Two Rivals Outstrip Reiner in Gathering Funds for Campaign : Politics: Garcetti, Tanenbaum in position to mount formidable drives, records show.

Two candidates opposing Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner have significantly outstripped him in fund raising over the past three months, raising hopes among his challengers in what promises to be a bruising June primary campaign.

Campaign disclosure documents made public this week reveal that for the period between Jan. 1 and March 17, challengers Gil Garcetti and Bob Tanenbaum received donations totaling $91,000 and $87,000 respectively, compared to $57,000 for Reiner. A third challenger, Sterling Norris, raised $12,000.

In addition, the documents show that Garcetti and Tanenbaum each have considerably more cash on hand than the eight-year incumbent. However, each has received hefty loans, including $200,000 that Garcetti has lent himself and $150,000 Tanenbaum has received from his father-in-law. According to the reports, Garcetti now has $335,000 to spend, while Tanenbaum has $240,000 and Reiner has $117,000.

While his opponents say the numbers spell trouble for the county’s top prosecutor, Reiner’s campaign manager is unfazed. “It means absolutely nothing,” said consultant Robert Ellis. “We are on schedule and support for (Reiner) is tremendous.” Reiner has been a potent fund-raiser in his earlier campaigns.

Reiner, who has been elected twice before without a runoff, may be vulnerable this year for several reasons: a general backlash against incumbents; a perception that his office has failed on some major cases, including the highly publicized McMartin preschool case; and his embarrassing loss to San Francisco Dist. Atty. Arlo Smith in the 1990 Democratic primary for attorney general. In a recent poll of 500 voters conducted by the Garcetti camp, only 22% said they would vote to reelect Reiner.

However, political analyst Sherry Bebitch Jeffe said Reiner must not be underestimated. She noted that it is possible he has raised less money than Garcetti and Tanenbaum because he needs less at this point in the campaign.

“You’re talking about a man who has more name recognition than either of the other two can hope to buy,” said Jeffe, who teaches at the Claremont Graduate School’s Center for Politics and Policy. “The other two guys have got to build name recognition and the public perception of who they are, and that takes a lot of money.”

The primary campaign pits the 56-year-old district attorney against two insiders and two outsiders. Garcetti, 50, is a former chief deputy to Reiner who apparently fell out of favor with the district attorney and now heads up the office’s Torrance operation. Norris, 52, is a veteran county prosecutor who is best known as an advocate of victims’ rights.

Tanenbaum, 48, is a former New York City prosecutor who serves as a Beverly Hills councilman and has a private law practice. A fourth challenger, Howard Johnson, is an immigration rights lawyer. Campaign finance documents for Johnson were not available.

To avoid a runoff election, Reiner must win the nonpartisan primary with more than 50% of the vote. If no candidate garners more than 50%, the two highest vote-getters will run in a nonpartisan general election in November.

Through the early months of the campaign, the challengers have hit harder at Reiner than at one another, seeking to portray him as a media hound who is simply interested in higher office. However, Tanenbaum also has taken the offensive against Garcetti, calling him “son of Reiner” and demanding that both he and Norris resign their positions with the district attorney’s office.

Of all the district attorney candidates, Tanenbaum has raised the most and spent the most. When coupled with the fund raising done last year, and including loans, Tanenbaum has raised $525,000 but has spent $260,000 on what his campaign consultant, Harvey Englander, called “a heck of a lot of research, fund-raising costs and staff.”

In addition, Tanenbaum has already begun buying selected television spots on Cable News Network and during weekend news programs.

In other races, Superior Court Judge Joyce A. Karlin, who issued the controversial sentence of probation for a Korean-born grocer who killed a black girl, reported raising $45,000 in donations and receiving $25,000 in loans during the three-month period ending last week. Karlin faces three challengers in the June primary, and is also the target of a recall campaign.

In the historic 2nd District campaign expected to elect the first black supervisor, ex-Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke has raised $293,042, compared to $179,899 for state Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles). Those figures include the total Burke and Watson have raised since beginning their campaigns last fall for the seat being vacated by retiring Supervisor Kenneth Hahn.

Burke’s total included a $95,000 bank loan, borrowed at 10% interest. Her largest contributions were $25,000 from Hafif Properties, owned by Claremont lawyer Herb Hafif, whom Burke said was a classmate at USC Law School, and $10,000 from San Francisco investment banker Calvin Grigsby, whose company does business with the county.

Watson received a $10,000 loan from E.W. Moon Inc., owned by business consultant Elvin Moon, a friend of Watson. She received donations of $10,000 each from the Los Angeles County probation officers union and Alfred H. King, a retired businessman who is also a friend of Watson.

Meanwhile, incumbent Supervisor Deane Dana raised $361,000 to boost his cash-on-hand to slightly more than $1 million in the 4th District contest. Challenger Gordana Swanson, a Rolling Hills councilwoman, raised $46,579, including $15,000 in personal funds.

Supervisor Mike Antonovich added $454,800 to his campaign coffers and was left with almost $1 million unspent as of March 17. Challenger William Paparian, a Pasadena councilman, raised $29,928, including $10,000 of his own money.

The largest single expense for the supervisorial candidates was $12,000 to $15,500 to print a 200-word statement in the sample ballot sent to voters--an optional but politically important cost that rankled Swanson. She called the fee, which is paid to the county, “part and parcel of the ongoing incumbent-protection racket in county government.”