Campaign Funding Plan Could Derail Ethics Bill : Politics: Council split over reform package that contains costly proposal aimed at reducing the influence of private contributors in local elections.

A proposal to establish public financing for local political campaigns has emerged as a major obstacle to passage of the sweeping ethics reform package that comes before the Los Angeles City Council for a vote this week.

City Council support for public financing--a key component of the ethics package--appears shaky, raising doubts about whether the provision will survive the council vote expected at a special session on Thursday.

An informal poll by The Times late last week indicated that the public financing section in its current form does not have the support of a clear majority of the council’s 15 members.

“We’re still trying to put the votes together,” said Councilman Michael Woo. “We have more problems with that than we have with the other parts.”

As chairman of the council’s Ad Hoc Committee on Ethics, Woo has been pushing hard in recent weeks to come up with a proposal that can make it through the council and at the same time satisfy the demands of an ethics-in-government commission appointed by Mayor Tom Bradley.

Some council members are attempting to head off a threatened citizens’ initiative that would encompass the wide-ranging recommendations of the mayor’s commission and its head, attorney Geoffrey Cowan.

Woo and Cowan worked out a compromise last week that would restrict--rather than ban--outside income for public officials, establish public financing for campaigns and prohibit lobbying by former officials for a year after they leave office. The compromise also raised the amount of matching funds that would be available to candidates.

Control of Issue

Cowan said that, if the council approves the compromise and leaves it substantially intact, there will be no citizens’ initiative. Instead, the council can retain control of the controversial ethics issue by putting its own proposal on the June ballot.

But the public financing portion is “absolutely essential,” Cowan said. “There’s no more important part of this package.”

Cowan said there is “no question” that a public financing proposal will be placed on the June ballot as a citizens’ initiative if the council fails to approve the measure.

“That’s something the people should get to vote on,” Cowan said.

With many council members already opposed to public financing in theory, prospects for approval turned gloomier late last week when the city’s administrative office estimated that it could cost as much as $23 million over four years.

That figure, which includes $6.5 million to fund and staff a new ethics commission, actually could be low. It was based on an early proposal calling for matching funds equal to one-third the amount a candidate raises rather than the one-half contained in the compromise.

“On the cost issue we have a kind of dilemma,” Woo said. “We want to remain faithful to the principle of providing public financing as an alternative to private campaign contributions influencing the decision-making process. But to reduce the price tag significantly reduces the extent to which we provide an alternative.”

Woo said he plans to step up his lobbying with his colleagues this week.

He is likely to have little success with Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores.

“I’ve never been a fan of public financing,” Flores said. “I don’t believe in having my money spent for candidates that I choose not to support. . . . And it’s going to cost a lot of money.

The $23-million price tag will sink the measure “for sure,” Flores said, “and I think it’s questionable whether it would pass anyway.”

Flores said she is skeptical that voters would approve a public financing ballot initiative. “Most people, I think, are more interested in having more police on the street.”

Councilman Hal Bernson said he agrees with some aspects of the ethics package, but is “absolutely down on public financing.”

Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, chairman of the council’s Budget and Finance Committee, called passage of the public financing section “very unlikely” and said, “Anybody who’s on the fence has got to be intimidated by the tremendous costs.”

Several council members said they oppose public financing but may vote to put it on the ballot so that the public can decide.

“People aren’t going to vote for it, but they should have an opportunity to,” Councilman Nate Holden said.

City Council President John Ferraro, too, is willing to put the measure on the ballot, but said he is “troubled” by the cost of public financing.

Some have suggested that the council approve placing two separate measures on the June ballot, one containing the ethics reforms and the other calling for public financing.

The voters would be likely to turn down the public financing measure because of the cost, but approve the other ethics reforms, some council members said.

“They hoped they could get public financing by having it ride on the coattails of the other package,” said Councilman Ernani Bernardi.

Woo can count on the support of Councilwoman Gloria Molina, who is strongly in favor of public financing, and Councilman Richard Alatorre, who is less enthusiastic but said he will vote for it.

Councilwoman Joy Picus said she plans to offer an alternative public financing proposal but declined to give details.