NEWS ANALYSIS : Decision a Boost for Bradley, but Foes Won’t Let Him Off Easy

Faced with a decision on whether to run for an unprecedented sixth term, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley’s prospects have been boosted--but by no means assured--by the closure of a sweeping two-year federal investigation of his personal finances and conduct in office.

Even with the case’s closure, political consultants and Bradley advisers agree that should he decide to run, his opponents are certain to batter him with the ethics controversies that have swirled around him. In fact, an investigation by the district attorney’s office is continuing.

“I would remind people of those things,” said City Council President John Ferraro, who challenged the mayor in 1985. “Everything is fair in love and war and politics.” Added Kim Alexander, an analyst for California Common Cause: “This is the type of material that opposition campaigns are made of.”

In part because the allegations of cronyism have weakened the 74-year-old Bradley, the field of candidates is expected to be far more crowded and formidable than the last time around, in 1989. In that election, Bradley squeaked to a victory against an underfinanced opponent, City Councilman Nate Holden.

“The cloud may not be lifted but it certainly (will) be thinned,” said pollster Richard Maullin. But he added, “I don’t think necessarily that the negative opinion that has been expressed in polls will automatically evaporate” because the federal government has declined prosecution.

Larry Berg, director of USC’s Jesse Unruh Institute of Politics, said the closing of the federal case “can’t do anything but help” Bradley--particularly at a time when the U.S. Justice Department has prosecuted political corruption cases in Sacramento and elsewhere.

“It’s going to be tough” should Bradley run, Berg said, but he now has a strong response to his opponents’ allegations that he broke the public’s trust.

“If a Republican Administration (in Washington) decides it’s not going to do anything with a visible Democratic politician, he has probably met the test,” Berg said.

Bradley’s close aides agreed. Deputy Mayor Mark Fabiani insisted that the political cloud over the mayor “has now lifted entirely. The mayor cooperated completely. He was eternally patient.

“The mayor,” he continued, “will be able to say to whoever asks, whether it is a voter, biographer or a reporter, that after a literal feeding frenzy by the media and after a complete, lengthy and thorough investigation, the responsible agencies have closed the books and found no wrongdoing.”

Bradley said he has not decided if he will seek reelection. “It’s premature. . . . I won’t even entertain the issue for another year,” he said.

He acknowledged that the suspicions raised by the inquiries have hurt him and “there’s no way you can fully recover” the reputation for integrity he once enjoyed. His “fondest hope,” Bradley said, is that the public now will see that “those questions, all of them, have been resolved.”

“I hope it’s the vindication that will permit people to go back and recall that legacy of which I’m proud,” he said.

Those close to the mayor, while insisting all along that the federal investigation would go nowhere, considered it the biggest threat to Bradley and his legacy as Los Angeles’ longest-serving chief executive.

The resources available to federal investigators dwarf those of other agencies that were probing the mayor, including the city attorney’s office and the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission.

The federal investigation began in early 1989, when Bradley’s public image was first tarnished by the disclosure that he had received $18,000 as a paid adviser to Far East National Bank, which had accounts with the city. A call from Bradley to the city treasurer in early 1989 was followed by a $2-million deposit to the bank.

Bradley and the treasurer insisted no special treatment was sought for Far East, and the city attorney later decided not to file charges.

The Far East case touched off a series of local, state and federal investigations--many prompted by news media disclosures--into Bradley’s finances, campaigns and City Hall activities on behalf of friends and supporters.

Bradley has not been charged with a crime in any of the investigations. But he has admitted publicly to making mistakes in judgment and paid a $20,000 penalty for failing to properly disclose personal investments. He recently agreed to return $55,000 in campaign contributions raised through a series of legally questionable political carnivals arranged by a Long Beach businessman who was purchasing city property.

Sources indicated that the federal inquiry initially focused on whether Bradley had benefited from insider information in his dealings with jailed junk bond king Michael Milken and other investment advisers. The investigation was later expanded to include a range of issues dealing with Bradley’s finances and associates.

An inquiry by the district attorney’s office into the campaign carnivals is continuing.

Many political adversaries say the mayor, despite a re-energized effort recently to tackle reform of the Police Department, produce low-cost housing and reduce traffic congestion, remains vulnerable to attack on the ethics issue.

However, others in the community and in the city’s corporate leadership think the ethics issue, ultimately, will play a relatively small role in both Bradley’s decisions about his future and his electability.

The Rev. Cecil Murray, a leading South Los Angeles church leader, said most voters have largely forgotten about the federal investigation and the various charges of cronyism. Today, particularly in Bradley’s traditional base in the inner city, they are more troubled by crime, and lack of jobs and lack of housing.

Voters will be watching, Murray said, to see how Bradley performs in the coming year on those issues.