LOCAL ELECTIONS / L.A. MAYOR : Riordan’s Spending Eliminates All Limits

Wiping away all spending limits in the Los Angeles mayoral race, multimillionaire businessman Richard Riordan notified city officials Thursday that he had broken through a $2-million expenditure ceiling envisioned under voter-approved ethics reforms.

The announcement means that Riordan, the largest financial contributor to Measure H, a 1990 ethics reform measure, has now mowed down one of its most important provisions--curbing campaign spending.

Other mayoral candidates, who have collected a total of $1.3 million in taxpayer matching funds after agreeing to limit spending, now may spend as much as they can raise, according to the city Ethics Commission. Limits do not apply to candidates such as Riordan who refuse public funds.

Riordan’s previous contribution of $3 million in personal funds to his campaign triggered a “rich man’s” exception to the city ethics law, increasing the donation limit from $1,000 to $7,000 for all other candidates. With other contributions, Riordan has gathered more than $4 million.

“It’s ironic . . . that Mr. Riordan, the leading (individual) contributor to Measure H, is the candidate taking the action which undermines the real intent of Measure H, which is limiting money in the campaign,” said Brad Phillips, chairman of California Common Cause, a political watchdog group. “Mr. Riordan’s expenditures do exactly the opposite.”

In a statement released by his campaign, Riordan defended himself by taking the offensive, arguing that any opponents who have accepted public funds are still morally bound by the $2-million spending limit.

“I made a choice as a matter of conscience not to accept public matching funds,” Riordan said, citing the city’s fiscal crisis. “No one forced my opponents to take taxpayer money. . . . My opponents have agreed to the spending cap. Now that they are legally free to spend as much as they want, they have a choice: to be ethically consistent with voters or engage in a campaign spending free-for-all that they hypocritically condemn.”

Robert Stern, general counsel to the private, nonprofit California Commission on Campaign Financing, said he expects the impact of Riordan’s move to be minimal. He said that only Councilman Michael Woo, the front-runner in opinion polls who has raised $1.7 million at last report, appears capable of raising more than $2 million.

Peter Taylor, campaign manager for Assemblyman Richard Katz, who has collected $1.6 million, said Riordan will spend $4 million in the primary. “I’d be a lot more concerned if he was spending it smart,” Taylor said. “He’s blowing a lot on overhead.”

Riordan, who has donated millions to political campaigns and held posts on two city commissions, has defended his large personal contributions and spending by arguing that he must level the playing field with incumbent politicians who receive valuable advantages at taxpayer expense and image-building media coverage.

But Woo’s campaign spokesman, Garry South, said: “It’s hard to argue all you’re trying do is level the playing field when pretty obviously you are going to spend nearly twice as much as anyone else in race.

“That isn’t leveling the playing field. That’s tipping it in your direction.”