “I don’t see how they can vote on this and believe they are giving it a fair hearing,” said Ann Bien, an Anaheim Hills billboard critic.

In fact, many observers said increasingly expensive elections leave local legislators vulnerable to influence-peddling and argued that cities should limit campaign contributions.

Five Orange County cities--Irvine, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Newport Beach and San Juan Capistrano--now have campaign spending limits, and the trend appears to be growing.

Last year, 17 cities and counties in the state adopted laws limiting campaign spending, said Robert Stern, general counsel for the California Commission on Campaign Financing.

“More and more money is being spent in local campaigns, and local governments seem to be more concerned that contributions might appear to influence votes,” he said.

Stern also said studies indicate that spending limits have little effect in lowering the overall amounts spent in campaigns but do “have an effect on people’s perceptions in that they feel a little bit better about government.”

Some proponents of spending limits said cities such as Anaheim should adopt ordinances patterned after that in the county, which prohibits a supervisor from voting on an issue if the issue’s sponsor has contributed more than $1,739 to the supervisor’s campaign.

“Most elected officials will never place something like that into law because it is admitting they’ve been naughty boys,” said Shirley Grindle, an east Orange area resident and former county planning commissioner who led the fight for the county’s so-called TINCUP ordinance.

“It takes citizens’ initiative to force such changes. But I think the issue of campaign spending is of more and more concern in cities throughout the county.”

According to the Commission on Campaign Financing, only Santa Barbara and Modesto have such ordinances.

Aside from the issue of campaign contributions, Anaheim’s proposed ad ordinance has generated criticism from other advertising agencies that have supported lifting similar freeway billboard bans in other communities. They said the ordinance would benefit Regency at the expense of competitors who might be forced to remove inner-city signs. Regency, they said, holds few inner-city permits but has recently moved to acquire the available state permits for freeway locations in the city.

“Our company is not opposed, in principal, to a sign ordinance allowing billboards along Anaheim freeways,” said Lydia Sullivan, a public affairs representative for the Los-Angeles-based Gannett Outdoor Co.

“However, we vehemently oppose the current proposal, which is specially designed for one company. . . . We are prepared to support a freeway ordinance only if all companies benefit equally, and we can retain our ability to replace lost signage in the inner city.”

Farano said Regency has gained state permits and leasing land next to freeways because it has worked “harder at it” than other companies, but he denied that Regency has secured all of the available permits.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM BILLBOARD INTERESTS

Contributions to Anaheim City Council members for the two-year period of 1986-1987.

3Foster Member 1Regency 2Farano Kleiser 4Metro Total Bill Ehrle $4,700 $5,495 $0 $0 $10,195 Ben Bay 2,500 3,450 0 0 5,950 Fred Hunter 1,850 1,750 0 0 3,600 Irv Pickler 0 2,250 $125 $375 2,750 Miriam Kaywood 0 250 0 0 250 Totals 9,050 13,195 $125 $375 22,745

Contributors:

1 Regency Outdoor Advertising Inc., of Los Angeles.

2 Floyd Farano, an Anaheim attorney representing Regency on the billboard ordinance, which the company proposed.

3 Foster Kleiser, Los Angeles. (now Patrick Media Group of Los Angeles).

4 Metro Outdoor Advertising Inc., of Oakland.

Source: Candidate Campaign Statements