New Panels for Local Campaign Reforms Urged

A bipartisan research group, charging Los Angeles area enforcement officials with neglect of campaign financing laws, has called for creation of independent commissions to clean up local politics in “a system drunk with cash.”

The California Commission on Campaign Financing proposed separate fair political practices commissions for Los Angeles County and for many of the 86 cities within its boundaries. And, it said in a report made public today, the commissions should be given stronger contribution-regulation laws to enforce.

The commission also recommended limiting campaign contributions and expenditures and providing partial public financing of political campaigns.

‘Study in Extremes’

In an overview, the study concluded, “Local elections in the Los Angeles metropolitan area are a study in extremes. . . . A wide-ranging mixture of the exemplary and the excessive, the picture of money and politics in the Los Angeles area illustrates the best and the worst in local campaign financing.”

In some smaller cities, the commission said, candidates raise money from friends and neighbors, walk precincts, spend minimal amounts and personally meet many voters.

“But in other Los Angeles area communities, candidates exhibit the worst excesses of a system drunk with cash,” the report said. “They isolate themselves from the voters, rely on phalanxes of paid political advisers, raise contributions around the clock, accumulate huge war chests in non-election years, scare off challengers, solicit contributions from persons with financial interests pending before them, spend large sums on entertainment, fund raising and travel and communicate with the public through orchestrated media campaigns.”

The panel, composed mainly of business and legal leaders, compiled a 373-page report that says “enforcing campaign laws has not been a priority at any level of government.”

At present, local officials are in charge of implementing local laws. The state’s political watchdog agency, the Fair Political Practices Commission, moves against local officials only when they are suspected of violating state laws but is powerless to enforce local regulations. District attorneys, city attorneys and election officials--those in charge of enforcing local campaign financing laws--are reluctant to do so because mayors, city councils and the Board of Supervisors control their budgets and sometimes hire them, the study commission said.

‘Same Elected Fraternity’

And even when district and city attorneys are elected, and presumably independent, they are reluctant to enforce laws because they “are also politicians, subject to the same restrictions as council members or supervisors,” the report said. “They all belong to the same elected fraternity.”

In particular, the report criticized Los Angeles’ elected city attorney, James K. Hahn, for being “reluctant” to enforce the city’s campaign financing law, especially in the case of campaign finance law and conflict-of-interest violations by City Councilman Richard Alatorre. Hahn filed a civil suit against Alatorre only after the political watchdog group Common Cause threatened to go to court. Hahn’s suit resulted in Alatorre paying the largest fine paid for such a violation in California history--almost $150,000, which came from his campaign fund.

Hahn said he disagrees with the commission characterizing him as “reluctant.”

He said he first referred the Alatorre matter to Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner because he feared “a perception” of conflict, since the city attorney is legal adviser to the council. When Reiner did not take the case, Hahn said his office moved ahead with it.

And the commission said Los Angeles City Clerk Elias Martinez, appointed by Mayor Tom Bradley and confirmed by the City Council, delayed investigating allegations of violations against Councilman Robert Farrell and then-Councilwoman Pat Russell until the statute of limitations had run out.

Martinez said his office was hampered in pursuing the two cases because of a shortage of auditors and because the statute of limitations for the offense was too short--just one year. The commission recommended that the statute of limitations be extended for such offenses to four years.

The criticism of Hahn came as the city attorney is investigating conflict-of-interest allegations against the mayor. Some council members have questioned the intensity of Hahn’s investigation of a man who has been an old political friend, although the city attorney has pledged a tough and impartial investigation.

County Criticized

In addition to Los Angeles, the commission studied Agoura Hills, Gardena, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Signal Hill and West Covina, as well as Los Angeles County. It reserved some of its toughest words for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, saying:

“Nowhere in California does campaign reform appear to be more necessary than in Los Angeles County. There is, however, little likelihood that the members of the board will change a campaign financing system that today gives them political power. Under the circumstances, a constituent-driven ballot initiative could be an alternative means of implementing campaign finance reform. Proponents of such an initiative would have to expect, however, that incumbent supervisors are likely to use their tremendous financial resources to oppose such reform.”

The commission said “one Los Angeles-based lobbyist who regularly appears before the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles City Council told the commission ‘if we did in the smaller cities what we do in the larger jurisdictions, the officials in the smaller cities would call it bribery.’ ”

It added that “the flood of money from business interests to incumbent mayors, city council members and county supervisors has given many members of the public the impression that campaign contributions improperly influence votes. This perception is particularly prevalent concerning developer contributions and local land use decisions.”

Los Angeles County government was cited as an example of that sort of government.

The county has no laws governing campaign contributions, the report noted, although its officials are covered by state laws, including Proposition 73--which limits contributions and bans transferring funds from one candidate to another.

Incumbent Dominance

“Year-round fund raising and enormous campaign war chests have eliminated nearly all serious challenges to incumbents, resulting in incumbent dominance that protects supervisors from criticism and controversy,” the report said.

“Supervisors have the resources to spend tremendous sums of money during elections if necessary; when not challenged, they freely use those resources to build their political power bases, secure in the knowledge that their campaign coffers will be refilled when they next appear on the ballot.”

Specifically, the commission criticized the big campaign treasury accumulated by Supervisor Pete Schabarum, who has had no serious opposition. He uses the money to assist other campaigns.

In a reference to Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), a master at raising money for candidates and causes favorable to him, the report said Schabarum, “seemingly playing the role of the Willie Brown of local politicians, has raised the practice of candidate transfers to highly sophisticated levels, using several political committees to redistribute thousands of dollars yearly to increase his political clout throughout the state.”

Schabarum press aide Judy Hammond said the supervisor would not comment on the report until he had a chance to read it.

Supervisors Kenneth Hahn, Deane Dana and Ed Edelman have also accumulated large sums of money despite little opposition, using it to help other candidates or to ward off challengers, the report said.

Supervisor Mike Antonovich had to spend his sizable campaign funds in a 1988 reelection campaign against challenger Baxter Ward.

Influence Issue

The report said that both supervisors and staff members insisted in interviews that the contributions--most of them from business--do not influence supervisorial decisions.

But the commission said that contributors, insisting on anonymity, told the commission staff they fear that “they must make contributions if they want approval for ventures that may require clearance by the Board of Supervisors.”

“Those involved in particularly lucrative projects look on their political contributions as an investment,” the report said. “As one contributor explained, ‘They (supervisors) can get you through the internal fiefdoms and infighting. This can save a developer an incredible amount of money.”

As examples of instances where campaign contributions helped, the report cited supervisorial approval of a huge proposed development started by the late Howard Hughes’ Summa Corp. south of Marina del Rey and expansion of development in Malibu.

In past news reports of those controversies, supervisors and their aides have denied contributor influence.

The commission also blamed contributions to incumbents, and the one-sided politics produced by such a system, for low voter interest in no-contest races.

“Fund raising and spending of this magnitude has suppressed electoral competition, enhanced the appearance of corruption and left many voters disinterested and apathetic,” the report said.

Loopholes in Law

For Los Angeles city, the commission noted that voters had passed a strong campaign financing law, limiting contributions, in 1985, but “loopholes and other problems have compromised the law’s effectiveness.”

The report also noted that the law has not prevented the influence of big business givers because of the practice known as “bundling.”

“Former large contributors can still solicit contributions from others and then convey them to the candidate in a ‘bundle,’ thereby retaining the appearance of special interest influence despite the new law,” the report said.

The report also noted that several employees of companies doing business with the city join in supporting a candidate, providing a bundle of money from a single company.

Los Angeles City Clerk Martinez said he supports the recommendation to put enforcement of local laws into the hands of an independent commission.

“It is very difficult for the city clerk to enforce these laws,” he said. “The city clerks are put in a tough position when they have to fine council members. I fined a couple of council members and those kinds of things do not endear you to council members who determine your pay. It definitely impacted on me on my merit pay. . . . I would not miss being the enforcement officer.”

Hahn Backs Idea

City Atty. Hahn also backed the idea of an independent commission. “The key is adequate staffing (for the commission),” Hahn said. “It is an expense. The taxpayers will not be thrilled. But it is an expense that has to be paid.”

The commission that completed the report was founded in 1984 to study and make recommendations on California’s campaign financing system. This study was funded by the John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation.

The panel’s co-chairmen are Cornell Maier, retired chairman and chief executive officer of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.; Rocco Siciliano, retired chairman of Ticor, Los Angeles, and Francis Wheat, former commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The executive director is Tracy Westen and the co-director and general counsel is Robert M. Stern.

Commission members include former Rep. Clair W. Burgener, a member of the UC Board of Regents; former Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher, chairman of the Los Angeles law firm of O’Melveny & Myers; Robert R. Dockson, chairman of California Federal Savings & Loan Assn.; Walter B. Gerken, chairman of the executive committee of Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co.; former Caltech President Marvin L. Goldberger, director of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University; Stafford R. Grady, retired chairman of Lloyds Bank of California; Neil E. Harlan, retired chairman of the McKesson Corp.; Philip M. Hawley, chairman of Carter Hawley Hale Stores Inc.; Aileen C. Hernandez, former member of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Ivan J. Houston, chairman of Golden State Mutual Life Insurance Co.; Los Angeles attorney Michael Kantor; Stanford University President Donald Kennedy; Sunset magazine Publisher Melvin B. Lane; former Assembly Speaker Robert T. Monagan; Luis Nogales, former chairman of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Los Angeles; UCLA Law School dean Susan Westerberg Prager; retired California Supreme Court Justice Frank K. Richardson; William R. Robertson, executive secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor; Cal State Los Angeles President James M. Rosser; California Chamber of Commerce President Peter F. Scott; Jean R. Wente, chairman of Wente Bros. Winery, and former state Bar President Samuel L. Williams.

The report notes that Burgener, Hawley, Hernandez, Nogales, Richardson and Rosser joined the commission after the current study was substantially completed.

SPENDING BY JURISDICTION The average and total candidate expenditures for selected Los Angeles-area jurisdictions. Figures cover selected years from 1979 to 1986.

TOTAL SPENDING AVERAGE SPENDING IN JURISDICTION JURISDICTION PER CANDIDATE ALL CANDIDATES Agoura Hills $5,299 $52,989 Gardena $12,886 $167,527 Culver City $12,303 $209,162 Pasadena $21,745 $282,688 West Covina* $14,180 $340,309 Santa Monica* $40,204 $1,005,105 Long Beach $19,283 $1,177,260 Los Angeles County $427,523 $7,695,433 City of Los Angeles $108,387 $10,405,109

*Figures for West Covina and Santa Monica include expenditures by independent committees and slates.

Source: California Commission on Campaign Financing

Spending By Candidates Total spending by winners and losers in select small/medium and large Los Angeles area jurdisdictions. Winners Small/Medium: 52 Large: 81 Losers Small/Medium: 48 Large: 19 Source: California Commission on Campaign Financing Campaign Contributions Percentage of contributions to incumbents and challengers from various donor groups in selected Los Angeles area jurisdictions (data for years 1979-86.) Incumbents Business: 96 Individual: 86 Labor: 87 Political: 76 Candidate: 42 Challengers Business: 4 Individual: 14 Labor: 13 Political: 24 Candidate: 58 Source: California Commission on Campaign Financing