Romey, Horowitz Deny Charges : Korenstein Says Gifts to Rivals Violate New Campaign Law

Los Angeles school board member Julie Korenstein has filed a complaint with the state Fair Political Practices Commission, alleging that two of her opponents in the April 11 election have received contributions that violate a new state campaign financing law.

Korenstein’s campaign consultant, Parke Skelton, first aired his allegations against Barbara Romey and Gerald Horowitz on Feb. 4. At that time, he said he asked that they return the contributions in question.

Skelton said Thursday that he filed formal complaints with the commission Tuesday because he had not received a reply from either challenger.

Romey said the contributions questioned by Korenstein were completely legal.

“She’s trying to run a dirty campaign and she’s always attacking because she has been a poor excuse for a representative,” Romey said.

Horowitz accused Korenstein of substituting the charges to the commission for a debate on educational issues.

“I think there has been enough mudslinging and I think the public is really tired of that,” Horowitz said. “I find it distressful that she won’t allow the community to hear her stands on the critical issues facing education.”

Countercharge Made

Horowitz charged that Korenstein had broken the same campaign financing law. He would not elaborate.

Voters in November approved Proposition 73, the campaign reform measure that sets a $1,000 limit on individual political contributions and bans the transfer of funds from one candidate’s campaign committee to another’s.

Skelton’s complaint charged that a $2,000 contribution to Horowitz from the campaign committee of Los Angeles City Councilman Hal Bernson was illegal.

Dwight Ham, Horowitz’s treasurer, said the contribution from the Bernson campaign was placed in a restricted account that will be used only after the election. If Horowitz wins, the money will go for reimbursable expenses and, if he loses, it will go to charity, he said.

The complaint also questioned a $2,500 contribution to Horowitz from Janice E. Sato.

Ham said that contribution came from both Sato and her husband, Dennis, and therefore $2,000 is allowable under the new law. The $500 exceeding the limit was placed in the restricted account, he said.

A third violation alleged by Korenstein’s campaign involved $5,600 in printing costs donated to the Horowitz campaign.

Gift Termed Illegal

Skelton’s letter to the commission said the printed materials that were contributed cannot be used by the campaign in 1989. In an interview, he suggested that the printing actually was paid for by a Horowitz supporter.

“If I had my guess, someone paid for that printing and he is hiding it,” Skelton said.

Ham said that the gift of printing was received in November and that the bulk of it was distributed before Jan. 1, when the campaign reform law went into effect. The materials not distributed before that date will be purchased by the campaign, he said.

The complaint against Romey also involved a contribution from Bernson’s campaign committee. Skelton alleged that a $2,000 contribution from Bernson to an inactive Romey committee--one that was organized when Romey made an unsuccessful 1987 bid for the Board of Education--was illegally transferred to Romey’s present committee.

Romey said that her 1987 committee still exists and that it properly reported the Bernson contribution.

In his letter to the commission, Skelton asked for a rapid decision.

Eight candidates are challenging Korenstein.