Measure on Campaign Reform Urged

After a contentious debate with campaign reform advocates, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved the drafting of a political reform measure for the November ballot that would impose the first restrictions on contributions and spending in county races.

The measure, backed by a bare 3-0 majority vote with two abstentions, was sharply criticized by representatives of Common Cause and other public interest groups as not going far enough to limit the amount of special interest money in campaigns for supervisor, sheriff and district attorney.

Los Angeles County has a wide-open system of campaign financing with no limits on what individuals, unions, developers or special interests that have business before the nation’s largest county government can contribute.

Candidates for supervisor, district attorney, sheriff and even assessor hold gala fund-raising dinners and receive checks for $5,000 and sometimes more from individuals, unions and businesses. The cost of running for a county office often can exceed $1 million.

Norma Brecher, director of campaign finance reform for the League of Women Voters of California, told the supervisors that placing their measure on the same county ballot with two tougher statewide campaign reform initiatives would threaten passage of all the proposals.

“We feel very strongly that in putting this measure on the ballot at this time, you will be eroding public trust,” Brecher said. “When elected officials who depend on campaign contributions place a measure on the ballot in conflict with initiatives that are sponsored by public interest groups, the public is skeptical.”

But Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky countered that the proposal he coauthored with Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke is the “most comprehensive campaign reform measure ever placed on a ballot of this county.”

Yaroslavsky sparred openly with Elizabeth Lambe of California Common Cause and other speakers. However, he promised to work with the public interest groups on the final text of the measure.

The plan proposed by Yaroslavsky and Burke would impose the first contribution and spending limits and a limited ban on fund-raising in some nonelection periods.

Instead of the sky-is-the-limit standard now in effect, the measure would restrict political contributions to $200 from any individual or broad-based group if a candidate refused to abide by an overall limit on campaign spending.

Candidates who agreed to spend no more than the maximum on their campaign would be able to raise contributions up to $1,000 each.

The proposal, which now must be formally drafted and brought back to the supervisors for final action, triggered a vigorous discussion.

Under the Yaroslavsky-Burke approach, if a candidate declares plans to spend more than $20,000 in personal funds on the race, the contribution limits for other candidates would increase tenfold. And if a wealthy candidate gave more than $100,000, there would be no contribution limits at all for other candidates.

Supervisor Gloria Molina abstained from voting on the measure, she said, because she had not had the opportunity to study it fully and was not ready to support it at this time.

Board Chairman Mike Antonovich also abstained. He said in an interview that he objects to the additional red tape and bureaucracy required if the measure is adopted and thinks the contribution limits would protect incumbents.