It’s Official: L.A. Lands Democratic Convention

The Democratic National Committee formally selected Los Angeles for its 2000 presidential nominating convention Monday, citing the city’s diversity, California’s new Democratic governor and the organizers’ plan to finance the event with private rather than public money.

“The citizens of California will get the benefit but not the burden,” said Joe Andrew, chairman designate of the DNC. One result: The Republican convention will end up costing taxpayers more than the Democrats’, a bit of political role reversal that Democratic leaders already are trumpeting.

“If Republicans are serious about cutting taxes, then why are they using $10 million more tax dollars to put on their convention than we are?” asked Andrew. “If Republican leaders in Washington truly believe in a vibrant private sector volunteering to help America, then why are they relying on public sector tax dollars for their political convention?”

The new model for convention funding is based on a previous Los Angeles innovation, the 1984 Summer Olympics, for which a group of private citizens organized and raised the money, tasks traditionally performed by the government. Not incidentally, the Games were the first in history to make a profit. This time, four well-heeled Los Angeles leaders--brought together by their friend, Republican Mayor Richard Riordan--won the right to host the first privately sponsored American political convention.

Under a contract to be submitted to the City Council this week, convention co-Chairmen Eli Broad, Bill Wardlaw, David Geffen and Ron Burkle will raise $18.3 million, supply their own volunteers and pay their own bills. The city is on the hook for about $7 million worth of transportation, security and the like, services it would have had to provide anyway.

The private backers also expect a healthy dollop of private in-kind contributions, nearly $10 million, mostly in the form of free use of the Staples Center for the convention. That contribution will cost the arena bookings before and during the convention, but will give it invaluable international exposure.

The breakthrough in convention planning--for decades, political conventions have been hosted by city and state governments, which have paid for the privilege of having thousands of delegates and reporters come to town for a week or so--represents a dramatic shift with uncertain long-term implications. Party leaders have long solicited some private contributions to defray the costs of conventions, but the plans for this gathering exceed all previous private efforts and eliminate any cash commitment by the host’s city or state governments.

For the Olympics, the blessings since 1984 have been mixed. Once shunned, the Games now are coveted. Cities around the world lobby to get them. Once revered, they now are overshadowed by corruption and diminished by commercialism.

Lessons From ’84 Olympics

Are America’s party conventions headed down the same mixed path? In some respects, yes.

Organizers anticipate that major donors will get the right to place signs near the arena and in the adjoining media center, a concession intended to boost the incentive to give, but sure to inject a note of commercialism into the event. Imagine, say, the Ralphs Food 4 Less Television Center or the Arco First Aid Station.

Some observers wonder about the long-term implications of that type of support. But others note that there always has been private backing for conventions. The real change may be in making that support more of an explicit part of the event.

“There’s always been a certain competition to promote cities,” said presidential historian Robert Dallek. “This is just a more direct and open demonstration of private support.”

Although there are some parallels to the Olympic experience, there are also differences.

In large part, the commercialism of the Olympics is driven by the fact that the Games these days make money, and everyone wants a piece of the action. It is hard to see how political conventions could do that. Unlike, say, the men’s downhill or women’s gymnastics, it is not possible for private sponsors to sell tickets to the convention floor.

“I sure haven’t figured out a way to make money on this,” said Broad, an authority on profits.

A billionaire businessman, he has run two hugely successful companies and is thought to be one of Los Angeles’ two richest people, the other being NewsCorp. leader and Dodgers owner Rupert Murdoch.

The bigger quandary for privately run conventions may not be financial but political. If, as some party officials worry, local leaders tap out major donors to sponsor the convention and those donors then prove reluctant to contribute to candidates, this model will disappear fast.

Competition for Contributions

Broad and others acknowledged that the potential for donation competition has troubled some national Democratic Party leaders for whom Los Angeles is a major fund-raising center. But the local organizers are going out of their way to avoid it. For one thing, Los Angeles convention backers hope to raise all their money this year so they don’t cross up the national party when its candidates hit the home stretch in fund-raising.

Local officials also say they hope to target Los Angeles-based corporate donors, those who would be more inclined to give out of their devotion to the city rather than on party affiliation.

That does raise potential for abuse. Corporations are barred by law from directly contributing to candidates but could give substantial sums to the convention.

“The problem with private financing is that it provides an avenue for special interests to attempt to buy access,” said Don Simon, executive vice president of Common Cause, a national political watchdog organization. “Money which would be prohibited . . . comes in through the back door.”

One additional bonus: Contributions to the convention, as opposed to the party or candidates, are tax deductible.

In fact, despite the touting by party officials Monday, Democratic officials for many months were wary of the private financing model because they worried about what would happen if the local group failed to raise the money and about what guarantees it could offer of city services.

Those issues were fiercely debated for months but never mentioned in Monday’s celebratory news conference. In part, that reflects a gradual easing of concerns, but it speaks more to the party’s desire to present a united front and to the drafting of a detailed contract that spells out the duties of the private group and the city.

That document requires approval by the City Council. Although nothing ever is certain with the council, few observers believe that the group will reject the offer to host such a nationally celebrated event, especially now that it has been announced.

After all, the same issues that raise questions about the private sector’s role in paying for party conventions have obvious advantages for city government. In the recent convention competition, Boston was prepared to spend more than $5 million in taxpayer-generated cash to lure the Democrats.

Los Angeles taxpayers will not shell out a nickel of cash. The city will pay for security and transportation, but it does that for other major conventions, and the contribution is relatively modest in return for an estimated $140 million in local economic activity generated by the 35,000-plus convention visitors and invaluable international attention to the city as a place to live, work and visit.

Charles Ahlers, president of the Anaheim/Orange County Visitor and Convention Bureau, said he expects the convention to have no impact on tourism in Orange County. Delegates are too focused on business to stray much, he said.

“They are there to do the work of the party, and they are pretty diligent at it,” Ahlers said. “It’s a great coup for Los Angeles. It brings them lots of recognition.”

Riordan, for whom securing the convention was a major triumph, said that investment was a sound one made better by the role of the private sector.

“We look forward to having the eyes of the world look upon the new Los Angeles,” a beaming Riordan said. “I stand here as the proudest mayor in America.”

Politics, however, is politics. And just because the convention brings publicity does not mean all of it will be good.

On Monday, Tim Fitzpatrick, deputy press secretary for the Republican National Committee, responded to the Democrats’ announcement by disputing the claim that Republicans are spending more taxpayer dollars than Democrats.

And then he recalled some of the reasons Democrats have reason to be embarrassed by their site selection. The Los Angeles area, after all, is the site of the Buddhist temple that is at the center of the party’s fund-raising scandals and the center of the much-derided movie industry. It also is Monica Lewinsky’s hometown, though Fitzpatrick avoided mentioning that.

“Not only do we have an unprecedented, privately funded convention package, Philadelphia is rich with the traditions that make American strong,” Fitzpatrick said. “The Democrats can’t seem to get away from Buddhist temples and the Hollywood elite.”

*

Audio analysis from Times political reporter Ronald Brownstein on the presidential race and the Democrats’ decision to bring their 2000 national convention to Los Angeles is on The Times’ World Wide Web site: https://www.latimes.com/dnc.