Lawyers’ Campaign for Funds Draws Fire : Politics: Group fighting anti-attorney initiatives makes bold appeal for contributions of less than $100 that do not have to be publicly disclosed.

Generally, lawyers are not particularly shy about attracting attention or publicity.

But for the lawyer who happens to be the shy and retiring type, Consumer Attorneys of California, the powerful statewide association of trial lawyers, has a suggestion.

Although campaign finance laws require disclosure of most donations, those less than $100 do not have to be publicly reported. It’s a fact well known among political insiders, but not one they openly talk about, and almost never one on which they base written fund-raising appeals.

However, in a bold appeal for small donations, the trial lawyers association recently sent a statewide fund-raising letter to attorneys representing businesses, pointing out that they can donate to the trial lawyers’ cause without anyone knowing.

The fund-raising appeal is an early salvo in what promises to be a high-cost war over three anti-lawyer initiatives on the March ballot. The initiatives would restrict fees that plaintiffs’ attorneys can collect, limit lawsuits over car accidents and restrict lawsuits by stockholders against publicly traded companies.

As they try to raise $10 million for the March campaign, the trial lawyers sent the letter saying: “Any contribution that you make to CA Issues PAC, a fund used directly to oppose the ballot initiatives, of $99 or less will not be publicly reported. Only contributions to CA Issues PAC over $100 are a matter of public record.

“We implore you, your spouses, other family members and friends to each donate at least $99 now,” the pitch says.

The letter has an alternative suggestion for donating anonymously as well. Contributors can avoid being publicly revealed by giving directly to the Consumer Attorneys of California rather than to the group’s political action committee. The donation may be tax deductible, the letter says.

“While this money cannot be used directly to fight the initiative, as with funds to CA Issues PAC, it can be used for general expenses that the CAOC will be incurring during the next few months,” the letter says.

Although the initiatives threaten primarily plaintiffs’ attorneys, the trial lawyers are hoping for some support from lawyers who represent large corporations and perhaps insurance companies. Authors of the letter said many corporate lawyers fear that they will lose business if it becomes known they have donated to trial lawyers.

“Unbelievable,” said Ruth Holton of California Common Cause. “These are attorneys appealing to attorneys to violate the spirit of the law.”

Gary Huckaby, spokesman for Fair Political Practices Commission, said the letter does not violate campaign finance law. “We can’t comment on the spirit of what they’re doing,” she added.

Huckaby said candidates have made similar requests, noting that unpopular contributors often give $99 donations. “There have been concerted drives by candidates . . . to throw a wide net and get as many of these unreportable $99-and-under contributions as they can.”

“I don’t want to sound smug,” said Bill Zimmerman, campaign manager for the three anti-lawyer initiatives, “but I’ve never worked on a political campaign for which people would want to hide their support.”

Zimmerman called the suggestions in the fund-raising letter a “typically devious attorney’s trick to circumvent the law. . . . The suggestion that people can make a political contribution and claim a tax exemption is equivalent to encouraging people to commit a crime.”

Mary Alexander, president-elect of the Consumer Attorneys of California and one of two attorneys who signed the letter, called Zimmerman’s comments “lawyer-bashing,” and said the letter’s suggestions are “all legal and correct.”

Bill Carrick, campaign manager for the trial attorneys, explained the appeal by saying that in meetings with supporters, lawyers who represent corporations and insurance companies have said that “they can’t give because they fear they’ll have repercussions with clients.”

“We told them, ‘If you’re worried, give less than $100,’ ” Carrick said. “Why did we put it in writing? That’s a good question.”