Proposal for Capping Gifts in Campaigns Stirs Conflict : Politics: Leader in drive for 1977's TINCUP law wants to place a $1,000 limit on all county election contributions. Capizzi and Wieder are receptive, but Gates protests the idea.

By JIM NEWTON

Sept. 18, 1991 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

SANTA ANA —

A proposal to overhaul campaign fund-raising in Orange County elections hasn’t even been drafted yet, and already it has divided the county’s political leadership.

Sheriff Brad Gates and Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi, the county’s top law enforcement officials, appeared Tuesday to be on opposite sides of the proposal, though Capizzi wants to see the final draft before committing himself.

Two local campaign consultants criticized the proposed ordinance, while a leading campaign reformer expressed enthusiastic support.

And members of the Board of Supervisors, who will decide whether to let voters consider the issue, steered clear of the fray, with only Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder indicating that she tentatively supports the idea.

The proposal, which is being spearheaded by former county Planning Commissioner Shirley L. Grindle, would place a $1,000 cap on all political contributions to candidates for the Board of Supervisors and to other candidates for county office.

Never has a county law capped political contributions, so the proposal represents a sweeping potential departure from the current system.

“I certainly think that some limitations on campaign contributions are in order,” Capizzi said. “It’s been with us for some time at the federal level, and . . . I think it’s a laudable goal.”

Gates, on the other hand, angrily dismissed the proposal as the work of a “group of five or six people who anoint themselves as some sort of watchdog organization.”

The proposal, the sheriff added, would infringe on free speech by limiting individuals’ rights to support the candidate of their choice financially.

Those comments by Gates, Capizzi and others hinted at the depth of division regarding the proposal unveiled Monday by Grindle and the volunteer group she heads, the TINCUP Campaign Reform Committee.

Grindle wrote to supervisors to say she planned to propose the ordinance, which would overhaul a reform ordinance that she and her committee drafted in 1977.

While that law, known as TINCUP, has succeeded in many respects, Grindle and others have become increasingly worried that some contributors are exploiting loopholes in it. TINCUP, for instance, does not mention political action committees, which have become increasingly significant contributors in supervisorial campaigns.

A Times Orange County computer analysis found that PACs have contributed more than $820,000 to county supervisors and candidates for the board since TINCUP took effect in 1978. The growth of PACs as local political players prompted Grindle and other campaign reformers to urge that TINCUP be amended.

But some legal experts warned that targeting PACs alone could make the ordinance subject to a legal challenge.

“We need to close the PAC loophole,” Grindle said. “But we can’t deal with the PAC issue without risking a constitutional challenge, so we need to limit all contributions.”

A final draft of the proposed campaign reform ordinance has not been presented to the supervisors, and most of them steered clear of the debate Tuesday.

Three of the five--Supervisors Roger R. Stanton, Thomas F. Riley and Gaddi H. Vasquez--said they want to see a final draft of the proposal before making a decision about whether to put it on the ballot.

Stanton said he would prefer to have the state enact a single campaign contribution limit and standardize political giving in all jurisdictions.

Supervisor Don R. Roth did not return phone calls requesting comment.

The proposal picked up its lone board endorsement from Wieder, who said that “a cap of any kind has merit. It puts us in an easier position, and I’m certainly willing to consider it.”

Similarly, County Clerk Gary L. Granville, an elected official whose contributions would be regulated by the proposed ordinance, said he had no problem with the idea, calling it “appropriate” that officials such as himself come under the county campaign finance law.

And Treasurer-Tax Collector Robert L. Citron, who has been elected to that post six times, said he would accept a $1,000 limit on contributors.

Local political consultants were less enthusiastic. “I think it’s a bad idea,” Harvey Englander said. “It’s misguided do-goodism.”

Englander was particularly critical of Grindle’s suggestion that county candidates be barred from accepting more than $1,000 from any contributor each four-year election cycle. He called that limit “absolute absurdity.”

Englander also argued that the proposed cap would aid incumbents because challengers need more money to get name recognition.

“Because (Grindle) is not a practical player but a theoretical player, she doesn’t recognize that these type of reforms are always incumbent protection acts,” Englander said.

“It certainly looks like a good-government ordinance until you start picking it apart.”

Dana Reed, a Costa Mesa lawyer who specializes in campaign issues, also criticized the proposal, though he welcomed the move to abandon TINCUP’s conflict-of-interest provisions. Under TINCUP, supervisors are required to abstain from matters involving their major contributors.

Some observers, including Reed, said they believe that TINCUP could be ruled unconstitutional if challenged in court, and Reed has previously called for it to be replaced.

“Shirley Grindle is finally admitting that the present system, which she designed, is flawed,” Reed said. “Now that she has basically admitted that the present system doesn’t work, I think the Board of Supervisors should appoint a committee to suggest some new ideas.”

The proposal, however, won strong backing from Bill Mitchell, a Tustin lawyer who heads the county chapter of Common Cause, a campaign finance watchdog group.

“I think $1,000 is more than reasonable,” he said. “Those guys (Englander and Reed) will tell you how expensive campaigns have become, but I would argue that they are expensive because there are no limits on what they can raise and spend.”

Out With the Old?

Activist Shirley L. Grindle has announced that she and a committee that she heads are drafting an ordinance to overhaul the way candidates for Orange County offices raise money. Below is a comparison between that proposal, as now envisioned, and the law it would amend, a 1978 ordinance known as TINCUP, which stands for Time Is Now, Clean Up Politics.

Maximum contribution

TINCUP: No limit

Proposal: $1,000 limit per candidate each election cycle

Candidates covered

TINCUP: Supervisors only

Proposal: All countywide candidates

PAC contributions

TINCUP: No limits, no regulations

Proposal: $1,000 limit per candidate each election cycle

Conflict of interest

TINCUP: Supervisors required to abstain if they accept more than $1,944 from a single source in any four-year period

Proposal: None, because contributions would be capped