Mayoral Rivals Saving Up for Stretch Run

For James K. Hahn and Antonio Villaraigosa, last week’s fireworks in the Los Angeles mayoral race were just the public aspect of the campaign.

Much of the real work was taking place out of sight. No sooner had they won the right to square off in the June 5 runoff than the two mayoral hopefuls were back on the phone, raising money--”dialing for dollars,” as the political professionals call it.

As in the first round of the election, money will help determine who wins and who loses. But as the campaign shifts gears, so does the strategy for raising, spending and conserving cash in order to maximize its impact on the outcome.

For one thing, television screens across the city suddenly have gone dark, at least as far as political advertising goes. That reflects the campaigns’ determination to save money. Instead, the immediate goal is raising enough cash to stockpile for when expensive spots are unleashed as election day approaches.

“We’ll raise whatever we can raise to get our message out,” vowed Hahn campaign chairman Bill Wardlaw. The Villaraigosa campaign intends to do the same.

Much of this intense focus on fund-raising is a reflection of thehighly competitive nature of thecontest to choose the next mayor of Los Angeles. It is compounded by the limited time available between now and the election. “The hardest thing is the short time frame,” said Villaraigosa campaign consultant Parke Skelton.

But the cash demands in the runoff portion of the campaign also are heightened by the city’s complex campaign finance laws, which draw a sharp distinction between the first and second rounds of city elections.

Under those rules, money raised for the first half of the campaign cannot be used for the second, encouraging candidates to spend every penny in the initial stage of the race and then forcing them to start from scratch in the runoff.

Complicating matters further is the fact that the rules for the runoff are different from those that were in place at the end of the first round.

Normally, local campaign finance rules limit contributions in citywide elections to $1,000 per contributor. But in the mayor’s race this year, that restriction was lifted after commercial real estate broker Steve Soboroff and state Controller Kathleen Connell put significant amounts of personal money into their campaigns.

As a result, candidates were allowed to solicit as much as $7,000 from each contributor.

After that increase in the contribution limit, Villaraigosa benefited from a surge in late donations of $1,000 or more, many from labor unions around the nation. Hahn received fewer donations in excess of $1,000 than his rival during the final two weeks of the campaign.

But this time, observers say the $1,000 limit may hold throughout the campaign.

It is considered unlikely that either Hahn or Villaraigosa will put $30,000 to $100,000 in personal funds into the race, which would lift the contribution limit for the opponent. The contribution limit for the rival candidate would be raised to $4,500 only to the extent of the personal funds invested.

Both contenders agreed to abide by the $1,000 limit when they decided to accept public matching money for the race. “I’m assuming the contribution limit sticks,” Skelton said.

Short on time and limited by how much the campaigns can raise from a single source, the two candidates are engaged in the far more time-consuming business of raising money in smaller increments.

Paradoxically, even as the increments have fallen, the overall amounts that the candidates may raise for the runoff is increasing.

That is because the city’s $1.76-million spending limit for the general election was lifted Wednesday. The spending cap came off when a billboard company executive pledged $250,000 in free advertising space to Hahn. Independent expenditures either for or against a candidate that amount to $200,000 or more automatically remove the spending ceiling.

Both campaigns are now free to spend as much as they raise.

And though it ratchets up the pressure to raise money, it also gives the campaigns more flexibility, allowing them to gear up for a television blitz in the closing weeks.

The first people and businesses targeted for fund-raising appeals are previous donors. Skelton said the obvious goal is “getting people who have already given to you to give again.”

Likewise, Wardlaw said the Hahn campaign is setting its sights “on a substantial number of very, very committed supporters” who gave to the city attorney in the first round.

Beyond that, both campaigns are hoping to attract some of the donors who gave to the other unsuccessful mayoral candidates.

Because of the crush of time, both sides say they will hold fewer fund-raising events than in the long run-up to the April election.

Skelton said that in the first round it was worth Villaraigosa’s time to attend a fund-raising event that could raise $5,000. But now, he said, that figure has climbed to at least $20,000.

As before, Villaraigosa is expected to benefit from a massive effort by the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor and the California Democratic Party to elect the former lawmaker.

“We intend to intensify our efforts,” said Miguel Contreras, head of the labor federation. “You’ll see another comprehensive campaign to our members.”

Concerned about the impact of a loophole in state law that allows contributions and spending for such member communications to go unreported until after election day, the city Ethics Commission has proposed ordinances requiring disclosure of such information before the city’s voters go to the polls.

The measures were amended by the City Council on Friday and will be considered again late this week. One of the proposals would require the reporting of contributions and spending of more than $10,000 for member communications before the general election.

The other ordinance would apply retroactively to such contributions and spending during the first round from Jan. 1 to April 10.

The Hahn campaign has repeatedly complained that some Villaraigosa supporters are getting around the city’s $1,000 contribution limit by contributing to the state Democratic Party’s separate effort to elect his opponent. Hahn has demanded that the secret contributions and spending by the party be disclosed.

In an effort to partially offset the advantage to Villaraigosa from the Democratic Party and Federation of Labor efforts, some Hahn backers have established a separate campaign committee to solicit contributions to promote Hahn’s candidacy.

That brought complaints from Skelton, who noted that the city attorney also has labor unions working on his behalf. Villaraigosa’s consultant also criticized the close connection between Hahn’s campaign and the newest campaign committee.

Despite the continuing controversy, one of Villaraigosa’s richest supporters, billionaire Eli Broad, said after the April election that he will continue to help Villaraigosa raise money for his campaign. A longtime Democratic Party contributor, Broad also confirmed that he gave to the state party during the first round.

“I contribute more when I like candidates they are working for,” he said. “I feel good about the fact that they are helping Antonio.”