Campaign Panel Endorses Contribution Limit

Beefing up your bank balance in advance of November’s City Council elections?

This city’s campaign finance reform committee wants to cool your checkbook by limiting contributions to $250 per candidate in each city election.

That rule would apply whether you’re a Westlake homemaker or a Moorpark pizzeria owner, the group decided. It would govern contributions to both general and recall elections.

Those proposals were among several adopted Monday night at a meeting of the 17-member panel charged with curbing the influence of money in Conejo Valley politics. The committee was tapped in the months following a divisive and enormously expensive failed recall attempt.

The group’s suggestions ultimately will be crafted into an ordinance that will be forwarded to the Thousand Oaks City Council, which has final say on any new municipal laws.

A few panel members disagreed with the low limit, saying it would give the rich an advantage because it’s unconstitutional to limit how much candidates can contribute to their own campaigns, and it would make it difficult for candidates to reach their constituents. Community volunteer Daryl Reynolds, who has worked on many local contests, was among a handful of people voting no.

“It’s very difficult to make it out there with a low limit,” she said. “To get recognition, you need to put up signs and send out mailers. If you limit [contributions] too much, you can’t do all that, and you can’t do TV.”

Nonetheless, after considering higher and lower figures, her colleagues settled on the number after hearing a preliminary tally of typical campaign contributions from City Clerk Nancy Dillon.

With about two-thirds of the contributions from the past two general elections tabulated, Dillon said: “At this point, we have most contributions at $250 or lower--the largest one total contribution was one of $5,000 so far.”

Just to be safe, the committee left open the possibility of changing the number if Dillon’s final calculations show that average contributions are higher.

In addition to capping contributions at $250, the committee also limited the total amount a person who is not a candidate for office could spend in any local contest.

That aggregate would be reined in at $250 for every open seat--plus another $250 that could go to an independent citizens’ grass-roots group.

For example, in this November’s council election, no resident could spend more than $1,000, because there are three seats up for grabs. Next election cycle, when only two seats should be available, the aggregate would drop to $750.

“The idea is, you get one bite at the apple for each seat open,” said attorney Craig Steele, hired to advise the diverse members of the citizens’ panel.

Leaving open the option of contributing to an independent committee means a resident is not deprived of the right to associate in a group, he added.

*

Once the $250 amount was agreed upon, the committee saw little reason to seek further curbs on developers or nonresidents, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars Moorpark businesswoman Jill Lederer spent on last fall’s recall election. No additional restrictions were adopted for nonresidents or businesspeople.

Those decisions will help bring catharsis after the bitter recall battle, said committee co-chairman Jim Bruno.

“Part of our healing process is to stop vilifying one profession or group over another,” he said. “[Let’s say], ‘Hey, all people are looked at the same.’ . . . I think all the developers can come out of the closet after this.”

Despite conflicting legal opinions on whether contributions to ballot measures can be capped, the committee voted that all rules applying to general elections should hold true for recalls too.

Lawyer Steele said he thought the move would be defensible because citizens would wind up picking a new council member were a recall effort to succeed. That creates the perception that someone could be trying to purchase their preferred council candidate.

“As a law, I can tell you that it’s a risky proposition,” Steele conceded. “It’s not tested.”

Political consultant Fred Kimball, a committee member who abstained from that vote, questioned Steele’s interpretation.

“My business is ballot initiatives, and Craig, bless your heart, I have to tell you that you are the first attorney I have ever heard that’s given this opinion,” Kimball said. “I think we’re going to open ourselves up to another lawsuit.”

Also on Monday, the group agreed to:

* Limit cash contributions to $100 or less and cap anonymous donations at $25 or less, to limit the possibility of money laundering.

* Convert all loans that go unpaid to contributions after 60 days. Those loan amounts would count against the $250 contribution limit. This wouldn’t apply to money candidates lent to their own campaigns.

The committee will meet every Monday at the Civic Arts Plaza until a final ordinance is created.