Candidates Clash Over Funds

Show me the money!

That’s become a rallying cry in the closing days of the bitterly fought Los Angeles mayor’s race, as rival candidates demand that Steve Soboroff and Antonio Villaraigosa call for disclosure of the source and amount of huge sums of money being spent on their behalf by the state Republican and Democratic parties.

Those calls are matched by indignation from Villaraigosa’s camp, which is objecting to controversial attacks on him, as well as Soboroff’s, which is complaining about a mailer by one of his rivals.

Late Thursday, anti-Villaraigosa ads began appearing on local radio stations, part of a $200,000 purchase by a Riverside County-based Indian group. Villaraigosa supporters were incensed by the ads--which feature a son advising his father not to vote for the former Assembly speaker--and suggested that allies of City Atty. James K. Hahn were behind them. The Morongo Indians, who sponsored the ads, are politically connected with Assemblyman Tony Cardenas (D-Mission Hills), a Hahn ally. The Hahn camp denied any knowledge of the commercials and said they learned of the ads from a reporter.

That flap was the latest in an escalating debate within the mayor’s race. The secret spending by the two political parties brought protests from the other major candidates: State Controller Kathleen Connell, Hahn and City Councilman Joel Wachs all condemned the practice, as did U.S. Rep. Xavier Becerra’s campaign.

Connell opened the last mayoral candidate debate Wednesday night at UCLA by declaring that millions of dollars given to party organizations from undisclosed sources has to stop. “The ‘For Sale’ sign at City Hall has to be taken down,” she said.

And Hahn, who has been fighting to hold off Villaraigosa and Soboroff, used part of his closing statement to say that secret contributions by the state party organizations have undermined the city’s tough campaign reform law.

Wachs and Soboroff, meanwhile, swapped accusations in an exchange that illustrates the long-simmering animosity between the two. Less than 24 hours after Wachs criticized the party mailers for Soboroff, the tables turned again, with Soboroff’s campaign on Thursday accusing Wachs of hypocrisy. The councilman dipped into his officeholder account to send mail in the campaign’s final days, a move Soboroff’s camp called hypocritical. Wachs defended those mailers as a legitimate notice to residents about city issues.

Suddenly, the issue of money has threatened to overtake all other topics in the contentious and expensive campaign, a race that features all six candidates urging the others to take the high road while occasionally opting for the rough-and-tumble themselves.

In addition to the labor and political party efforts, all six leading candidates also are continuing to work hard for contributions even as they stump for votes. Villaraigosa, Hahn and Wachs have each raised more than $140,000 in major contributions since March 25. Villaraigosa in particular has been successful financially, receiving $266,175 in 12 days.

Although the new ads stirred controversy Thursday, the political party contributions have occupied most of the debate. Using a loophole created by Proposition 34, passed by the state’s voters in November, the two political parties are mounting their own efforts on behalf of their chosen candidates.

Villaraigosa said Thursday that he saw nothing wrong with asking the Democratic Party or the county Federation of Labor, which is waging its own effort, to disclose their donors. He stopped short, however, of saying he would ask the organizations to take that step.

“I don’t have a problem with either the Democratic Party or county Federation of Labor disclosing who has funded their efforts,” Villaraigosa said. “I’ve shared all of my donors.”

Villaraigosa said the controversy over the campaigns on his behalf was being generated by his opponents in an attempt to shift the focus of the race way from other issues.

Soboroff’s campaign consultant, Ace Smith, said his candidate would have no problem if the state GOP were to voluntarily disclose its fund-raising and spending. “It’s up to them,” he said.

But spokesmen for both political parties said Thursday that they do not intend to reveal the names of the donors, the amounts given or the total spent until they are required to do so--weeks or even months after Tuesday’s election.

And both flatly rejected the charge by the president of a new ad hoc group concerned about campaign reform who charged Thursday that the Democratic and Republican parties have spent millions of dollars in “an illegal and unreported attempt to corrupt the Los Angeles mayor’s race.”

Jim Mangia, a former official of the Reform Party, threatened to file a suit seeking to cancel Tuesday’s election because of what he called the blatant disregard of city ethics laws by the two major parties. City officials and state party representatives give such a lawsuit little if any chance of success.

“We haven’t broken any laws,” Lance Olson, general counsel for the state Democratic Party, said in response to those charges. “If communicating with members of a political party taints the election, that’s kind of a sad commentary on our democracy. Political parties exist for the purpose of communicating political views to members.”

State party officials have said they would spend $500,000 on Villaraigosa’s behalf. The county Federation of Labor has pledged to spend $500,000 to $1 million to elect the former lawmaker and onetime union organizer.

Jim Camp, political director for state Republican Party, said the GOP is “in 100% compliance with the law.”

Meanwhile, Soboroff’s campaign launched a new broadside at Wachs, who sent mass mailings to voters paid for by his city officeholder account. Smith said Wachs had violated state law by failing to identify the name of the committee responsible for the mailings.

But Wachs said the mailers are permissible under city law, were paid for by contributions to his officeholder account that are publicly disclosed, and discuss city business. Versions of the mailer sent to various groups discuss Van Nuys Airport noise or drinking water contamination, or provide safety tips for senior citizens.

Wachs said he will have spent close to $150,000 on the mailers when all expenses are paid.

With the race appearing to tighten as election day approaches, money is flowing in from sources large and small.

Mayor Richard Riordan, a multimillionaire closing out eight years in office, reported that he has spent $105,000 of his personal funds on Soboroff’s behalf.

On Thursday, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians was the latest to enter the fray with its radio spots opposing Villaraigosa. The Morongos, who operate one of the state’s biggest Indian casinos, have fought organized labor’s efforts to unionize casino workers and supported a statewide Indian gambling initiative that Villaraigosa opposed.

And a group that lobbies on behalf of working families and poor people is running a cable television ad attacking Soboroff for his refusal to participate in the city’s system of partial public financing of political campaigns.

The ad by the Neighbor-to-Neighbor Action Fund, a Los Angeles-based organization, urges voters to “Say No to Steve Soboroff.” The 30-second spot being aired only on cable systems accuses Soboroff of “trying to buy the mayor’s office” by refusing to participate in the city’s voter-approved campaign finance system.

*

Times staff writer Matea Gold contributed to this story.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Fund-Raising for Mayor’s Race

Contributions of $1,000 or more received by Los Angeles mayoral candidates since March 25.

Antonio Villaraigosa: $266,175

Joel Wachs: $197,400

James K. Hahn: $148,700

Xavier Becerra: $45,500

Kathleen Connell: $38,000

Steve Soboroff: $27,000

Source: City Ethics Commission