Advertisement

Bradley Donations Apparently Violated Law : Campaign financing: Mayor says he relied on staff to decide how carnival contributions should be reported.

Share
TIMES STAFF WRITERS

Mayor Tom Bradley received tens of thousands of dollars from a series of carnival fund-raisers in apparent violation of city campaign limits on small, anonymous donations, The Times has learned.

The mayor’s campaign accountant has said that Bradley instructed him to list the carnival proceeds as anonymous donations of $100 or less. But a 1985 city campaign reform law sets a $200 limit on such anonymous donations in each campaign, according to the city attorney.

The law also requires that anonymous donations that surpass the $200 threshold be turned over to the city treasury by the candidate. This was not done by the mayor.

Advertisement

The purpose of the provision is to ensure that elected officials do not receive secret, untraceable contributions.

Bradley campaign officials have yet to say how much money was generated by the carnivals. The Times has obtained copies of money orders totaling $20,000 and made payable to Bradley’s reelection campaign from one of two carnival companies that were used. But the figure probably represents only a small portion of the money raised by at least 11 inner-city carnivals.

Bradley’s campaign disclosure statements suggest that the carnivals had become a major source of money for his campaign at a time when the mayor was gearing up for a reelection race against City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky.

The documents show that Bradley’s campaign received $164,000 in donations of under $100 during 1987 and 1988 while the carnivals were being held--an unusually high figure for such contributions, according to campaign experts. Public records do not show how much of the money was donated anonymously.

After Yaroslavsky abandoned his mayoral bid and the carnivals ended, the mayor’s contributions of under $100 dropped dramatically.

During the last half of 1987 and 1988, the mayor’s campaign raised about $2.2 million.

In a prepared statement, the mayor said Thursday that he asked his staff to “get to the bottom of this matter” and added, “I will take whatever steps are necessary to correct any mistakes, if any were made.

Advertisement

“Obviously I cannot personally supervise the work of each of the personnel working for my campaigns,” Bradley said. “Yet I have always held my campaign fund-raisers to the highest standards.

“I relied on the campaign attorneys and accountants to decide how the carnival contributions should be reported.”

The carnivals were coordinated by Westside public relations consultant Mary Anne Singer and arranged by her one-time client, Long Beach businessman Allen Alevy.

Singer, a contact lens technician, is a personal friend of the mayor who has received favors from Bradley for herself and the clients of her small public relations business. During the period of the carnivals, Bradley was intervening with city officials to help Alevy purchase two parcels of surplus city land. At least two of the carnivals were held on the property while it was owned by the city.

Assistant City Atty. Anthony Alperin said he could not comment on the specifics of the Bradley carnivals until a pending city clerk’s audit of Bradley’s 1989 campaign contributions is completed. But he confirmed that the City Charter prohibits anonymous contributions totaling more than $200.

“You add all anonymous contributions from all sources and you can accept no more than $200 in a single election,” he said. “Any other (anonymous donations) you get you turn over to the city.”

Advertisement

Violations of the law, Alperin said, can lead to misdemeanor charges and civil penalties.

The carnival contributions were listed on official forms under a section that does not require donors to be named.

Council members Yaroslavsky and Michael Woo, citing the large carnival contributions to the Bradley campaign, said Thursday that they will push for changes in the law that will require all contributors to be named, no matter how small their donations.

“If candidates and elected officials think they can get around the law by running carnivals, then it will fundamentally undermine the City Charter’s requirements on campaign contribution limitations,” Yaroslavsky said. “I think it raises a question as to whether these contributions were made to circumvent city and state law.”

Woo, head of the city’s Ad Hoc Ethics Committee, said the amount of money that Bradley listed as contributions of under $100 was “strikingly large.”

“I think, generally speaking, unreported donations are a bad idea,” he said.

Woo said events like the carnivals need to be clearly advertised as political fund-raisers. He also said the city may need a tougher policy against use of city land for political purposes, as the Bradley campaign did with at least two carnivals.

City Council President John Ferraro endorsed Woo’s suggestions and said that he will ask for a city staff report on how and why the campaign events were allowed to be held on city land.

Advertisement

“Was there rent paid?” Ferraro said.

If not and they had no approvals, “then they were trespassing,” he said.

“It’s certainly worth looking looking into,” Ferraro added.

The Bradley campaign had no permission to hold the carnivals on city land, according to city officials in several departments.

The reporting methods used to account for the carnival money appear to place Bradley officials in a difficult spot.

If the carnivals were advertised as political fund-raisers, as Bradley’s office maintains, then the large anonymous donations would appear to violate the city’s 1985 campaign reform law, which Bradley supported.

If the carnivals were not advertised, as carnival officials have said, then the accounting of the carnival money was improper under state and local law. Under that scenario, the money would have to be reported as donations from the carnival operators or the landowners.

A lawyer familiar with the city’s campaign finance law said the Bradley campaign appears to have problems with the carnival contributions, no matter what.

“They can’t have it both ways,” the lawyer said.

Charles Goldenberg, a supervising attorney in the city attorney’s office who enforces campaign laws, said he recalled only a few cases in which city auditors found that the $200 anonymous donation limit had been exceeded. He said it involved minor candidates who were unfamiliar with the law.

Advertisement

“They don’t even realize what they’re doing violates the law. Either they have gone back . . . come up with (donors’ names), or they have refunded money,” Goldenberg said.

The city attorney’s office said there will be no decision on whether to take action against the Bradley carnivals until the city clerk’s audit is completed.

Times staff writer Tracy Wood contributed to this report.

Advertisement