CAMPAIGN JOURNAL : New Rules Change Political Game

In this city’s glittering political salons the other night, no one was willing to ruin the veneer of elegance by publicly grubbing for money, even if a federal court judge had just swept away the limitations on campaign contributions by which political careers flourish or die.

Two hundred Dianne Feinstein supporters gathered in a faux-Italian room at the Westin St. Francis, clinking glasses filled with California wine and hugging the candidate for a mere $500 donation, just as the campaign had planned weeks ago when that sum totaled half of the state’s $1,000-per-person maximum donation.

Feinstein, rolling through a fervently delivered essay on her desires as governor, did not so much as mention the court ruling which her aides believe has revived her campaign’s finances. Nor did the subject come up at Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy’s subsequent fund-raiser at a nearby hotel.

But behind the scenes, things were not nearly so reserved. Someone dashed up to Betty Smith, an organizer of the Feinstein event, and dropped a personal check for $10,000--10 times the amount that would have been allowed under the old rules. Another offered to pick up the cost of unused $500 seats.

“It’s like funny money,” said Smith.

For candidates, consultants and the encircling masses that make up political campaigns, these have been wild days. War and football analogies--sufficient to get across the mayhem and stakes involved in the judge’s decision--made the rounds hastily.

“It’s like someone dropped the H-bomb in the middle of a gang fight,” said Dan Schnur, a spokesman for the state Republican Party, which continues to battle to reinvoke the old rules that were contained in Proposition 73.

“It’s like changing the rules in the middle of the football game and making a linebacker a quarterback,” said Smith, Feinstein’s campaign co-chair.

Republican or Democrat, the sweeping away of the state’s campaign financing reform law had one overarching effect: confusion. And the confusion was not eased by U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton’s decision Friday that will keep the cash free-for-all in effect at least until early next week when another stay will be sought. Although Karlton, in effect, reinvoked Prop. 73 for legislative races, he did not do so for the state’s constitutional seats.

Karlton’s initial decision on Tuesday struck at the virtual aorta of politics--money. In New Hampshire or Vermont, maybe, politicians can trudge through the snow to greet every citizen. But the key to California is television, a highly expensive medium but the only one capable of reaching the state’s approximately 14 million registered voters.

A statewide candidate learns that early. Like it or not, Feinstein said the other day, “You can’t win one of these races unless you’re able to use television. . . . Every week we scrap to raise the money for the next week (of television ads).”

But even with the window for raising bulk sums of money left open at least until next week, campaigns were moving tentatively. Feinstein made no secret of her campaign’s effort to bring in money over and above the previous $1,000 limit on individual contributions, but she was not about to do so publicly in a room of donors.

The repercussions were striking at all sides. Campaigns worried that they would look greedy for taking money. Fund-raisers worried that they would offend their regular donors by seeming too vigorous. Party officials worried that extra money for candidates means less money for their own get-out-the-vote efforts.

For Republican candidates, there is yet another wrinkle--how do they seek out large sums of money when the party is fighting the decision that allowed the candidates to do it?

Strategy also comes into play. The Republican candidate for secretary of state, Los Angeles City Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores, is widely believed to be planning big-time fund raising under the new rules.

But her campaign is waiting until next week to do it--because this week’s contributions have to be publicly reported next week, and Flores’ campaign does not want opponent March Fong Eu to be able to gauge her success.

“Strategy-wise,” said Bernie Evans, Flores’ campaign director, “you wouldn’t want people to know one way or the other whether you’re down to a nickel or you have raised a million dollars.”

Some campaigns were still holding firm Friday. Donna Lucas, speaking for Republican state Treasurer Thomas Hayes, said Hayes is for now refusing to accept money over the $1,000 limit. Hayes is doing so at financial risk, because his Democratic opponent Kathleen Brown has blistered him in fund raising.

“It is putting a carrot out in front of you,” said Lucas, “and it does really make you want it.”