ELECTIONS / 5TH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT : Foes Criticize Donations to Antonovich

Just four days before voting to approve what was considered a precedent-setting extension of a county land lease in Marina del Rey at below-market rates, Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich received campaign contributions from at least two firms that represent other properties in the Marina, according to a campaign finance report filed Friday.

Although the amounts of the April 17 contributions were small--$500 each--it was just the sort of juxtaposition of money and vote that challengers in the 5th District have used repeatedly during the campaign in their attempts to discredit Antonovich.

“Do I think it’s connected? Yes!” said rival candidate Jim Mihalka, a Los Angeles paramedic. “I think all Mike Antonovich’s decisions are made based on the names on those campaign finance sheets.”

Mihalka and the other five opponents have also tried to portray the three-term incumbent as the developers’ choice in the district, which includes the northern rim of the San Fernando Valley, all of the Santa Clarita and Antelope valleys, and much of the San Gabriel Valley.

In the most recent campaign finance reports, which cover the past three months, Antonovich received at least one-fourth of his support from development-related interests, ranging from plumbers and real estate agents to contractors and developers.

Antonovich could not be reached for comment Friday. However, in the past, he has repeatedly denied that his board decisions are influenced by campaign contributions, pointing out several instances where he voted against projects proposed by contributors, such as expansion of the Sunshine Canyon Landfill or construction of a Chatsworth courthouse.

The statements also show that Antonovich actually raised relatively little money during the period--$43,638--which was slightly more than the amount raised by his best-financed challenger, Pasadena City Councilman William Paparian.

But Antonovich began the campaign with nearly $1 million left over from past fund-raising efforts, allowing him to spend lavishly on advertising and direct mail and still retain more than $372,000 to spend in the final days of the campaign.

His largest expenditure by far was for advertising on more than 18 local radio and television stations, nearly $600,000 in all. He also ran ads in various ethnic publications, ranging from the Spanish-language La Opinion to Armenian newspapers.

Rival candidates said they were heartened by Antonovich’s big spending because they believe that it indicates he feels threatened. Antonovich previously said he was encouraged by the fact that his opponents had “failed to ignite a spark of interest among the voters.”

“I think it’s clear that if you do feel threatened, you say that there are no viable challengers,” said candidate Margalo Ashley-Farrand, a Glendale attorney. “Otherwise, he would have said something milder. It’s strictly a cover-up.”

Paparian’s campaign finance report had not arrived at the county registrar-recorder’s office on Friday, a day past the May 21 deadline. However, Paparian’s treasurer, Lorraine grindstaff, who said she hoped to complete the report Tuesday, said he had raised close to $40,000--half in a loan from himself--and had spent all but $250.

She said that Paparian had received significant support from Armenian-Americans and that his largest expenditures were a cable television ad and several mailings to voters.

The three other top candidates raised far less and spent most of their funds on signs to post around the district.

* Ashley-Farrand raised $4,527 during the period and had only $43 left to spend. Her largest contribution was from Women For of Beverly Hills.

* Santa Clarita environmentalist Lynne Plambeck raised $4,743, nearly half of which came from her Burbank film business.

* Mihalka reported just $2,650 in contributions, $1,650 from himself.