Wachs Attacks Woo on Issue of War Chests : Politics: Councilman says rival would be ‘ultimate hypocrite’ if he took advantage of ethics code provision allowing candidates to exceed $2 million.

Los Angeles City Councilman Joel Wachs on Monday accused Councilman Michael Woo--a rival candidate for mayor--of hypocrisy for saying he might take advantage of an opening in the city ethics law to exceed the $2-million campaign spending limit.

Wachs said that Woo, as the self-described father of the ethics code, should abide by its spirit, not merely the letter of the law.

In a news conference on the City Hall steps that may have provided a foretaste of the sharp jabs expected in the coming campaign, Wachs said that Woo “cannot posture himself as the father of campaign spending limits,” and take advantage of a “loophole” in the law without becoming “the ultimate hypocrite.”

Woo has “got to choose between integrity and personal ambition,” Wachs snapped.

A spokeswoman for Woo replied that there was nothing hypocritical about Woo taking advantage of the provisions of the law.

Woo was one of the key authors of the ethics law adopted in 1990 and has often reminded campaign audiences of his role.

The $2-million spending limit on mayoral campaigns became an issue when candidate Richard Riordan, a multimillionaire businessman, vowed not to accept any public financing for his campaign. Under the law, that would exempt him from the spending limit. Riordan also indicated he was ready to spend more than $2 million--which, under another provision of the law, would permit the other candidates to match Riordan’s spending.

At a subsequent Dec. 17 candidates’ forum, Wachs challenged Woo to abide by the cap even if Riordan or others exceeded it.

“It is my intention to abide by the spending limits,” Woo said at the time. “However, if other candidates are going to make an effort to spend unlimited amounts of money and buy this election, I intend to be competitive.”

Vicki Rideout, a top campaign aide to Woo, said there was no hypocrisy involved in his simply taking advantage of an exception to the limit as provided in the law.

To Wachs’ promise Monday to unconditionally abide by the spending cap, regardless of what other candidates do, Rideout responded, “That’s a pretty easy pledge for Joel Wachs to make, because it appears to us he’s having difficulty raising money.”

Woo says he has raised considerably more than $500,000 while Wachs only recently topped $200,000.

Meanwhile, Benjamin Bycel, executive director of the Ethics Commission, which enforces the city’s ethics laws, said the exemption is meant to ensure that candidates who try to abide by the limit are not handicapped for doing so.

At Monday’s news conference, Wachs also charged that Woo is guilty of further hypocrisy for saying he supports a proposal to ease the limits on campaign contributions any individual or entity may make to a mayoral candidate.

The voters sought to contain the influence of big contributors, Wachs said, and Woo cannot portray himself as “Mr. Clean” if he supports removal of contribution limits.

The ethics law limits each mayoral candidate to accepting a maximum of $1,000 from any contributor. However, the law also has a so-called rich-man provision that takes effect if any candidate donates more than $30,000 to their own campaign.

The provision has become the subject of controversy, with the Ethics Commission upholding one interpretation and the city attorney’s office another.

On Dec. 19, the commission rejected the city attorney’s opinion, which would have allowed candidates to accept contributions of any size to match the self-funding of a wealthy opponent. Instead, the commission said that when the rich-man provision is applicable, the individual donor limit rises from $1,000 to $7,000.

Several city officials, including Woo and Councilmen Nate Holden and Zev Yaroslavsky, have supported the city attorney’s interpretation.

Holden reiterated Monday that he plans to introduce a motion asking the City Council to challenge the Ethics Commission’s interpretation.

Yaroslavsky has spoken recently of asking the voters to amend this section of the law, saying that if the commission’s interpretation prevails, it will hinder candidates with fewer resources and allow a rich person “to buy the election.”