L.A. Election Returns: Costs Up, Confidence Down, Apathy All Over

The citizens of Los Angeles should be deeply disappointed that the Los Angeles City Council, in a sadly confused and self-indulgent session, stripped campaign financing reform from the ethics package it voted to place before the voters. Drafted by the Citizens Ethics Commission after nine months of careful research, the proposed reforms were designed to be the finest, most far-reaching campaign laws in the country. Now, unless the council corrects its omission, a citizen-backed initiative will be necessary to put this whole issue before the voters.

It is not too late for the council to recognize that campaign reforms are an essential part of any ethics-reform package. To try addressing the fundamental problems of citizen apathy and official misconduct without campaign reform would be as foolish as trying to control wages without prices.

All of us are aware of a growing disenchantment with institutions of government. Public-opinion polls report a disturbing loss of confidence in elected officials. Voters avoid the ballot box in increasing numbers; only 23% of the Los Angeles electorate came to the polls in the 1989 mayoral election. And many talented individuals, deterred by the need for huge campaign funds, are reluctantly choosing career paths that will lead them away from valuable service in local government.

In Eastern Europe today, we are watching whole democracies created almost overnight as the peoples of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria and Romania struggle to shape new forms of government that will reflect the true interests of their peoples. Surely we can do no less than re-examine our own government to make those improvements that will strengthen the democratic processes here at home.

In recent years, Los Angeles political candidates have been forced to raise larger and larger sums of money for political survival. Between 1980 and 1985, City Council candidates spent an average of $15.09 per vote--one of the highest local spending-per-vote ratios in the state--and the cost continues to increase. This escalation has forced candidates to allot more time for raising money and less time addressing important, substantial issues. The pressures to raise money have created the appearance--justified or not--that candidates and officials are more influenced by major contributors than by the interests of the public at large.

Truly effective campaign reforms require a combination of remedies, including expenditure ceilings, contribution limits and limited public-matching funds. This comprehensive approach has been successfully tested at local elections in Seattle, Tucson and Sacramento County. A number of states--Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan and New Jersey--have also adopted this approach and it has been successfully used in Presidential elections for 12 years. It decreases the time candidates spend on fund-raising, diminishes the perception that candidates are unduly beholden to large contributors, encourages new candidates to run for local office and helps restore public confidence in local government.

By contrast, limits on contributions alone--which is all Los Angeles has at the moment--have been shown not to work. Local California jurisdictions with only contribution limits have seen soaring campaign costs, diminished competition and continued allegations of excessive contributor-influence. In San Francisco, for example, the voters dropped the contribution ceiling from $1,000 to $500, hoping to reduce excessive campaign spending. Yet in the first election under the lower limits, three mayoral candidates each broke the $1 million-spending mark for the first time in city history. Sacramento and San Diego have also imposed strict contribution limits, only to see spending continue to rise.

Ceilings on the amount spent in city races are essential to effective campaign reform. The expenditure ceilings proposed for Los Angeles are realistic--and far from too restrictive. They would permit $400,000 to be spent, for example, in a council primary and $400,000 if there is a council runoff election campaign. Yet, they would go far toward checking the out-of-control escalation in campaign costs.

Every elected official I know is devastated, almost on a daily basis, by the amount of time that must be allocated to raising money. In major races, we are on the verge of campaigns focused exclusively on fund-raising and trips to the television studio. It is difficult to imagine a greater derogation of democracy.

Limited public-matching funds are an essential component of comprehensive campaign reforms, in large part because they are a constitutionally required predicate to expenditure ceilings. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that expenditure ceilings cannot be imposed unless candidates agree to them in exchange for matching funds. Matching funds also ease the fund-raising pressures on candidates. More, they encourage newcomers to enter politics, to try their hand at elective office.

The matching-funds proposal presented to the council was more sophisticated than any in the country. Candidates would qualify for matching funds only if they raise qualifying amounts in private contributions, agree to debates and have an opponent who qualifies for matching funds. Hence, public funds would only go to truly serious candidates and costs would be kept as low as possible.

Seattle has the longest experience of any local jurisdiction with public aid to candidates. The city implemented a campaign-finance ordinance with expenditure ceilings and public financing in 1979 and 1981. Then Seattle let it lapse for three years, re-enacting it in 1984. A study of the elections held--under the new law and without it--found that the ordinance successfully increased the number of small contributions, diminished the number of large contributions, limited spending and encouraged more candidates--including women and minorities--to run for office.

Cost estimates of the Los Angeles matching-funds proposal have been inflated well beyond what will reasonably be spent. The best calculation among independent experts who closely follow city politics is that the matching funds provisions will cost taxpayers no more than $3 million a year (and more likely, only a fraction of that amount). This would be a highly prudent investment to help purify campaigns and reduce the outrageous costs and fund-raising that are now the norm.

The council should have placed this financing question before the voters. Now, unless our local representatives reverse themselves, the only alternative is the initiative route. Those who circulate such an initiative should examine amendments the council made to the original proposal and incorporate those which make sense. But they also should make the initiative as tough and fair as possible for all candidates--incumbents and challengers alike.

If ultimately adopted by voters, the new comprehensive package of campaign law would place Los Angeles in the national forefront of reform efforts. It would give residents a much-needed sense of confidence that city government and city campaigns will operate under the highest ethical standards in the nation.