Soboroff Caps Use of His Money in Race

Commercial real estate broker Steve Soboroff announced Friday that he will spend $667,000 of his own money in his campaign for mayor of Los Angeles, far less than had been anticipated by other mayoral contenders who had worried Soboroff might bury them in an avalanche of self-financed television advertising.

Soboroff’s personal contribution falls far short of the $3 million Mayor Richard Riordan--Soboroff’s political role model and chief supporter--spent in the April 1993 election, which delivered Riordan from obscurity to a runoff election.

But Soboroff is far less wealthy than the mayor and his $667,000 contribution--a fortune by most Angelenos’ standards--means that he will still have to raise significant outside money to match other top candidates’ advertising in the final month leading up to the April 10 election.

Soboroff’s disclosure came on a day of several other important developments in the mayor’s race--most notably a decision by the union for Los Angeles police officers not to endorse a candidate and by U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer’s announcement that she is backing former Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa.

But Soboroff’s constrained use of his own money was the day’s biggest surprise.

Soboroff’s campaign spokesman Phil Paule said the candidate has been “extraordinarily successful” in raising money from others and will more than hold his own on the airwaves.

But Soboroff’s competitors expressed relief Friday that the businessman will not drown out their messages by heavily drawing on his own bank account. Many had predicted that he would spend $2 million or more of his own cash. The $667,000, in contrast, seemed “pretty weak,” said Parke Skelton, consultant to Villaraigosa.

Under the city’s campaign finance law, candidates must announce if they will spend more than $30,000 of their own money before today’s deadline, a month before election day.

In his one-page letter to the city Ethics Commission, Soboroff said he had “no alternative” but to use his own money in the race, citing the built-in advantage he said his opponents have because they “collectively have had over 100 years in public office in which to build their fund-raising base.”

Soboroff said he chose to spend $667,000--in addition to $20,000 he committed earlier--because that is the same amount that other candidates can receive in public funding for their campaigns under the city’s finance laws. To get that money, the candidates had to agree to cap their spending and follow other rules, which Soboroff chose not to do.

The former recreation and parks commissioner also used his letter on the money issue to pick a fight with City Atty. James K. Hahn, the front-runner in the race according to a recent Times poll and also the candidate with the biggest campaign war chest.

“The resources my wife and I are putting into this race are the fruits of our own hard work,” Soboroff wrote. “I was not born into a Los Angeles political dynasty. I am running based on my name and my accomplishments, not those of my father.”

Soboroff was referring to Hahn’s habit of frequently invoking the name of his father, the late Los Angeles County Supervisor Kenneth Hahn. The elder Hahn was a beloved figure in many Los Angeles communities.

Hahn spokesman Kam Kuwata accused Soboroff of engaging in negative campaigning. And he defended the city attorney’s decision to accept public funding in the race, saying: “He is playing by the rules.”

Kuwata joined those who said that Soboroff’s limited personal expenditure, combined with the $623,000 he had in his campaign treasury on Feb. 24, will make it “very, very difficult to wage a competitive campaign.”

Soboroff campaign consultant Ace Smith fired back: “We feel this is what we need. We feel we’re in a really strong position now to be in a runoff. We’re going to be on TV, in the mail, as strong or probably stronger than anyone in the field.”

Riordan Could Be Soboroff’s Ace in Hole

Still potentially looming as a development in the financial landscape are independent expenditures by third parties including, possibly, Riordan. The mayor has for months been exploring the possibility of paying for mailers or other advertising to help Soboroff, his friend and political ally. The wealthy Riordan could help raise Soboroff’s profile substantially.

Riordan’s office did not respond to requests for comment Friday.

Soboroff’s action Friday has other implications for fund-raising. The city campaign finance laws now lift the $1,000 limit on donations from individuals and businesses to the other mayoral candidates. They can give up to $7,000 to a candidate, provided their total contributions to all candidates in city races don’t exceed that amount.

The rule is written to allow candidates to level the playing field with wealthier competitors.

The action could set off a frenzy of fund-raising activity by the other candidates, a prospect that troubled some advocates of campaign finance limits.

“Obviously we are disappointed this candidate has chosen not to abide by the limits,” said Jim Knox, executive director of California Common Cause. “He’s undermined the voter-approved system of spending and contribution limits.”

Knox called on other candidates in the race to stay within the former $2.2-million spending limit and still abide by the $1,000 contribution limit--an unlikely prospect in such a hotly competitive race.

Riordan got a jump on his opponents in 1993 with $3 million in personal spending in the April election. Just as important, he spent another $3 million in the runoff phase of the election, defeating City Councilman Michael Woo. If he makes the runoff, Soboroff still could dip into his own money a second time.

On the endorsement front, meanwhile, Villaraigosa continued to build on what is the broadest collection of endorsements in the campaign, adding the support of Boxer.

“Antonio is a friend and fellow champion who fights every day to improve the quality of life for all Angelenos, beginning with education,” Boxer said in a statement, adding particular praise for Villaraigosa’s plan to create joint community centers at parks, schools and libraries.

The Los Angeles Police Protective League, meanwhile, announced that it would not endorse any of the candidates in the April election because the union’s board of directors could not make a clear-cut choice.

City Councilman Joel Wachs, state Controller Kathleen Connell and Soboroff, in particular, had hoped to get a boost from an endorsement by rank-and-file police officers. Instead, they will have to wait for the runoff to get such a nod, which will bring with it phone banks, precinct walkers and a campaign mailer.