Riordan Donates $2 Million to His Drive : Politics: Latest gift raises the amount he has pumped into his own campaign to $3 million. The move is likely to free rivals to exceed spending limits set by voters.

Lawyer-businessman Richard J. Riordan gave himself $2 million Friday--bringing to $3 million the amount he has pumped into his Los Angeles mayoral campaign and setting a record for self-giving in a California municipal race.

The donation puts Riordan far ahead of his opponents in the fund-raising race at a time when a rival’s poll shows him surging from single-digit obscurity to a strong second place.

So far Riordan has spent $1.2 million. But as soon he spends $2 million he could set off a campaign spending free-for-all by triggering an automatic lifting of a spending cap in the city’s ethics law. Rival candidates who had agreed to the cap--as a condition of receiving public matching funds--would be legally free to spend as much as they want.

Riordan’s $3-million contribution stands in contrast to his 1990 support of the campaign to impose the ethics law. He was the campaign’s largest individual financial backer, but now says his mayoral opponents are fundamentally wrong to accept public matching funds in light of the city’s budget crisis.

“Riordan’s action directly conflicts with what the voters called for” when they passed the ethics law, with its provisions on spending limits and matching funds, said Cecilia Gallardo, field director for the political watchdog group California Common Cause.

She added that the size of Riordan’s donation was unprecedented in California’s municipal races.

However, the national record for a municipal contest appears safe. It is held by cosmetics heir Ronald S. Lauder, who gave his own New York City mayoral campaign $13.7 million in a losing effort.

And Riordan, who has been called the Ross Perot of L.A., is nowhere close to the computer magnate’s record of using $60 million of his own money last year in his losing bid for the presidency.

Riordan announced his latest donation the day before a legal deadline for candidates to disclose donations to their own campaigns before the April 20 primary.

A spokesman for the Riordan campaign, headquartered in Encino, declined to say how much more of Riordan’s personal fortune of $100 million he plans to use if he wins a spot in the June runoff.

Riordan justified his extraordinary contribution by saying that it wasnecessary to level the playing field with key opponents such as City Councilman Michael Woo, who are already well known by the public by virtue of their incumbent status.

Despite the anti-incumbency tenor of his campaign, Riordan is an established political insider who is one of the largest campaign contributors in California and whose law firm has received millions of dollars in government work. In fact, he and his firm have contributed to previous campaigns of three of his current mayoral rivals.

By tapping so heavily into his own money so early in the race, Riordan has dominated airwaves and mailboxes with three television commercials and three targeted mailings.

Vicky Rideout, campaign manager for Woo, the early front-runner, said Riordan’s efforts appear to be giving him a quick boost.

“Our polling shows that this has become a Woo-Riordan race with everybody else stuck far behind in single digits,” she said. Rideout said the poll, conducted last week, was a survey of 600 voters. She would not provide specific polling results, other than to say that the Woo campaign’s earlier polls had shown Riordan support about 4%.

In a letter notifying the city’s Ethics Commission of his donation, Riordan included an analysis that attempted to quantify what he said was an enormous advantage enjoyed by his rivals who hold elective office.

The analysis--ridiculed by opposing campaigns--included factors such as City Council members’ staff and office budgets, government cars and campaign contributions going back more than 10 years.

“Receiving a contribution in 1981 is supposed to somehow bear fruit in 1993?” scoffed Peter Taylor, campaign manager for Assemblyman Richard Katz. “That’s foolish. Dick Riordan is trying to hide the fact that he’s trying to treat L.A. like a leveraged buyout.”

“This is the sad song of the poor little rich boy,” Rideout added. “For Dick Riordan to try to make out like he is the poor guy in this race is just incredible.”

Another rival, Councilman Ernani Bernardi, said: “I think it’s nauseating. . . . I guess he feels he can buy his way into this. I hope the public sees through it.”

It is unlikely that anyone will be able to keep pace with Riordan’s record-breaking fund raising, which exceeds $4 million, counting contributions from others. So far Woo and Katz are his nearest competitors, raising $1.7 million and $1.3 million respectively.

In other campaign developments Friday:

* Mayoral candidate Joel Wachs was dealt a potentially important financial blow when his controversial gimmick of hawking art designs plowed into new legal problems.

The Ethics Commission notified Wachs that it will delay his request for $356,000 in public financing because of legal questions surrounding the art sales. Wachs estimated that half of his matching funds request was based on donations collected from sales of lithographs from designs donated to his campaign by such major artists as David Hockney and Roy Lichtenstein. Donors who contribute $1,000 are being offered the limited edition, signed prints, and more than 300 have been sold, Wachs said.

The commission ruled Friday that income from the art sales may not be contributions at all--and thus ineligible for matching funds. It said no matching funds would be provided to Wachs until he delivers more information about who purchased the prints and the value of each artwork offered.

* A community activist who has been sharply critical of Woo said her neighborhood preparedness seminar was canceled by the host, Paramount Pictures, after inquiries by a Woo City Hall staff member.

Linda Lockwood, who has challenged Woo’s record in the Hollywood area of his district, said executives abruptly canceled the event after weeks of planning the seminar, which was to be held today in donated space at Paramount’s Hollywood studios. She said she was told by a Paramount manager, Ed Tracy, that Woo’s office was questioning why the studio was assisting her and that studio executives feared Woo could cause costly delays with a major expansion project.

Woo’s council office spokeswoman, Julie Jaskol, and Paramount spokesman Jim Arnold acknowledged that a member of Woo’s staff had questioned a studio executive about the seminar and that the seminar was later canceled. But they denied that the Woo aide--who neither would identify--applied pressure, and said the cancellation was unrelated to Lockwood’s criticism of Woo.

Arnold said Paramount executives became concerned after the Woo staff member and others noted that Lockwood was charging participants a $50 fee. Lockwood said Paramount knew all along that a fee would be charged.

Times staff writers Richard Simon and James Rainey contributed to this story.