Big Business Donors Back Ethics Measure

The campaign committee formed to push for passage of Proposition H--the government ethics measure on next Tuesday’s Los Angeles ballot--has raised nearly $100,000 from many of the big real estate, law and business sources that the measure’s proponents say should be driven from City Hall.

In an ironic twist to the yearlong effort to write a new code of ethics for Los Angeles city government, several dozen of the biggest political contributors to city elected officials have contributed up to $10,000 apiece to the Los Angeles Taxpayers for Clean Government, according to campaign statements filed last week.

“It looks like a list of the people they say they want to eliminate from election campaigns,” said City Councilwoman Ruth Galanter, who opposes Proposition H.

“It’s all the people that do business with the city,” said Councilman Ernani Bernardi, another foe of the ballot measure.

Proponents of Proposition H say it is designed to reduce the influence of special interests in city government by limiting the outside income, gifts and honorariums that politicians may accept. It also indirectly limits campaign contributions by encouraging politicians to restrict spending to specified levels to become eligible for public matching funds.

Proposition H also contains a 40% pay raise for City Council members.

Last year after his personal finances came under scrutiny, Mayor Tom Bradley appointed an ethics commission, whose recommendations figured in City Council debate on ethics reforms. Three council members oppose Proposition H for a variety of reasons, including the pay raise provision and the cost of public campaign financing. But there is no organized campaign against the measure, which its proponents have labeled the “toughest, most comprehensive” package of its kind.

Supporters say it will help to curtail the ability of special interests to buy favors around City Hall.

But despite a campaign committee formed by grass-roots “good government” groups such as Common Cause, virtually all of the financial support has come from corporations, political action committees, law firms and professional lobbyists--with some contributing only after they were solicited by powerful City Council members.

Just 11 contributors contributed more than $70,000 to the Proposition H campaign. Among the contributors who gave $10,000 each to the campaign are the giant real estate development and gas provider Pacific Enterprises, the powerful downtown oil concern Arco and the politically connected law firm O’Melveny & Myers.

Only one individual gave any money to the campaign. Housewife Linda Lawson’s $150 donation was the smallest gift the Proposition H committee received.

Geoff Cowan, a sponsor of the measure, said, “It’s no surprise business is supporting the campaign. They know best how corrupt the current process is.”

Steven Glazer, consultant to the Proposition H campaign, said, “We welcome anyone who is fed up with how business is being done at City Hall.”

John Phillips, chairman of Common Cause who is backing Proposition H and has been influential in directing the campaign, also took a pragmatic approach. “Where do you think the money comes from for any campaign?” he asked.

Most corporate contributors contacted by The Times said their only interest in supporting the campaign is in cleaning up the system.

“We’ve made a big commitment to Los Angeles,” said Tom Sanger, spokesman for Pacific Enterprises, which sponsored a breakfast at which other corporate officials were solicited. “Confidence in government comes to bear on the quality of life in the city,” he said.

But some contributors privately acknowledge that their involvement in Proposition H was driven by the same self-interest as the other contributions they routinely hand out to elected officials each year: They cannot afford to offend powerful elected officials who are soliciting the funds.

“I was screaming, ‘This is bull!’ ” said one government affairs specialist about the solicitation by a city councilman. “But we figured we’d be obvious by our absence, so we had to” make a sizable contribution, said the contributor, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Councilman Michael Woo said he and City Council President John Ferraro both personally solicited funds for the Proposition H campaign.

“I don’t feel especially obligated” to those who gave to the campaign, said Woo. Contributions came from the following companies that do business with the city: O’Melveny & Myers, Engineering Technology, GTE California Inc. and Pacific Telesis. Those who need permits or other approvals from city government include the Alexander Haagen Co., Bruce C. Corwin Investments and Jefferson Development Corp., which is building 64 homes in the Hollywood Hills at the confluence of Woo’s and Ferraro’s council districts.

Amy Demianakes, a spokeswoman for Pacific Telesis, said her company supported the measure to the tune of $2,500 because of a basic belief in good government. She defended the contribution as part of the process. “We play by the rules,” said Demianakes. “And right now (large contributions) are part of the process.”

There are no limits under existing law or the proposed ethics ballot measure on the amount of money individuals or companies may contribute to campaigns for propositions. Under those rules, Bernardi said “it’s like open season” on lobbyists as Proposition H supporters seek funds.

Indeed, one lobbyist said, with “a $500 limit on (contributions to City Council campaigns) it’s hard to show your appreciation” for the help and friendship of an elected official. Answering the call to contribute to a proposition “is an easy way,” the lobbyist said.

Some companies solicited to financially support the Proposition H campaign refused on grounds that it would only limit the influence they now enjoy. “I’d have to be crazy,” said the lobbyist, who refused to be identified for fear it would hurt his business.

Other companies reached by The Times said they contributed to the ethics reform measure only because they do not believe that the measure would really affect their ability to lobby at City Hall. At least one lobbyist called the measure a “paper tiger.”

By supporting the campaign, these skeptics reasoned, they keep a friendship with Woo, Ferraro and other City Council members interested in seeing the pay raise pass. Besides, several added, the contributions also could win some public good will for their support of a “good government” cause.

But others said they are tired of the endless solicitations for campaign funds and they support Proposition H or any other measure that would tighten the rules.

“This is a means of recovering public confidence in the system,” said Al Greenstein, a spokesman for Arco. “If we are negatively affected by that, so be it.”

PROP. H CONTRIBUTORS The biggest contributors to the campaign for Proposition H, the proposed city ethics reform measure. Company: Prop H Contribution Atlantic Richfield (ARCO): $10,000 O’Melveny & Meyers PAC: $10,000 Pacific Enterprises: $10,000 Carter Hawley Hale Stores: $5,000 Griffin Homes: $5,000 GTE California: $5,000 Lockheed: $5,000 Ralphs Grocery Co.: $5,000 S-P Company: $5,000 J.H. Snyder Co: $5,000 Jefferson Develop. Corp.: $4,500 R & B Enterprises: $2,500 Mann Theatres: $2,500 Pacific Telesis Groups: $2,500 Rose & Kindel: $2,000