L.A. Ethics Package Is Challenged : Reform: City’s public financing provision is forbidden under Prop. 73, authors of state measure contend. They file lawsuit.

The authors of Proposition 73, the 1988 campaign reform measure, are seeking to use the terms of that controversial statewide initiative to overturn a key public financing provision of Los Angeles’ recently adopted Proposition H ethics reform package.

The authors--state Sen. Quentin L. Kopp (I-San Francisco) and Assembly Republican leader Ross Johnson of La Habra--were joined by Los Angeles City Councilman Ernani Bernardi Tuesday in asking a state appeals court to block implementation of the city’s campaign finance provision on grounds that it is banned under the earlier state ballot initiative.

Under Proposition H, which was approved by city voters in June, public funds would match money raised privately for city election campaigns at an estimated cost to taxpayers of more than $2 million a year.

“When California voters adopted Proposition 73 . . . they prohibited the use of taxpayer funds to pay for political campaigns whether at the state or local level,” Kopp said at a press conference in Los Angeles where he flew Tuesday afternoon to file the lawsuit.

Bernardi, a long-time critic of public financing who has earlier filed lawsuits to block actions of the City Council and other local government bodies, said that “it would be improper, illegal and outrageous for the City Council to give tax dollars to political candidates in defiance of state law.”

If successful, the move would further solidify the legal position of Proposition 73, which has been attacked in court by backers of a rival and more sweeping statewide campaign reform measure. In 1988, voters also approved the campaign reform measure Proposition 68. But it collected fewer votes than Proposition 73 and has been ruled by state courts to be superseded by the more popular proposition.

Backers of Proposition 73 won another important lawsuit on Friday when a state appeals court in Sacramento found that the measure’s ban on public campaign financing extends to county governments.

In the case of County of Sacramento vs. Fair Political Practices Commission, the 3rd Appellate District Court ruled that “campaign financing is a matter of statewide concern beyond the proper purview of the county to regulate” and the justices denied Sacramento’s plea to be exempted from terms of Proposition 73.

City Councilman Michael Woo, who championed the Los Angeles ballot measure, said he will encourage his colleagues to fight the lawsuit, calling the campaign finance provisions a key element of the ethics reform package. The citywide proposition also granted the mayor and City Council members substantial pay raises, but placed restraints on the outside income they can earn.

Even Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, who campaigned against Proposition H, in part because of his opposition to public campaign financing, said that “the city is obligated to defend the actions of the people.”

Assistant City Atty. Anthony Alperin said the city had not yet been served with the lawsuit, but will reply at the appropriate time.

But by Alperin’s own analysis, the city’s legal position could be tenuous.

In a December, 1989, memo to the City Council, Alperin said the campaign finance provisions of Proposition H are “brought into serious question” by Proposition 73.

He said Sacramento County’s lawsuit, which was pending at the time, “may well provide substantial guidance in this matter.”

On Tuesday, Alperin would only say that there are legal differences between the powers of charter cities such as Los Angeles and charter counties, such as Sacramento.

Kopp urged the Los Angeles City Council and city attorney to “confess the error” in their drafting of Proposition H, and not mount an expensive defense. Kopp and Johnson, both attorneys, are acting as their own counsel in the lawsuit. Kopp said they will seek an award of attorney’s fees if successful in the lawsuit, and then donate the funds to Los Angeles area charities.