It’s Time to Devalue Developer Dollars : * Flaws in the Campaign Financing Law Should Be Fixed

It has been clear for years that money from developers has overwhelmed the process of planning at the county level in Orange County.

The public was so disgusted in the 1970s with scandals involving political contributions that the Board of Supervisors was embarrassed into passing a campaign financing law--one that, by the way, still has loopholes.

But now a computer-assisted investigation by The Times of contributions to candidates for the Board of Supervisors suggests just how beholden the process of county governance is to development money. The executive director of California Common Cause, a campaign watchdog organization, calls the numbers “staggering.” Other experts say the percentages of political giving are tilted toward contributions from developers in a way unlike those they have seen elsewhere.

The politicians and professional beneficiaries of the current system in Orange County offer elaborate explanations as to why it isn’t really so bad that 42.3% of the campaign cash given to supervisors and board candidates has during the past 14 years come from developers. Defenders of the practice say that developers are the major game in Orange County, and that it’s simply part of doing business. Supervisors assert that contributions don’t affect their votes. But the public, after hearing these unconvincing explanations, must know better.

There is simply no way that a system can be so flooded with contributions--Supervisor Thomas F. Riley, for example, has received 57.8% of his campaign money from developers--without the recipients of developers’ largess being favorably disposed toward them. Developers clearly have figured out how to spend their money wisely, too, by concentrating on incumbents they know can serve their interests. And, of course, this has the effect of keeping newcomers largely out of the games while maximizing the power of each dollar given.

It is worth noting that in distant Ventura County, money from Orange County developers is regarded as a kiss of political death. A recent Column One article explored a perception among elected officials to our north that Orange County serves as a model of how not to allow developers to shape the future. The irony is that Orange County has traditionally prided itself on being an alternative to the haphazard development, smog and congestion of Los Angeles.

But it is not too late to get a handle on the system of political giving. Without better controls, there are no guarantees that future decisions will be kept beyond the reach of developers’ influence. Indeed, Irvine’s special election last week on a large new development was resolved by a small number of votes, and there was a staggering gap between the spending of the Irvine Co. and that of an opposing citizens’ group. It is naive to suggest that money from developers does not affect either the decisions made by elected officials or those made by voters.

We have said before that an independent ethics commission in Orange County could provide good ideas for changing the way campaigns are financed, and for overseeing their implementation. Efforts to broaden the political base of contributors and to limit contributions from those already giving are worth pursuing. Already, a citizens campaign reform committee has plans for the reform of campaign giving through political action committees.

Orange County’s campaign financing is overwhelmingly tilted toward giving by developers. It’s time to begin righting the balance.