FPPC Frees Up Millions for Campaigners

In a far-reaching decision, the state Fair Political Practices Commission on Thursday gave candidates the go-ahead to spend millions of dollars already stockpiled in campaign treasuries on future election contests, despite restrictions imposed by voters in June.

Basically, the unanimous vote of the five-member regulatory panel will permit office seekers to spend funds and other assets already acquired, provided that the money falls within the contribution limitations enacted under Proposition 73. This means that candidates probably will have to go back through their contributions and determine which ones did not exceed the Proposition 73 limitations.

Those contributions considered “clean”--in the words of the commission staff--could be transferred into a candidate’s newly established campaign account. Those that exceed the limitation would be considered “dirty” and put in a separate account and could be returned to donors or spent in any other legal manner, but not used to oppose or support a candidate.

Under the decision, for example, if a candidate received a $2,000 donation in 1988 from a constituent, the candidate would be allowed to keep only $1,000 because the remainder exceeded the $1,000-a-year limitation imposed on individual donations by Proposition 73.

Statewide politicians, including Gov. George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, Controller Gray Davis and legislators, as well as mayors, city council members and others, have socked away millions of dollars in anticipation of seeking reelection or other offices.

But Proposition 73, co-authored by Assemblyman Ross Johnson (R-La Habra), forbids using contributions collected before Jan. 1, 1989, in future political campaigns and further declares that any surplus funds cannot be spent to support or oppose any candidate.

Immediate Effect

The commission’s decision, which takes effect immediately and gives candidates ground rules for the 1989 elections, is subject, however, to another commission vote in November that would make it permanent.

The commission acted on a regulation that would set up a structure to administer Proposition 73. But Johnson protested that nothing in the initiative empowered the commission to establish a procedure for “cleansing” funds.

Johnson, who argued that the initiative would create a “level playing field” by taking away built-in advantages enjoyed by incumbents, complained that the regulation continued the incumbents’ advantage over challengers and that it would be impossible to sort out “clean” from “dirty” funds”

“There is no way to sanitize these funds,” he told the commission, drawing support from a representative the citizens’ political action organization, Common Cause.

The representative, Steve Bell, asserted that in adopting the regulation the commission was moving beyond its authority and acting as a legislature. “The voters were never asked whether they wanted 1988 contributions to be cleansed and put into another account,” he said.

Staff Cites Risk

However, the commission staff, which presented the proposal as the best alternative of three recommendations, contended that without some mechanism for carrying a portion of campaign funds into another campaign the reform statute risked being declared unconstitutional for being overly broad.

Kathryn Donovan, a commission staff attorney, said her office was being swamped daily by urgent telephone calls from candidates “who want to know what in the world they should do with their campaign funds after Jan. 1.”

She and attorneys representing politicians told the commission that “great confusion” swirls around the issue as candidates make their plans to seek office but are unsure of the ground rules.

She noted, too, that candidates in local elections, such as the April election for mayor of Los Angeles, would have had to start from scratch on New Years Day to raise money for an election only four months away. She said that unless the regulations allowing some carry-over of existing funds were adopted, a great burden would be placed on the contenders.

L.A. Candidates

Two such contenders are Mayor Tom Bradley of Los Angeles and his expected challenger, Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky. The commission decision would seem to give a boost to Yaroslavsky, who presumably needs more campaign funds to get wider name recognition.

However, a Yaroslavsky representative, Kathleen Purcell, said she believes that the mayoral race may not be heavily affected by the decision because both Bradley and Yaroslavsky favor retention of the city’s campaign contribution limits, which are generally more restrictive than those in Proposition 73. The commission is scheduled to rule next month on implementation of the initiative in local elections.

Among other things, Proposition 73 limited contributions from individuals and businesses to $1,000 in each fiscal year, $2,500 from small political action committees and $5,000 from so-called broad-based political action committees that have at least 100 members and have been in existence for at least six months.