The Greening of Beverly Hills Politics : Candidates, Critics Call Spending ‘Obscene’

Running for office in Beverly Hills is an expensive proposition.

In a city where grass-roots techniques such as house-to-house precinct walking can be hampered by residential security systems or servants tending the door, political consultants say a candidate needs at least $50,000 to run a viable campaign.

The contenders don’t always stop there: In recent years, some City Council candidates spent nearly $100,000 to campaign for a job that pays $330 a month.

This year’s campaign promises to be as costly. Two of the 13 City Council candidates reported spending $25,000 each during the first two weeks of the two-month season leading to the April 12 election. Interviews with the candidates show that the most expensive campaigns this year are likely to be between $70,000 and $80,000.

“For a city of 32,000, it is clearly unusual,” said Robert M. Stern, co-director of the California Commission on Campaign Financing, a nonprofit organization studying local campaign funding. “Beverly Hills may be the most expensive local race on a cost-per-vote basis.”

$28 Per Vote

Since about 7,000 of the city’s 20,000 registered voters actually cast ballots, a $100,000 campaign equals more than $14 per potential vote. Since 3,500 votes are usually enough to win, a winner who spends $100,000 pays $28 a vote.

Critics complain that the cost of running for office is keeping some potential candidates out of Beverly Hills politics.

Candidates and political consultants agree that the spending in Beverly Hills elections is getting out of hand. But they are also quick to note that, for now, it’s necessary if a candidate expects to make a serious run at office.

“I find it appalling, but I have to deal with it realistically,” said council candidate Allan L. Alexander. He said he probably will spend between $40,000 and $50,000 in his campaign.

“I think it’s ridiculous,” said longtime political consultant Rudy Cole. “But candidates think, ‘It’s something I have to do if I want to win.’ ”

“I think its obscene,” said council candidate Ellen Stern Harris, whose campaign budget is $25,000. “Why anybody feels the need to pay $50,000 to serve in a position that is not a full-time job is beyond me.”

Even Councilman Maxwell H. Salter, who spent $97,000 in 1986 to win one of two City Council seats, says the spending is too high.

“I honestly think that we should make a sincere, concerted effort to limit the spending,” he said. “Looking back, I would have to say that I did more good walking door-to-door than spending all that money” on mailers.

Stern said several factors contribute to the high cost of campaigns.

He said the amount spent is determined by the amount of competition and a candidate’s chance of winning--not by the affluence or size of the community.

In San Marino, a San Gabriel Valley city of 14,000 with an affluent population similar to Beverly Hills’, City Council campaigns have traditionally cost only a few thousand dollars, according to City Manager John Nowak.

“They send out a mailer and maybe put up some lawn signs, and that’s about it,” said Nowak. In this year’s race, six candidates, including one incumbent, are running for three council seats.

Torrance, a middle-class South Bay community, has a population (140,000) four times greater than Beverly Hills, and voter registration (72,000) more than three times greater. Yet the most expensive campaigns ($25,000) cost one-fourth of what is spent on the most expensive campaigns in Beverly Hills.

Candidates and consultants say the biggest cost of a campaign is printing and mailing literature, which runs between $5,000 and $10,000 per mailing.

Even though voter turnout in Beverly Hills is generally only 30%, literature is sent to all 20,000 voters, or about 15,000 households.

“You have to try to get the public interested,” said Councilwoman Charlotte Spadaro, who spent $127,000 in 1984 to get elected. “There is a perception among the public that those not willing to spend the money will not be taken seriously.”

There is also the “fear factor,” Stern said. “The fear that if you don’t spend $50,000, your opponent will. If all sides were limited you wouldn’t have a fear factor.”

In the 1986 race for two council seats, Salter said he bought a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times Westside section for about $6,000 only after another candidate, incumbent Councilwoman Annabelle Heiferman, bought one.

Consultants ‘Helpful’

“Nobody wants to take a chance and later say, ‘I should have spent that extra few thousand,’ ” Salter said.

Heiferman said she bought the ad--which would cost about $7,600 today--because her consultants told her that if she didn’t it would show “weakness.”

Stern said another factor contributing to the high cost of campaigns is that they are becoming more professional. He said candidates are paying between $5,000 and $20,000 for political consultants and sophisticated mailers.

“I think it is helpful because those of us that are running are not professionals,” said candidate Alexander, who has hired a consultant at a cost of about $9,000. “I do need assistance from someone who has experience, who can advise me.”

Spadaro said hiring people to work on a campaign is easier than trying to get volunteers.

“It is possible to do a volunteer campaign, but it has become easier to reach the public through mailers and advertising,” she said. “People are very busy. Instead of hand delivering literature door-to-door, you mail it. Instead of having people address envelopes, you have labeling done by a machine.”

Old-Fashioned Way

Ellman said old-fashioned precinct-walking is the best way to get the message across, but it poses difficulties in Beverly Hills.

“It is the most effective, but it is also the most difficult,” she said. “Quite often nobody is home during the day but the housekeeper, and usually the housekeeper can’t vote. And then, of course, there are many homes that you can’t even get to the front door because of security systems.

“If you try campaigning in front of grocery stores or other public places, you end up talking to mostly non-residents. During the day this is a city of mostly non-residents.”

Political consultant Gloria Grossman, who ran Councilman Robert K. Tanenbaum’s campaign two years ago and is a volunteer on Harris’ campaign, said operating on a limited budget is difficult.

People vs. Money

“Instead of using a Fax machine or a messenger service, we have people who will run all over town and do things for us,” said Grossman of Harris’ campaign. “We are at a disadvantage. It is awkward, but I’ll tell you, I would rather have people than money.”

Spending may be easy, but raising money is difficult, even in an affluent community like Beverly Hills. As a result, many candidates finance their own campaigns.

According to financial statements submitted for the first two weeks of the campaign, five of the 13 candidates have provided between $1,500 and $30,000 to their campaigns.

Five other candidates submitted statements saying they did not intend to raise or spend more than $1,000 on their campaigns.

Only two candidates, Vicki Reynolds and Harris, have had any real success raising money. Reynolds had raised nearly $40,000, much of that from large contributors, and Harris had raised about $7,000, most of her money coming from small donations.

Another candidate, 18-year-old Steven M. Foonberg, had raised about $3,275.

‘An Investment’

Candidate Mary Levin Cutler, a virtual unknown in city politics who has already put about $30,000 of her own money into her campaign, said she is willing to finance her bid for the City Council because it represents “an investment in maintaining the quality of life in Beverly Hills.”

Spadaro, who put about $93,000 of her own money into her 1984 campaign, said she did it because she felt strongly that her position on issues needed to be represented on the City Council.

“If one can afford it, that’s the way to go,” she said. “I would rather pay for it myself than try too hard to raise funds. It’s always difficult to ask people for money.”

Of course, spending a lot of money on a campaign does not assure victory. The top four finishers in the 1986 race for two seats revealed that money is not the sole answer.

According to campaign financial statements, Tanenbaum spent about $55,000 and placed first. Salter spent about $97,000 and placed second. Rose Norton, wife of former Mayor Ben Norton, spent $22,000 and placed third. Incumbent Councilwoman Heiferman spent about $100,000 and finished fourth.

Only Incumbent

Some political observers said Heiferman lost because she was the only incumbent and she took the fall for some unpopular decisions by the City Council. Observers also said that Norton, who had high name recognition because of her community involvement and her husband, might have won had she spent more money.

But Norton disagrees.

“I don’t think money is the initial reason why a candidate gets elected or not,” she said. “In my case, I think that if I had started sooner I would have done a better job.

“I was the biggest detriment to my campaign. I ran out of steam. Flooding the mail with literature is not productive. What you have to do is let the people know where you stand. If they like you, they’ll back you.”

Norton also said her campaign finances were limited to what she could raise. “I’m willing to work for the community, but I’m not willing to spend my money to serve the community,” she said.

Turned Off by Cost

High campaign costs keep some people from running for office.

Film maker and author Robert Carl Cohen was among the first to take out nomination papers for the City Council. But he never returned them, partly because he was turned off by the high cost of the campaign.

“The idea of spending $100,000 is obscene,” said Cohen, who led a citizens committee that saved the historic La Cienega Waterworks from demolition earlier this year. “This is something that has to be reformed. The advertising agents and printing companies have a little gold mine going here. Even if I felt like spending $100,000, I would feel like I was buying the election.”

Stern, who said the cost of local campaigns is skyrocketing throughout California, believes that only legislation will reverse the trend.

“Volunteer spending limits will never work,” he said.

Movement for Limits

Stern said there is a movement statewide to limit campaign financing. So far, 60 cities and counties out of 550 in the state have adopted limits on campaign contributions, Stern said. Only Sacramento County has adopted limits on campaign spending.

But limiting contributions may not be enough. Santa Monica has a contribution limit of $1,491 per contributor, the highest of any city or county in the state, yet its last election was criticized by the state commission as too costly. There, the average candidate spent nearly $60,000, or $4 per vote, in 1986.

Beverly Hills has no local laws limiting campaign contributions or spending.

The obstacle to legislating campaign spending locally is that in 1976, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that such laws are only valid if the governing entities provide matching funds, something most cash-strapped cities could not do.

League Agreement

The Beverly Hills League of Women Voters has successfully persuaded candidates for the Beverly Hills Unified School District Board of Education to agree to a voluntary campaign spending limit of $40,000 for the past two elections.

But the league has not been successful in getting a similar agreement from City Council candidates.

The group tried unsuccessfully to get this year’s City Council candidates to agree to a $40,000 spending limit. The proposed limit was then increased to $65,000. All candidates agreed to the amount except one, who said it was insufficient because of committed expenses, according to League President Janet Kaye. She would not disclose the candidate’s name.

Because two other candidates had agreed to a limit on the condition that there be unanimous acceptance, the league abandoned its effort.

Candidates’ Ideas

Some of the candidates have their own ideas for reducing campaign expenditures.

Alexander said dividing the city into council districts, rather than having the field of contenders run at-large, should be considered as one way to bring down costs.

“By doing that you would substantially reduce the campaign costs by limiting mailing to smaller geographic areas,” he said.

Candidate Harris suggests that the city contribute various kinds of resources to candidates to help reduce costs.

“Rather than matching dollars as is done in other areas, the city would provide some resources,” she said. “The city could provide a double-page spread for each candidate in the ballot statements, and utilize cable television to give each candidate air time to produce their own show.

Media Expenses

“The reason we need so much money is for media. This would be eliminated.”

The League of Women Voters has not given up its fight to bring down campaign spending.

Kaye said her group will attempt to establish a limit before the candidate filing period for the next City Council election, in 1990.

“We are determined to limit spending before the next election,” she said. “We feel it is needed so that the average qualified candidate is not discouraged from running.

“My feeling is that the public is getting fed up with these very expensive brochures and expensive cocktail parties.”