Matching Funds Gave Sanders and Feuer a Boost

As they count their post-election blessings, Los Angeles City Council candidates Michael Feuer and Stan Sanders should not forget the taxpayers of Los Angeles, who contributed $100,000 and $97,104, respectively, to their campaigns.

The money came from the city’s matching funds program, designed by reformers to place political outsiders and challengers on a more even playing field with better-financed incumbents, and to wean candidates from the money mania that frequently dominates the political culture.

And don’t think for a minute that Feuer and Sanders don’t appreciate it.

“This money was critical to us,” said Cynthia Corona, campaign manager for Feuer, who will face Barbara Yaroslavsky in a June 6 runoff for the 5th District City Council seat.

“I’d have had to have spent a lot more time raising money from private contributors, less time meeting voters, if I hadn’t got that money,” added Sanders, an attorney, who will compete with Councilman Nate Holden to represent the 10th District at City Hall.

In 1990, amid financial scandals surrounding the Administration of then-Mayor Tom Bradley, L.A. voters approved a tough new ethics law that included a matching funds provision. Under the program, qualified council candidates this year could receive a maximum of $100,000 in tax money in the primary. In the general election, they will be able to get up to $125,000.

In return for the money, candidates must accept limits on how much they spend overall: $300,000 in the primary and $250,000 in the runoff.

Yaroslavsky and Holden did not take part in the matching funds program.

“I didn’t take it because . . . I thought this money could be put to a better use by spending it to hire more police for our streets,” said Yaroslavsky, who during the primary campaigns sometimes sniped at those who accepted the matching funds.

As for Holden, he initially declined to take part, believing--incorrectly--that staying out of the matching funds program would keep Sanders from participating. By the time Holden realized his error, it was too late to obtain the funds.

Ben Bycel, executive director of the city’s Ethics Commission, said the results of Tuesday’s municipal election show that the program is working.

“It gave (the recipients of the matching funds) an added ability to compete,” Bycel said.

In fact, about a third of the campaign money raised by Sanders and Feuer came from matching funds, Bycel noted.

The matching funds bonus meant that Sanders, the challenger, was able to remain in sight of the incumbent, Holden, in fund raising. All told, Sanders raised about $275,000, Holden $320,000.

“Normally incumbents raise considerably more money than the challengers,” Bycel said. “That’s been the experience in state, local and national elections.”

Feuer, thanks to matching funds, was able to compete financially with Yaroslavsky. Feuer’s total was $308,000, while Yaroslavsky raised $412,000. Yaroslavsky was seen by some to have near-incumbent status because she is the wife of L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who formerly held the 5th District council seat that his wife and Feuer now seek.

Despite his enthusiastic endorsement of the program, Bycel emphasized that he and his office do not claim that candidates who take the money are better or more virtuous candidates than those who do not. “We’re totally nonpartisan,” he said.

Like Sanders, Feuer’s campaign swears by the matching funds program.

Instead of having to spend time raising an extra $100,000 from private contributors, “Michael was able to spend the last three weeks of the campaign in the field, walking precincts and preparing for candidate forums,” Corona said. “Otherwise, we’d have had to have been on the phone raising money, eight hours a day.”

Thus, Corona argues, the matching funds program not only proves to be a boon to the candidate, but also to voters by providing them with greater choice and access to candidates.