Vasquez Arranges for Supervisors to See Campaign-Reform Plan : Politics: A backer of the proposal praises board members, saying the effort isn’t aimed at them.

Board of Supervisors Chairman Gaddi H. Vasquez has arranged for backers of a far-reaching campaign-reform proposal to present their work to the board on Nov. 12, setting the stage for a debate that could change the face of political fund raising in Orange County.

Vasquez said that while he has not seen the reform proposal, he is “receptive to receiving it and having county counsel take a look at it.”

He added that he has discussed the matter with Shirley L. Grindle, the former county planning commissioner who is spearheading the reform effort. “I have a couple of questions about it, but nothing earth-shattering,” Vasquez said.

Grindle said that she was grateful to have Vasquez’s cooperation and added that she and her committee “would be pleased to have his support or sponsorship” for the proposal. Vasquez said he would consider taking that step after reviewing the package in detail.

Supporters of the proposal say that it would for the first time put a cap on political contributions to candidates for county office. Contributors would be allowed to give only $1,000 per election to a candidate, though they could give an additional $1,000 if the candidate were forced into a runoff.

Because the cap would apply to all candidates to county office, it would extend local campaign laws for the first time to offices such as sheriff and district attorney.

By imposing a limit on all contributions, the proposal also would close a loophole in TINCUP, the county’s 1978 campaign-contribution law, which Grindle helped draft. Under TINCUP, any supervisor who receives more than $1,944 during a four-year period from a single contributor must abstain from board matters involving that donor.

But TINCUP did not mention political action committees, and a recent study by The Times Orange County Edition found that PACs have taken advantage of that loophole to pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into the campaign coffers of county supervisorial candidates. No board member has ever had to abstain from a vote because of a PAC contribution, even though many have exceeded the TINCUP limits.

The loophole that allows those contributions has attracted the attention of many campaign-reform experts, and several already are backing the effort by Grindle and the TINCUP Steering Committee, which she chairs.

The committee met this week to review the proposal, and unanimously endorsed it, members said later.

“I think what they are suggesting is a good ordinance,” said Robert M. Stern, the principal author of California’s Political Reform Act, who has met with the group to help it draft details of the proposal. “It solves all the problems that have arisen with TINCUP.”

Others, however, say that the proposal could make it harder for challengers to unseat incumbent supervisors. Challengers, they say, need more money in order to establish name recognition, and therefore would be punished by a contribution limit.

The supervisors intend to hear a presentation at their regular meeting in 10 days by Grindle and members of her committee and will then refer the matter to their attorneys, Vasquez said. Grindle’s group will ask the supervisors to put their proposal on the June ballot, requesting that they act by Jan. 15.

If the board does not agree, Grindle has said that she and her reform organization would begin circulating petitions to put it on the ballot themselves.

That would require more than 66,000 signatures, but Grindle, who has previously run a successful initiative campaign, says she already has received a great deal of support for the idea and believes that she could gather the necessary signatures again.

She also has indicated that she and her committee would consider lowering the proposed limit to $500 per election if they are forced to push the measure themselves.

Asked about the proposal Friday, however, Grindle said she was encouraged by Vasquez’s receptiveness, and added she is optimistic that a signature-gathering campaign can be avoided.

“We’re not going to war with the Board of Supervisors,” she said. “They’ve been very cooperative. The abuses of the existing ordinance are being done by entities outside the board, namely PACs.”

Grindle added that she hopes Vasquez and other board members will see that the reform effort is not intended as a criticism of them.

“We’re seeking their support in this endeavor and would be pleased to have them join us in urging the voters to support it,” Grindle said. “We hope they’ll see that this is in everyone’s interests.”

The proposed reform already has divided top elected officers of the county, winning qualified endorsements from Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder, Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi and County Clerk Gary L. Granville, among others.

But aside from Wieder, all four supervisors say they will withhold judgment on the plan until seeing its details.

But Sheriff Brad Gates has already angrily dismissed it as an infringement on the right of residents to back the candidates of their choice. Other opponents include several of the county’s leading campaign consultants.