Reform Law Puts Mayor Campaigns in Legal Tangle

If you are among the 6,000 or so contributors to either of the two likely contestants in the 1989 Los Angeles mayoral race, you might receive an unexpected rebate in the December mail, compliments of Proposition 73.

But before spending that windfall on holiday gifts, bear in mind that Mayor Tom Bradley and Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky might ask you very nicely to tear up the check and send in a new one sometime after Jan. 1.

Then again, there may be no refund at all. State election officials may decide that Los Angeles’ own campaign contribution rules are tougher than those established under Proposition 73, and therefore should prevail over the California campaign reform initiative that won with 58% of the vote June 7.

Search for Explanations

The ballot measure’s success surprised even its authors and since its passage, elected officials throughout California have been seeking legal interpretations of its provisions.

Yaroslavsky and Bradley are no exception. Since June 7, both campaigns have sought legal advice on how the measure may apply to the race for mayor. So far, there are no definitive answers.

A spokeswoman for the Fair Political Practices Commission said it may take weeks, if not months, to determine how--or even if--Proposition 73 applies to the Los Angeles mayoral election. Until then, the measure has cast considerable doubt on what is shaping up to be the most expensive mayoral race in city history.

The new state law permits an individual to give $1,000 per fiscal year beginning July 1, or up to $4,000 over a four-year period. It also requires that all current campaign treasuries must be empty on New Year’s Day, 1989.

For now, both the Bradley and Yaroslavsky campaigns are reacting to Proposition 73 as a mild irritant in their fund-raising efforts.

“We’re not going to even take a stutter step,” Deputy Mayor Michael Gage said. “We’ll await (the FPPC’s) ruling. If they say give (the money) back, we’ll give it back and then we’ll just turn around and raise it again.”

Both Gage and Yaroslavsky campaign adviser Ann Hollister believe that state officials will ultimately decide that the city’s 1985 law limiting contributions to $1,000 per individual for a mayoral campaign is stronger than Proposition 73.

However, the new law’s fiscal-year limitation might pose another problem for the two mayoral contestants.

Both Gage and Hollister believe that the race will be settled in the April primary. If there is a runoff, Bradley and Yaroslavsky could be barred under Proposition 73 from seeking any further contributions from those who have already given the maximum of $1,000 in a fiscal year. One of Proposition 73’s sponsors, Assemblyman Ross Johnson (R-Fullerton), believes that the new law will limit each mayoral candidate to a single $1,000 contribution.

Under the City Charter, a contributor may give $1,000 in both the primary and general election.

But the most immediate concern of the two mayoral candidates is the Proposition 73 requirement that all campaign treasuries be empty on Jan. 1. The Bradley and Yaroslavsky treasuries now contain about $1 million each, according to their respective campaigns. By year’s end, those treasuries could more than double.

It is unlikely that either campaign would want, or be able to, spend much of their money before next year. But Proposition 73 says that current treasuries must completely divest by Jan. 1.

What to do?

There are two key options that the two campaigns are considering if it is ruled that Proposition 73 applies to the mayoral race:

- Give it all back. By returning all money before Jan. 1 and then asking their contributors to reissue a check, the two campaigns believe that the Proposition 73 zero-balance requirement could be met.

Besides the headaches involved in returning every cent to more than 6,000 contributors, the two campaigns each voiced concern that many contributors may decide not to reissue a check.

“Gosh, if you get a check back on Jan. 2 and you just gave a lot of Christmas gifts . . . a few people probably wouldn’t give it back,” joked Hollister, Yaroslavsky’s adviser. Then, more seriously, she added, “The truth is you’ve got to figure that your contributors are committed.”

- Spend as much as possible in advance. From all indications, it is clear the two likely mayoral contestants will spend a record amount in an effort to win outright in the April primary.

Both sides agree it would be unwise to launch their campaigns before the end of 1988. But to avoid Proposition 73, they believe that it may be possible to make substantial advance payments to vendors or political consultants who will then actually use the money after Jan. 1. The FPPC is expected to decide whether such advance spending is permitted under the new law.

“At this point, we’re looking” at advance spending, Gage said. “(But) we would not in any way try to circumvent (Proposition 73) by contracting out a million dollars. That’s nonsense.”

Johnson, Proposition 73’s author, believes that the new law prohibits candidates from advancing funds for services that will be provided after Jan. 1, said Susan Swatt, a Johnson aide.