Dana’s Heir Apparent Joins Titans of Fund Raising

Although he’s simply an administrative aide largely out of public view, Donald Knabe is drawing the sort of fast and furious contributions that normally are reserved for sitting members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

Individuals, labor unions and special interests that do business with the nation’s largest county government pumped over $1 million in the past year into Knabe’s campaign to replace his boss, retiring Supervisor Deane Dana.

With the March 26 primary election for Dana’s open seat six weeks away, Knabe is the next best thing to an incumbent--an heir apparent--in the eyes of the political givers whose contributions fuel campaigns for county offices.

And while challengers find it tough to raise funds, incumbent county officeholders and their designated successors have a direct pipeline to campaign cash.

From his post as Dana’s chief deputy, Knabe raised more than any other county candidate or officeholder. His biggest contribution--$40,000--came from the county probation officers union.

Knabe’s list of those giving $5,000 or more runs for pages.

Such routine $5,000 donations to county candidates are five times larger than any that can be made to Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and 10 times what can be given to City Council candidates in most cases.

And they’re five times the maximum amount any individual can give to a candidate for president of the United States or a member of the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives.

Unlike many large California cities--including Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego--that have limited campaign contributions, there is no limit to what can be given candidates for Los Angeles County supervisor, district attorney, sheriff or assessor.

“Los Angeles County is a dinosaur when it comes to campaign finance reform,” said Bob Stern, co-director of the private California Commission on Campaign Financing.

The county’s wide-open campaign finance system is an entrenched political way of life that works well for incumbents. And as a result, there is almost no appetite for reform at the county--despite the fact that a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors had campaigned on that theme when they initially sought election.

In most races, the major donors are the same: developers, labor unions, lobbyists, trash haulers, dump site operators, oil companies, Metro Rail contractors, ambulance companies, parking lot operators, law firms and others that depend on the county for business.

A Times review of thousands of pages of campaign contribution reports shows that while 1995 may have been the toughest year in county history, it didn’t dampen the flow of campaign dollars.

Unopposed Races

Although she has no opponent and is assured of reelection next month, Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke nonetheless raised $760,428 last year and plans to continue soliciting contributions during the next four years.

Board Chairman Mike Antonovich, who faces an unknown challenger and is all but guaranteed a fifth term, pulled in an estimated $500,000 during a gala fund-raiser at the Bonaventure Hotel one night last week. It is an amount that few politicians nationally can draw in an evening--and comes on top of the $574,460 that Antonovich raised last year.

Burke and Antonovich have no real competition because their campaign money is so daunting, most challengers cannot hope to compete. In fact, the last time a sitting supervisor was ousted from office was in 1980, when Antonovich was elected over Supervisor Baxter Ward--but only with the financial backing of then Supervisor Pete Schabarum.

The largest campaign contribution to a county official last year did not go to the powerful supervisors. Instead, it went to Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti, who is seeking reelection to a second term against a field of five challengers.

Clothing designer and Guess? founder Georges Marciano sent the county’s top prosecutor $50,000 last April. That brings to $220,000 the amount that Marciano and Guess? have given to Garcetti in the past four years, a donation so large that it would rank as one of the biggest even in California, which has no limits on donations to legislative and statewide races such as governor and attorney general.

Marciano did not respond to requests for comment on why he so strongly supports the district attorney’s campaign.

Both Garcetti and the supervisors defend the fund raising as essential because their districts are enormous. Each supervisor represents about 1.9 million people, three times more than a member of Congress. And the district attorney, sheriff and assessor run at large, in a county with more than 9 million people.

To reach the voters, officials insist that they must have the resources to get their message out through targeted mailers and expensive television and radio time. But other politicians running in large jurisdictions, including U.S. senators and presidential candidates, face campaign limits of $1,000 for individuals and $5,000 for political action committees. There is no limit to what a wealthy candidate can give to their own campaign.

Reform Advocates

Campaign reform advocates say the fund-raising damages the governmental process because some well-heeled contributors expect special favors for their largess.

“People are rational,” Stern said. “They don’t throw their money away.”

Indeed, Supervisor Burke acknowledged that’s the case. “No question some people give to you and expect something in return,” Burke said.

“That is what is so corrupting about the system,” said California Common Cause executive director Ruth Holton. “The more that you give, the more you will be heard. . . . People don’t give simply out of the kindness of their heart.”

Take the case of Banyan Management Corp., a Chicago-based real estate firm that poured more than $30,000 last year into the campaigns of Knabe, Dana’s chief deputy, and supervisors Gloria Molina, Antonovich and Burke. Those four supervisors last month voted for Banyan’s scaled-down--but still controversial--project to build 46 exclusive homes on 270 acres in the Santa Monica Mountains above Malibu.

“Zoning is a political process,” said Ed Podboy, vice president of Banyan, explaining the campaign contributions. “You are dealing with elected and appointed officials. It comes with the territory. . . . We look for opportunities to get in front of the politician.”

Podboy spoke to a reporter while waiting to attend the Antonovich fund-raiser Thursday night.

Like Antonovich, Supervisor Burke is not taking any chances despite what would appear to be certain victory in the upcoming election.

After a costly and contentious battle in 1992 against state Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles), Burke raised $760,428 last year to discourage challengers. “I felt it was a very reasonable possibility” that a rival would emerge, Burke said.

Although she can look forward to four more years, Burke plans to continue fund raising because “the way things go now, money talks. . . . I have no opponent today. In four years, I suspect I will, assuming I decide to run again.”

The only real contest for supervisor this year is in the 4th District, which cuts a broad swath along the coast from Marina del Rey to the Orange County line before turning inland across the southeast tier of the county.

Knabe, the top aide to Dana for more than a decade, won the endorsement of his boss the day Dana announced he would not seek reelection for a fourth term. The supervisor’s major contributors immediately transferred their allegiance to his handpicked successor, despite the presence of other serious candidates in the race.

While a prominent player behind the scenes at the county Hall of Administration, Knabe was not a household name in the district. But he was well known to the major contributors to county campaigns.

“I’m just overwhelmed at the support I’ve been given,” Knabe said.

While claiming to have broad-based community support, the majority of those giving to his campaign are individuals and companies doing business with the county or unions representing county employees.

The $40,000 from the probation officers union and $15,000 from the firefighters union topped Knabe’s list. His voluminous campaign reports are filled with donations in excess of $1,000. Only eight-tenths of 1% of his contributions came from those giving $100 or less.

Donors’ Expectations

Knabe said his donors “like me as a person or agree with my philosophy of government.”

While he said he is “comfortable about having to raise that kind of money,” Knabe admits the most painful part of campaigning is “asking people to invest money in you. . . . I don’t know what they expect from me.”

Knabe’s success has made campaigning more difficult for his two chief rivals, former Rolling Hills Councilwoman Gordana Swanson and Long Beach Councilman Doug Drummond. Together, they collected less than $400,000 last year, including substantial personal loans to their campaigns.

By contrast, Garcetti has proven himself to be an adept fund-raiser, bringing in more than $724,381 to his reelection bid last year.

Four years ago, when he was attempting to unseat his boss, then-Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner, Garcetti and his wife provided $250,000 in personal funds to launch his campaign.

Garcetti did not begin to receive numerous large contributions until he forced Reiner into a runoff and the district attorney decided to drop out of the race and hand the office to his rival.

Marciano initially backed another candidate but switched to Garcetti when it became clear he would inherit the office.

In an interview, Garcetti said Marciano’s contribution is an indication that the clothing magnate supports his philosophy as district attorney. He said Marciano is “concerned about the future of this county for his family.” The $50,000 is 50 times the $1,000 limit that Marciano could legally give to Los Angeles City Atty. James Hahn if he had wanted to do so.

Garcetti received a total of $170,000 from Guess Jeans in late 1992. With Marciano’s support and the influx of large contributions from county employee unions, law firms and other traditional donors, Garcetti’s campaign was able to repay $175,000 of the loans by 1994.

When asked why he thought his largest donors have been so generous, Garcetti said: “I hope it is because they believe in good government and support someone they believe is the best candidate.”

But he acknowledged: “If Georges Marciano called me today, I would make every effort to call him back today. He is someone who has been very generous with me in terms of his time and assets.”

Setting Limits

Garcetti said he does not accept campaign contributions from any company or individual his office is investigating. “If there is an individual or business or organization who wants to give me $100,000 or $150,000, I will welcome it as long as it does not compromise my position as district attorney.”

Garcetti, like most of the county’s elected officials, said he is ambivalent about political reform proposals that would impose limits on contributions in county races.

But the trend is clearly in the direction of reform.

Ironically, when county supervisors sit on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, state law prevents them from awarding any noncompetitively bid contract to a firm that has given them $250 or more in contributions during the previous year. A loophole allows MTA members to vote on a contract if they return the amount over $250 within a month. Similarly, county supervisors who serve on the Local Agency Formation Commission, which considers plans for new cities and annexation of unincorporated areas, also face a $250 restriction.

When they sit on the Board of Supervisors, however, they can award a contract to any firm, without being disqualified by campaign contributions of any size.

And it’s likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future.

In the course of their campaigns for supervisor, Molina, Burke and newcomer Zev Yaroslavsky all promised to change the way county campaigns are financed by supporting contribution limits.

So far, these have proven to be empty promises.