L.B. Council Votes to Raise Funds Limit : Ethics: Backers of political reform law decry proposal that would allow officeholders up to $10,000 each year for expenses.

The Long Beach City Council has decided to modify a voter-approved campaign-reform law designed to reduce the influence of political contributors.

Despite protests from campaign-finance reformers, the council moved Tuesday to allow elected officials to collect up to $10,000 annually in contributions to help pay job-related expenses.

Supporters of the Campaign Reform Act passed last June said the proposal would create a slush fund that could make politicians beholden to contributors.

But backers said the change is minor and that the funds are needed so elected officials can pay office expenses.

“I respectfully ask the community to understand that it is expensive to hold office,” said Councilwoman Jenny Oropeza.

The current law allows elected officials to maintain a discretionary fund of up to $5,000 in surplus campaign money during a four-year term. But that is not enough to cover day-to-day expenses, according to council members who want to change the law.

Councilwoman Doris Topsy-Elvord said her constituents expect elected representatives to contribute to various charities and that she cannot afford to continue paying from her own pocket.

“Out of the pittance of the stipend we get, we can only give so much,” she said. City Council members are paid up to $21,000 a year.

A committee headed by Topsy-Elvord first recommended a $25,000 annual ceiling on contributions, but the council dropped the figure to $10,000 before voting 6-2 in favor of the amendment. A two-thirds majority was required to amend the voter-approved law. Voting against the change were Councilman Alan S. Lowenthal, who helped draft the Campaign Reform Act, and Vice Mayor Douglas S. Drummond.

City Atty. John R. Calhoun said he must hammer out the details before the council can cast a final vote, scheduled for Jan. 10, on the proposal. He said he must decide how the money can be spent and whether unused funds may be carried over from year to year.

Several organizations opposed the change, including Citizens for Campaign Finance & Ethics Reform, which drafted the reform law; California Common Cause; the League of Women Voters, and the American Assn. of University Women.

“I’ve seen a lot of dirty politics in my life, such as voting dead people,” said longtime Long Beach resident Bob Rexby, 80. “This isn’t quite in that category, but it’s leading into the same thing.”

Jim Sturm, treasurer of the group that drafted the law, said the council amendment would allow representatives to campaign throughout their four-year terms. New candidates would be at a disadvantage, he said, “while the incumbents have been giving away pianos to make their names known.” According to the act, candidates’ fund raising is limited to an 18-month campaign period.

Sturm and other opponents also expressed concern that the council decided the issue with little public input.

After the meeting, Lowenthal criticized the council’s decision.

“They felt very strongly that they needed these kinds of changes and that the people who wrote the measure didn’t understand the needs of officeholders,” he said. “I’m very disappointed.”

The Campaign Reform Act provides matching contributions for politicians who promise to limit their spending. The matching money comes from resident donations, with shortfalls made up from the city’s General Fund.