In Politics, Money Isn’t Everything, History Shows

Norton Simon was a cantankerous man who thought he knew more than everybody just because he made a billion bucks.

So he put $2 million of it into a race for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in 1970 and lost.

I’d forgotten my days covering the Simon campaign. I’d blocked out the memories of Simon, the art-collector business genius, looking contemptuous when we reporters asked him questions. I’d buried the memories of the difficulties of dealing with Simon, an early California Ross Perot who was imperious and temperamental when he was thrust into the grimy assembly line of electoral politics.

The image of that campaign--when some feared Simon would buy the election--faded after 22 years in the mental storehouse. It returned Tuesday morning as I was driving to the paper after breakfast with Richard Riordan, the multimillionaire businessman-attorney who is running for mayor.

I am not saying Riordan is another Simon. On the contrary, Riordan is an agreeable, approachable sort of person. He likes to have his way and enjoys an argument. But he usually is pleasant about it.

What Richard Riordan has in common with Norton Simon is that he’s willing to invest his wealth in his campaign for mayor. As a result, Los Angeles politicians are taking a closer look at the issue of the rich in politics and whether a California election can be bought.

Riordan’s foes are afraid he’ll be more successful than Simon. That’s why they want the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission to issue an interpretation of L.A.’s campaign financing law that would permit them to exceed the limits on contributions and match Riordan dollar for dollar.

The law limits the amount of contributions that candidates can receive in city elections. For mayor, it’s $1,000 per contributor. Moreover, contributors’ total donations--to candidates for mayor and other city offices--can’t exceed $7,000 in an election.

But there’s a catch in the law. There’s no limit on the amount a candidate can put into his own campaign. That’s because of a Supreme Court ruling based on the theory that you can’t corrupt yourself.

City Councilman Michael Woo, a mayoral candidate, wants the Ethics Commission to interpret the law to permit Riordan’s opponents to raise unlimited contributions to match Riordan’s personal wealth. “If a Riordan comes in and tries to buy the election and the others are held back, it makes a mockery of the election,” Woo said.

Riordan, who has made his money in law, real estate and business investments, expects to spend up to $2.5 million in the primary and says he may not use any of his own. But he has the ability to write out a check for the full amount.

Woo probably could match Riordan if he were permitted to raise unlimited contributions. The prospect of an Asian-American becoming mayor of Los Angeles would draw contributions from Asian-Americans around the country. And, Woo’s banker father could be a big source of funds.

Assemblyman Richard Katz, a prospective candidate, isn’t rich either. But as a favorite of organized labor, Katz could raise large amounts of money from unions if the limits were lifted. Other candidates have their prized contributor lists.

The Ethics Commission will discuss the issue Friday. The debate will be intense. Riordan’s foes believe lifting the limit is crucial to their campaigns.

But from what I’ve seen, you can’t buy an election.

I’ve already told you about Norton Simon’s rich-man campaign. Four years after Simon, I covered another wealthy candidate who suffered the same fate. William Matson Roth, a Democratic candidate for governor, came from a highly respected and socially prominent San Francisco family. He was a witty and literate candidate, but out of touch with that year’s Democratic electorate, who preferred the big name and populist promises of Jerry Brown.

The lesson of those long-ago campaigns is that while money helps, wealth doesn’t win unless the voters like the candidate. That was the case in the successful congressional campaigns of Republican Michael Huffington in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties and Democrat Jane Harman in the South Bay. These were viable candidates with real issues. Harman ran against South Bay unemployment and Huffington against an old-timer incumbent.

Money didn’t elect Simon and Roth. Nor did it win when Ronald S. Lauder, known for his family’s perfume and cosmetics, spent $13.7 million of his wealth on his unsuccessful campaign for mayor of New York. And Ross Perot isn’t President-elect.

No matter what the Ethics Commission decides, Dick Riordan’s campaign for mayor will be decided by the quality of his message, by his ability to persuade L.A.’s electorate that he can lead the city.