ORANGE COUNTY VOICES / SHIRLEY L. GRINDLE : Loopholes Have Contributed to the Demise of TIN CUP : Look at the amount of money given to candidates, not a “conflict of interest” principle that PACs can skirt.

In late 1977, a group of concerned citizens mounted a countywide initiative to regulate campaign contributions to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. On Dec. 8, 1978, their efforts were rewarded with the adoption of the Orange County Campaign Reform ordinance, familiarly known as TIN CUP (Time is Now, Clean Up Politics).

The primary reason for restricting campaign contributions to the supervisors was because architects, civil engineers, land planners and developers felt that the endless solicitation for contributions bordered on blackmail. Their projects were awaiting approval by the very same supervisors who were soliciting contributions from them. And the smaller firms simply could not afford to make endless contributions. Supervisorial campaigns were out of control, and it was clear that some rules were badly needed if integrity and confidence in the electoral process were to be maintained.

TIN CUP dramatically altered campaign fund raising by the Board of Supervisors. It virtually eliminated the excessively large contributions from the big development companies and several influential lobbyists. It also broadened the base of contributors. As a result, the supervisors got more contributions, but they were smaller. Most important, TIN CUP also placed everyone on a level playing field: No longer did large development companies with their deep pockets have an advantage over the smaller firms. And finally, TIN CUP considerably reduced the “hostage” status of the development industry. They now had a legitimate reason to say, “No, I already gave you my limit.”

As we all know, however, ways can be found around any law. In 1988, a major local development firm, under pressure to make large contributions, discovered that it could evade the TIN CUP ordinance by sponsoring a political action committee (PAC). Top management and officers of this company donated money to the PAC, which then gave large contributions to a county supervisor above the TIN CUP threshold. This funneling of money through the company-sponsored PAC allowed the company to give campaign funds over the TIN CUP limit without disqualifying the supervisor from voting on the company’s projects because TIN CUP does not regulate the sponsors behind the PAC.

Unless the TIN CUP ordinance is amended to restrict PAC contributions, we might as well tear the ordinance up and throw it away. Even though at least one county supervisor has declared he will not accept contributions from a company-sponsored PAC because he believes it violates the spirit of TIN CUP, it is clear that there will be increased pressure to accept these funds. More and more of the development companies will find it necessary to form PACs and make large contributions in order to stay in the game with their competitors. Already, at least one other major development firm has formed a PAC and uses the TIN CUP loophole to funnel large contributions to two of the supervisors. If PAC contributions are not limited, they will become progressively larger because there is no limit or penalty in TIN CUP for giving--or accepting--these contributions.

The citizens group that collected more than 100,000 signatures in 1977 to put TIN CUP in effect recognizes the urgent need to close the PAC loophole by placing limits on all contributions, including those from PACs. This has been effective in other cities and counties.

Amending the TIN CUP ordinance to limit contributions from all sources makes it much easier for candidates and contributors alike to make sure they don’t inadvertently break the law. It is often difficult, for instance, for a supervisor to determine when he has a conflict of interest by accepting a contribution from someone who may own several companies.

An ordinance based on “contribution limits” rather than on a “conflict of interest” principle can be readily applied to the other countywide offices including those of sheriff-coroner, district attorney, tax assessor, tax collector, county clerk and county recorder. TIN CUP does not presently apply to these offices because none of these officials ever have the opportunity to “vote” on projects where they could have a conflict of interest because of a large contribution. The amount of money collected in recent campaigns for sheriff and district attorney has reached magnitudes of several hundred thousand dollars. Left unchecked, the money involved in running for these offices will soon be out of sight and out of control. If limits on contributions are good enough for the President of the United States, they certainly should be acceptable for local county officials!

Switching to a “contribution limit” ordinance would bring Orange County into step with ordinances in about 60 other California cities and counties that limit contributions to candidates. A limit on contributions would also tend to lessen, but not totally eliminate, the advantage an incumbent has over a challenger because limits usually lower the total amount collected by the incumbent. The challenger’s major problem is finding contributors because the incumbent usually dries up the funds from the business community, which always puts its money with the incumbent. The only way to eliminate an incumbent’s inherent advantage over a challenger is to eliminate the incumbent (by limiting his stay in office to one term).

The TIN CUP organization has prepared an ordinance for approval by the voters. With the assistance and cooperation of the Board of Supervisors, we hope to present it to voters on the June, 1992, ballot. The TIME IS NOW, once again, for the citizens of Orange County to CLEAN UP POLITICS.