Holden Has His Day in Court but Doesn’t Seem to Make Points

Bailing water in a mayoral campaign awash with trouble, Los Angeles Councilman Nate Holden on Friday sought any court in a storm.

What he found was a hostile harbor as Superior Court Judge Kurt J. Lewin pointedly rebuffed legal arguments by Holden’s attorney that incumbent Tom Bradley should not be allowed to use $1.8 million in campaign funds raised before Jan. 1.

Legally, it was a technical question. There are conflicts between provisions of the city’s 4-year-old law limiting campaign contributions and a similar initiative approved by state voters last year.

But politically, it was a small parable of a troubled campaign.

Holden, 59, an irrepressible, Populist politician, was batting 2 for 8 in his campaigns for an assortment of offices when he leaped into the mayor’s contest two months ago. It was late, and Holden had no money. More significantly, Bradley’s popularity had already scared off Westside Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, who, with more than $1 million in campaign funds, was far better positioned to put up a strong challenge.

Publicity Jump Start

Holden received a jump start of publicity in his campaign by offering to buy semiautomatic assault rifles to get them off the streets. He made the network news. But recently the media attention had turned elsewhere. Bradley is ignoring him.

Last week’s campaign finance reports showed that Holden had raised only half of the $400,000 he initially said he hoped to have by Feb. 4. After outspending Holden seven to one since the first of the year, Bradley reported having $1.7 million on hand, with the election only three weeks away.

On Friday morning, Holden’s troubles led him to the eighth floor of the huge Civic Center Superior Court building and a courtroom set aside for emergency cases.

Holden, suited and serious, sat in the front row.

It is unfair, argued his lawyer, Norma B. Hutner. Bradley has too big an advantage in fund raising, she told Judge Lewin, the kind of edge voters wanted to eliminate when they approved Proposition 73 last year. Part of the measure required a level political playing field, she noted, and candidates were not to carry over into 1989 large war chests raised earlier.

Could Cause Chaos

This is no small issue for Holden or Bradley. The mayor’s campaign estimated that 90% of its funds were raised before Jan. 1. A legal ruling Holden’s way, at this juncture in the campaign, could throw the Bradley political operation into chaos, the mayor’s attorney said.

The judge began to question Holden’s argument. The Los Angeles mayor’s race was exempt from the initiative, he said. The ban on carrying over funds does not apply because the city has operated for years under contribution limits stricter than those in Proposition 73. This was all contemplated by the drafters of the initiative, Lewin said.

Holden shifted, leaned forward. His hand was now hanging over the railing between the spectators and the legal combatants.

Lewin picked apart Holden’s case and hinted that the issue was being raised only because Holden had belatedly decided to enter the race. Everything appeared legal, fair and within the spirit of Proposition 73, Lewin said.

Holden scribbled a note and sent it forward to Hutner. Then another. And another.

Telegraphs His Intent

Nothing was working. The judge, telegraphing his intent to rule against the councilman, ended the arguments. He said he will issue an order soon.

Outside, in the gray, marbled hallway, Holden frowned through reporters’ questions about what appeared to be a substantial setback. He jabbed at Bradley, saying, “No one should have that kind of advantage” and charged the Bradley relies on “fat-cat contributors.”

Rejected by the judge, he then filed his appeal with the voters. The polls and pundits who say he cannot win are wrong, he told a TV news crew. His surveys show that he is gaining fast.

“The people are more intelligent than the experts say they are,” Holden said. “They’re smarter.”