Campaign Funds Buy a Lot of Extras for S.D. Lawmakers

California’s political campaign expenses are surging upward, but the direct cost of running for election represents only a portion of how lawmakers use their considerable political campaign funds, a review of San Diego legislators’ campaign finance reports shows.

With few legal restrictions on how they use their political funds and, often, little competition in their reelection campaigns, legislators often spend the money on such things as travel, gifts for staff members and friends, and expensive meals at fine restaurants.

They buy tickets to civic events, contribute to charitable causes and donate money to other political campaigns.

One lawmaker buys new suits with campaign money and pays for hotel rooms in San Diego--his hometown--the night before he is slated to give a morning speech.

Such spending is accentuated during the odd-numbered years, when no legislative elections are scheduled.

Together, the 11 lawmakers who represent San Diego County spent $758,104 from their campaign funds during 1987. Of that amount, a little more than one-third went for such direct campaign costs as professional consultants, advertising, and mailings. Another 12% was spent raising more funds for the 1988 election year.

That left more than half of the money, or $433,455, to be spent on items that even many lawmakers concede are not crucial to their reelection hopes.

Some examples:

- Assemblywoman Sunny Mojonnier (R-Encinitas) spent at least $6,224 on trips to conferences in Honolulu; Hartford, Conn.; Indianapolis; Washington, and Palm Springs. She spent campaign funds on meals costing at least $100 a piece at Cafe Pacifica and Fat City in San Diego, Remington’s in Del Mar and Frank Fat’s in Sacramento.

- Sen. William Craven (R-Oceanside) spent $299 on trinkets at an Auckland, New Zealand, jewelry shop. Craven also spent $2,312 on meals at some of San Diego and Sacramento’s finer restaurants.

- Assemblyman Pete Chacon (D-San Diego) spent $430 for business suits at Men’s Limited in Sacramento, $486 to take several staff members to a weekend retreat at a Sierra resort, and $1,108 for stays at San Diego hotel rooms which he said were associated with several speaking engagements.

- Sen. Jim Ellis (R-San Diego) used his campaign fund to pay for an $805 medical exam at Scripps Clinic in La Jolla.

- Sen. Wadie Deddeh (D-Chula Vista) donated $11,552 to 53 charitable groups and used his campaign fund to pay for a portion of his travel to the Far East, much of which his office says he plans to reimburse to the campaign.

Lawmakers justify their spending on travel, meals, gifts and donations by saying that such items improve their political image, reward friends for campaign assistance and help woo new supporters. They say that such indirect campaigning can be as valuable as sending slickly printed brochures to voters at election time.

Some legislators say they also spend campaign funds on items related to their jobs but for which they are reluctant to spend taxpayers’ money, even though they could legally do so.

State law forbids the spending of campaign money for personal purposes. But that law, enacted in 1981, has been narrowly interpreted by the state attorney general’s office to allow lawmakers to spend campaign funds for almost anything that can be remotely tied to politics.

No legislator has ever been prosecuted for a violation of the provision, though the attorney general’s office is now reviewing Ellis’ use of campaign funds to pay a medical bill. After the attorney general’s office advised Ellis not to use campaign money for the bill, the senator got a second opinion from the Legislature’s lawyer, who told him the expense would be within the law.

Critics say that because legislators have the freedom to spend their campaign funds almost as they please, contributions from special interest groups, supposedly to finance election activity, have instead become the equivalent of personal gifts to lawmakers.

Ever-Rising Campaign Costs

The critics say this extra spending adds unnecessarily to ever-rising campaign costs, which in turn leads to more fund-raising and, they complain, arm-twisting of businesses and individuals who have an interest in state legislation.

During 1985 and 1986, candidates statewide spent $57.1 million in races for 100 legislative seats. That number was up almost 30% over the 1984 election cycle, when $44.8 million was spent on campaigns for the Legislature.

Walter Zelman, executive director of Common Cause, a private group that monitors political fund-raising and spending, said his group is concerned about the impact of off-year campaign expenditures.

“Large amounts spent in the off-year force the incumbents to raise more money, and the more money they have to raise, the more indebted they are to people who can contribute that kind of money,” Zelman said.

Common Cause supports a measure on the June 7 ballot which would ban campaign fund-raising during years in which no elections are held and limit spending to $375,000 in Assembly elections and $600,000 for the Senate. Zelman said the ballot measure, if approved by the voters, would likely lead to a reduction in what he believes are expenses unnecessarily charged to campaign funds.

“By cutting off the ability of incumbents to raise money in the off-year, you are going to dramatically impact their ability and readiness to spend money in the off-year,” Zelman said. “They’re not going to have $50,000 or $100,000 to spend on things they don’t have to spend money for.”

Robert Stern, general counsel of the California Commission on Campaign Financing, another private nonpartisan group that studies campaign contributions and spending, said he believes much of the off-year spending is fueled by the ease with which incumbent lawmakers cruise to reelection.

“If they don’t have any competition, there is no need to save it (campaign money) for their election costs,” Stern said. “If they’re faced with a tough election, then they want to hold on to the money and spend it for the most direct ways of communicating with their constituents.”

Example of Killea’s Spending

Stern’s point is supported by the example of Assemblywoman Lucy Killea. Killea, a San Diego Democrat, is the only member of the Legislature from San Diego County who figures to face a tough reelection fight this year. While all the others represent districts with voter registration numbers heavily stacked to their party’s advantage, Killea’s 78th Assembly District is evenly divided among Democrats and Republicans.

Yet Killea spent just $11,834 in campaign funds during 1987--far less than any other San Diego lawmaker. The next most frugal member was Assemblyman Bill Bradley (R-San Marcos), who spent $41,509 last year.

Of what Killea did spend, almost half went toward raising more money for 1988. She spent another large chunk paying her air fare between Sacramento and San Diego before the Legislature decided in August to start picking up the tab for such trips.

Killea spent almost no money from her campaign fund for meals, flowers or gifts. Other than her San Diego to Sacramento commute, she charged no air fare to her campaign, and did not book a single hotel room. Unlike some other lawmakers, Killea did not use her campaign fund to shuttle her staff members between the capital and her home district.

Killea said that she, like her colleagues, donates to charities and takes friends and supporters out to dinner. But she said she pays for such items out of her own pocket because she wants to “save every nickel” of campaign funds for her election battles.

“Maybe I would do more of that if I had campaign funds to spend on it,” Killea said. “It’s not a moral issue; it’s just pragmatic. I spend it on high priority things, and by the time I do that, it’s gone. I’m very careful about the dividing line because I know I’m going to need that money when campaign time rolls around.”

Other lawmakers, however, say they can avoid a tough race for reelection by spending on items which at first glance might appear frivolous.

“You could put them all in the category of public relations,” said Assemblyman Chacon. “All of this is a very strong public relations program which gives an incumbent an advantage over someone who isn’t able to do that.”

Assemblyman Larry Stirling (R-San Diego) said he used campaign funds to pay for eight San Diego Zoological Society memberships he gave as gifts “because it seemed like a public spirited way to support the zoo and thank my staff and a few volunteers for doing a good job.”

Money Spent on Flowers

Stirling frequently uses campaign funds to pay for bouquets of flowers he sends to constituents, often in sympathy for the loss of a loved one.

“There are a number of distinguished citizens to whom, for one reason or another, it is appropriate to send flowers,” Stirling said. “On $37,000 a year, it’s not possible for me to afford that. So we use campaign money for that.”

Chacon said he spends campaign money on clothes because he needs to dress well to be an effective legislator.

“It certainly is a requirement that I dress appropriately to do the job,” said Chacon, who last year spent $430 for suits at a men’s store in Sacramento. “I wear clothes out very fast. If you wear suits every day and change them every day, you wear them out.”

Chacon and Assemblywoman Mojonnier have both used campaign funds for hotel rooms in San Diego, but they cite different reasons for doing so.

Chacon said he likes to spend the night before a speech at the hotel where he will be speaking so that he can socialize with people attending a conference or convention and pick up items for his address the next morning. Mojonnier said she often stays in Coronado or San Diego overnight rather than returning to her home, which is in Encinitas.

“Often if I’ve had a conference at a hotel in San Diego I will just stay there,” Mojonnier said. “There’s the possibility that I might have had something to drink. And with the kind of schedule I keep I’m usually so tired and it’s closer to the airport than going home and then driving back down 45 minutes in the morning.”

Assemblyman Bill Bradley (R-San Marcos) said he used campaign money for $3,200 in expenses on a trip to Israel last year because the excursion helped acquaint him with issues ranging from trade to technology that are of interest to the Legislature.

“I asked questions critical to San Diego, about water problems and their marketing program for citrus,” Bradley said. “They’re planting avocados and oranges like crazy. They’ve practically put us out of business in Europe.”

Sen. Craven used campaign money to pay for a portion of a state-paid trip to London to open a California trade office. And while in New Zealand on another trade mission, this one paid for by California business groups, Craven spent $299 in campaign funds at a jewelry store in Auckland.

“I bought things to give to staff people and constituents,,” he said.

Craven is the member of San Diego’s legislative delegation who uses his campaign fund most often to take supporters out to lunch or dinner. If he were a businessman, Craven argues, such meals would be paid for by his employer.

‘The Business of Government’

“We’re in the business of government,” he said. “One of the things that’s very important is being with and among your people, understanding attitudes for and against various measures and finding out what they think. There’s nothing that replaces physical contact with them. A letter is fine, but being able to sit down with you and talk to you face to face is very important.”

Mojonnier said many of the meal tabs on her campaign expense account were for sessions with her staff members.

“It’s very difficult to sit in the office and get anything done,” Mojonnier said. “It’s a lot easier to go out and have our meal, go to (Frank) Fat’s (in Sacramento), go upstairs and spread our work out and do our work.”

Craven and Sen. Deddeh are the delegation’s most generous contributors to charitable causes. Craven said he turns down more requests than he grants, while Deddeh said he sends a check for some amount to virtually every legitimate organization that requests one.

Bradley said his contributions to charity are not done with any political dividend in mind.

“No doubt there’s a fringe benefit there that your name gets before that group and they say what a nice guy you are when election time comes,” Bradley said. “They probably do give you a nod over someone else. There is a benefit but that’s not why I do it.”

A few legislators, on the other hand, give hardly any funds to charitable groups. One of those, Assemblyman Robert Frazee (R-Carlsbad), said he keeps his contributions at a minimum out of fear that he will give his constituents the wrong impression.

“Generally the public believes legislators have some kind of expense account or slush fund available,” Frazee said. “I try to be a little careful on what I do and not open the door so that people say ‘Gee, you gave to this organization, why not all the others?”’