COLUMN ONE : Political Gold Rush in L.A. : The Westside and the Hollywood Hills are a mother lode of affluent, activist campaign contributors. The area is particularly fertile ground for Democratic candidates.

When Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts needed money for his 1990 reelection campaign, a friend asked Studio City, Calif., garment manufacturer Stanley Hirsh to put on a fund-raiser. When Republican George Bush met with a small group of Los Angeles movers and shakers at the Four Seasons Hotel during his 1988 presidential campaign, Hirsh was there.

Hirsh is one of the financial magnets who draws politicians from all over the United States to Los Angeles, particularly the Westside and the Hollywood Hills. He is a major campaign contributor--”a $1,000 hit”--in a city loaded with wealthy, activist givers.

“We have a book at the house that my wife keeps with records of annual votes by candidates that we follow,” said Hirsh, a Democrat. “A lot of it is how they vote on Israel, a lot of it is a liberal Democratic bent and whether they are pro-choice.”

Hirsh, and other Los Angeles contributors like him, cast long shadows in national political circles. Altogether, they gave nearly $11.4 million to congressional candidates and political action and party committees in 1989 and 1990, a computer-assisted study by The Times has found.

Los Angeles has become a fund-raising mecca for Senate and House candidates, not only in California, but in races across the nation--a phenomenon one Washington insider likened to “a thousand straws sipping out of a single well.” This holds especially true for liberal Democrats, for whom Los Angeles’ glittery Westside and Manhattan’s “silk stocking” East Side are the preeminent sources of “exported” campaign dollars nationwide.

“I don’t care where you’re from in this country, if you don’t have a Westside program, you don’t have a program,” said Marc Litchman, a political consultant who has raised money for various Los Angeles Democrats. “There are so many people there who are willing to give and who are active that there’s no rational program that can be set up without it.”

Donors like Hirsh are always in demand but never more so than today. The recession has cut into campaign-giving nationwide; in California, two hotly competitive Senate races this year and seven new House seats are soaking up funds that otherwise might flow to candidates outside the state.

Moreover, in the wake of the savings-and-loan debacle and other scandals, politicians have become increasingly sensitive about accepting funds from some political action committees and corporate interests. Consequently, the Los Angeles campaign lode has become even more desirable because much of it comes from individual givers who are not seeking personal favors from lawmakers. This is “clean money” in political parlance.

To be sure, some donors, such as movie studio executives or attorneys concerned about tort reform, seek to influence narrow policy decisions that affect their livelihoods. But to a great extent, wealthy Los Angeles givers tend to weigh in on broader causes, particularly Israel, the environment and abortion rights.

It is less clear whether Los Angeles’ disproportionately large contributions produce concrete regional benefits, such as increased federal grants or government projects, although specific industries or companies--such as those in the entertainment field--may gain greater access and a more sympathetic hearing.

The Times’ analysis found that about 7,700 individuals in four Westside and San Fernando Valley congressional districts gave $5.9 million to House and Senate candidates and $5.4 million to PACs and party committees during the 1989-90 election cycle. This does not include contributions of less than $200, which do not have to be reported under federal law. Nearly 60% of the contributions to Senate and House candidates went to those seeking offices outside California.

The study, which covered more than 500,000 contributions to nearly 900 candidates and 4,200 political committees nationwide that were reported to the Federal Election Commission, also found that:

--Nearly 47% of the money raised in Los Angeles went to Democrats. About $4.7 million was given to Democratic candidates, while $612,000 was channeled to party committees.

--About 23% went to Republicans. The Republican National Committee and the GOP’s Senate and House campaign committees took in $1.4 million, while candidates got $1.2 million--much more than Republicans raised in Orange County, a GOP stronghold.

--The remaining 30%, or $3.4 million, was given to nonpartisan political action committees. The biggest recipient was the Hollywood Women’s PAC, which raised $569,375 in the Los Angeles districts, followed by Citizens Organized PAC, $192,400, and National PAC, $163,980, both of which are pro-Israel groups.

--About 70% of the money, or nearly $8 million, came from residents of the 23rd District, which includes Beverly Hills, Bel-Air, Brentwood and Malibu. The other three surveyed districts--based in Hollywood, the East San Fernando Valley and the coastline from Santa Monica to Redondo Beach--gave $3.4 million.

--The biggest individual recipient by far was Rep. Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica), who raised $717,866 from these districts. Levine, who has deep family roots in the Westside and has championed pro-Israel issues and opposed oil drilling issues, is running for the U.S. Senate this year.

--The next largest recipients were from out of state: Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), who raised $500,090 and has close ties in the entertainment industry, and Democrat Harvey Gantt, who garnered $340,792 in his unsuccessful 1990 bid to oust Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N. C.). Defeating archconservative Helms was a cause celebre for many arts and civil rights activists.

--Conversely, Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Los Angeles), who represents the donor-rich 23rd District, has done little to mine its campaign wealth. He raised only $128,950 from his constituents, less than Levine and Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), who represent neighboring districts, and less than Beilenson’s GOP opponent in 1990, Jim Salomon. And Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) took in only $6,250 from his Hollywood-based district.

Los Angeles and Manhattan have become campaign gold coasts for Democrats, in part because they are home to a relatively rare breed: wealthy liberals. Just about everywhere else, affluent givers tend to be Republican.

The Givers

Politicians, fund-raisers and donors subdivide Los Angeles contributors into various communities of interest: the entertainment world, feminist activists, pro-Israel forces, environmentalists, special-interest donors and the downtown business Establishment. Many contributors fall into two or more of these categories.

In each of these communities of interest, there are “door openers” who can raise substantial sums of money or confer credibility on those seeking to do so.

In the entertainment world, MCA Inc. Chairman Lew R. Wasserman, Walt Disney Co. Chairman Michael D. Eisner and Fox Television Stations Inc. Chairman Barry Diller are widely regarded as “rainmakers.”

Among liberals, central figures include Robert L. Burkett, vice president of Interscope, a firm owned by department store heir and film producer Frederick W. (Ted) Field, and Bruce Corwin, owner of Metropolitan Theaters and campaign treasurer for Mayor Tom Bradley. Burkett now heads the fund-raising effort for presidential candidate Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.).

In the pro-Israel network, Larry Weinberg, a wealthy real estate developer and former national chairman of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is most influential.

“Wherever you go,” Levine said, “a substantial amount of giving results from who asks.”

Simply asking, however, may not be enough. Many Los Angeles contributors expect to meet the candidates in person. Some seek influence, but most simply want to quiz them firsthand.

Barbara Silby, a national Democratic fund-raiser for 13 years, says that she always sent candidates to Los Angeles and New York for “warm-ups” with potential givers “because they really want to get to know you.”

Stories are legion about Los Angeles activists interrogating politicians before giving to their campaigns. The Hollywood Women’s PAC, for instance, lambasted Sen. Bradley for voting in favor of Contra aid in the mid-1980s and challenged Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) on environmental issues.

Politicians do not always appreciate being grilled over cocktails or canapes by potential donors who may believe that they know more about an issue than the lawmakers.

“The candidates generally detest it,” Silby said. “Are they charming about it? Do they know they have to do it? Yes. Would they much rather be in their own districts finding out what people think or here in Washington? Absolutely.”

Why, then, do they put up with it?

One reason is the clout of groups like the Hollywood women’s group, which first flexed its fund-raising muscle by hosting a $1.5-million event at Barbra Streisand’s home in 1986 and which has contributed more than $3.5 million to Democratic candidates.

Another is the unparalleled generosity of individual donors like Hirsh and other well-heeled Angelenos.

Hirsh, a former president of the Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles, gave a total of $70,600 during the 1989-90 cycle, while his wife, Anita, contributed $28,250. The next biggest donor was Hollywood entrepreneur A. Jerrold Perenchio, whose key interests are the environment and education and who gave $61,500.

Many major contributors are prominent members of the entertainment Establishment. Field and his wife, Susie, progressive activists who have since separated, contributed $49,827 and $51,750, respectively, during the last election cycle. Wasserman, one of Hollywood’s political pioneers, and his wife, Edith, together gave $74,000. Television producer Norman Lear, the elder statesman of liberal-activist Hollywood, and his wife, Lyn, gave $71,250.

Rock star Don Henley, an active environmentalist, gave $55,150. Former Lorimar Telepictures Chairman Merv Adelson, an avid supporter of Israel, contributed $51,750.

The Walt Disney Co. was well-represented among major donors. President Frank G. Wells and his wife, Luanne, gave $74,000; Chairman Eisner and his wife, Jane, $65,500, and Disney Studios Chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg and his wife, Marilyn, $69,500.

Eisner has close ties to Sen. Bradley; Wells is a liberal Democrat concerned about environmental issues. In addition, Disney, which has its own political action committee and had full-time lobbyists in Washington and Sacramento last year, has trade, copyright and regulatory governmental interests.

Campaign laws limit individual contributions to $1,000 per candidate for each election cycle and cap overall individual giving to federal candidates at $25,000 a year.

All contributions made in 1989 and 1990, however, were not necessarily counted against the limits for those years. A contribution to a Senate candidate running in 1992, for instance, would count against a donor’s 1992 limit, not the 1989-90 maximum of $50,000.

In addition, Hirsh contends that some contributions attributed to him actually were made by his wife from a joint checking account.

In addition to the contributions included in The Times’ survey, Los Angeles residents gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in “soft money”--donations to party organizations for get-out-the-vote and other political activities not linked to specific candidates. Such contributions did not have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission until Jan. 1, 1991.

In contrast to the Democrat-dominated contributions to candidates, most of the major soft money went to the Republican National Committee.

Topping this donor list was Gary Winnick of Beverly Hills, who gave $125,000 to the Republican National Committee. Winnick, a former lieutenant to junk bond king Michael Milken, operates the investment firm Pacific Asset Management. Other prominent Republican National Committee donors were actor Sylvester Stallone, who gave $75,000, and Los Angeles Kings owner Bruce McNall, $70,000.

The Democratic National Committee, however, was not left empty-handed. It received $105,400 from multimillionaire producer Field and $50,000 from entertainer Bill Cosby.

Pro-Israel Factor

For individual candidates from either party, supporting Israel may well be the single most important thing they can do to help themselves raise money in Los Angeles.

Above all else, this means voting for the annual foreign aid bill, which currently contains $3 billion for Israel. It also means opposing arms sales to Arab nations and, more recently, backing $10 billion in loan guarantees to help build housing for Jews coming to Israel from the former Soviet Union despite President Bush’s desire to delay the guarantees until the Middle East peace talks were fully launched.

Most of the biggest political beneficiaries of Los Angeles largess in 1989 and 1990 are regarded as important friends of the Jewish state. They include Sens. Kerry of Massachusetts, Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Paul Simon (D-Ill.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who is a presidential candidate this year.

Simon became a hero to the pro-Israel community in 1984 when he ousted former Sen. Charles H. Percy, an influential critic of Israel. Harkin won a major victory for the pro-Israel forces that year when he beat former Sen. Roger W. Jepsen, who had supported a controversial sale of radar surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia in 1981.

Cranston, Kerry and Simon sit on the Foreign Relations Committee, whose chairman, Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.), is another significant recipient of Los Angeles money.

Cranston, of course, had long worked California fund-raising circles aggressively. Kerry made many friends soliciting money as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. And Simon, Levin and Harkin are all liberals who favor abortion rights. Still, by all accounts, their pro-Israel credentials give them special entree and appeal.

When it comes to the potency of pro-Israel giving, however, Rep. Levine is Exhibit A.

Levine raised the bulk of his money in the last election cycle at an upbeat 1989 fund-raiser at the Beverly Hilton Hotel that brought in nearly $800,000. Hundreds of friends and supporters paid $400 each to dine on chicken and California wine and listen to Ann Richards, then Texas secretary of state and now governor, roast George Bush and toast Levine. The crowd included family friends, longtime liberals, attorneys and entertainment executives.

Levine’s tremendous West Los Angeles fund-raising base is no accident. His grandfather and father, Sid, a wealthy real estate developer, have long been active in philanthropic causes. Max Greenberg, his father-in-law, headed the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.

Levine and his wife, Jan, who grew up in Beverly Hills, have known many of the big givers for years, and the lawmaker has assiduously courted that base. A member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Levine has been one of Capitol Hill’s most vocal supporters of Israel.

Levine raised the bulk of his money in 1989-90 from Beilenson’s district--parts of which Levine represented in the California Assembly--rather than from his own constituents. “It’s like a farm club,” said one supporter.

In general, Los Angeles donors tend to focus more on the influence and ideology of individual members of Congress than on the districts they represent, say givers and officeholders.

Although Levine remains largely unknown to the rest of California, he is considered a viable contender to win the Democratic nomination for Cranston’s seat because of his fund-raising muscle. He garnered $1.1 million at a single event last year. Much of the money is flowing from pro-Israel supporters around the nation as well as on the Westside, say those familiar with the campaign.

Entertainment World

The entertainment world includes many major contributors who are motivated by issues other than those that affect their livelihood. But it also has its share of special-interest money.

“The studios, by and large, have some interest, whether it’s tax or communication or intellectual property,” a former national Democratic fund-raiser said. “The entertainment industry has been more special-interest-oriented than they’ve gotten blamed for, because they’ve always had progressive stars out front talking up those issues.”

The leading beneficiaries of contributions to PACs in 1989-90 included the Walt Disney Co. Employees PAC, which raised $85,959 from the surveyed Los Angeles givers; the Warner Communications Inc. PAC, $40,750, and MCA’s PAC, $31,640.

The studios also have proved themselves to be major practitioners of the corporate art of “bundling”--collecting personal contributions for a single lawmaker from top executives and their families and pooling the money to maximize its impact.

Little-known Rep. Robert J. Mrazek (D-N.Y.) has discovered the benefits of going to bat for members of the Hollywood world.

Mrazek, who is a movie buff, was alerted to the film colorization controversy by director Fred Zinnemann, says Thomas Barry, Mrazek’s chief aide. Mrazek and Rep. Sidney R. Yates (D-Ill.) passed a bill in 1988 intended to discourage colorizing of classic black-and-white films.

Mrazek worked with the Directors Guild of America and met such luminaries as Barry Levinson and Steven Spielberg when they came to lobby. After the uphill legislative fight, the Hollywood heavy-hitters offered to aid Mrazek in future political endeavors.

Initially, he declined. “We did not want to ask them for anything because we felt it would somehow create the wrong impression about the congressman’s intentions, that it would somehow make it a mercenary thing,” Barry said.

But, two years later, concerned about slackened fund raising and a rising mood of anti-incumbency, Mrazek accepted. In June, 1990, Levinson, Spielberg and Michael Ovitz, president of Creative Artists Agency, held a fund-raiser at Spielberg’s Amblin Entertainment in Universal City, Calif. They raised $120,000.

Although he represents part of Long Island, Mrazek managed to raise only $13,250 in nearby Manhattan in 1989-90. He’s now running for the U.S. Senate in New York--and expects to be back in Los Angeles in search of additional campaign money.

Another officeholder who has made the right Hollywood connections is Sen. Bradley.

Bradley and Disney Chairman Eisner have been friends since the early 1980s, when Eisner was a young Paramount Pictures Corp. executive. Eisner has made fund-raising for Bradley a personal mission. In October, 1989, Eisner and Ovitz were hosts of a star-studded, $1,000-a-person event for Bradley at the Century Plaza Hotel that raised nearly $700,000. Eisner had introduced Bradley to Ovitz, a talent agent widely considered the most powerful person in Hollywood.

The senator has other Los Angeles allies. Attorney William M. Wardlaw, a longtime friend; wealthy financier Jon Lovelace, a fellow Princeton graduate, and attorney and Princeton classmate Ron Olson have made introductions and raised funds.

Besides being a potential presidential aspirant, Bradley has something else going for him: He is, in some respects, the prototypical candidate for California.

“California is a sports entertainment-higher learning state,” said Noel Gould, former executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Bradley, in turn, is “an NBA star with celebrity status who was a Rhodes Scholar,” Gould said. “And he appeals to entrepreneurial givers who are intrigued by the competitive nature of politics and the prestige of being associated with emerging leaders.”

Home-District Contrasts

Sen. Bradley and other non-California candidates spend much of their time soliciting funds in the Westside district that Waxman is expected to represent under proposed maps drawn by a court-appointed reapportionment panel. This new 29th District would merge the Westside part of Beilenson’s current district with the heart of Waxman’s Hollywood-based district.

Waxman is a proficient fund-raiser. His chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health and the environment has given him a national fund-raising base.

But Waxman took in a paltry $6,250 in large contributions from his own current district. He maintains the small sum does not reflect a lack of support. Rather, he says, many of his constituents are not affluent, so he has relied more on PACs, which can give up to $5,000 to a candidate for each election.

“I haven’t had a fight, so I haven’t had a need to go and raise money, and I spend as little time as possible raising money,” Waxman said. “It takes a lot of time and effort to raise money from a lot of individuals when the maximum an individual can give is $1,000.”

Beilenson, meanwhile, has never built a strong fund-raising operation even though he has represented parts of the Westside since his election to the state Assembly in 1962. He disdains raising funds in non-election years and does not take PAC contributions.

“I don’t enjoy raising money, and what I’ve tried to do is not raise more money than I need,” Beilenson said. “What that has led to is a lack of effort on my part to reach out to develop new friends to help me or to contribute to me. What it also leads to is not asking existing contributors to give too often.”

This will change. Beilenson has opted to run in a proposed Republican-leaning district in the West San Fernando Valley and Ventura County that contains 55% of his current district rather than oppose the politically formidable Waxman in a costly Democratic primary.

Among those to whom Beilenson says he will turn for increased financial support are his supporters on the Westside--even though he would no longer represent them in Congress.

“I’m going to reach out to a great many people,” Beilenson said.

Top Recipients of L.A. Largess

Candidate Amount 1. Rep. Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica) $717,866 2. Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) $500,090 3. Senate candidate Harvey $340,792 Gantt (D-N.C.) 4. Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) $229,500 5. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) $228,995 6. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $211,360 7. Rep. Howard L. Berman $202,250 (D-Panorama City) 8. House candidate Jim $197,128 Salomon (R-Beverly Hills) 9. Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.) $180,950 10. Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson $161,200 (D-Los Angeles) 11. Former Sen. Rudy Boschwitz $141,400 (R-Minn.) 12. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $129,725 13. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) $93,516 14. Sen. Albert Gore Jr. (D-Tenn.) $81,725 15. Rep. Robert J. Mrazek (D-N.Y.) $77,750

Source: Times analysis of 1989-90 federal campaign contributions from four Los Angeles congressional districts, based on Federal Election Commission records .

L.A.’s 20 Top Contributors

Contributor Occupation Amount 1. Stanley Hirsh Garment business owner $70,600 2. A.Jerrold Perenchio Producer/real estate $61,500 3. Don Henley Rock singer $55,150 4. William Keck II Oil & gas executive $54,300 5. Frank G. Wells Walt Disney president $53,500 6. Merv Adelson Entertainment/ $51,750 real estate 7. Susie Field Housewife $51,750 8. Frederick W. Field Movie producer/ $49,827 Department store heir 9. Michael R. Forman Pacific Theaters/ $47,800 real estate 10. Lew R. Wasserman MCA chairman $47,250 11. Hamlet T. O’Hanian Retired businessman $45,124 12. Aris Anagnos Real estate $44,400 13. Newton D. Becker Entrepreneur $42,200 14. Norman Lear TV producer $42,000 15. Jeffrey Katzenberg Disney Studios chairman $40,250 16. Michael D. Eisner Walt Disney chairman $36,750 17. Glen A. Holden Ambassador to Jamaica $35,500 18. Karl Samuelian Attorney/GOP fund-raiser $34,250 19. Joseph Shapiro Disney senior VP $32,840 20. Max Salter Clothing business owner $31,740

Source: Times analysis of 1989-90 federal campaign contributions for direct support of candidates from four Los Angeles congressional districts, based on Federal Election Commission records.