Campaign Finance Reform Tops Ethics Panel’s Agenda

As part of its efforts to make sure city elections are competitive, the Los Angeles Ethics Commission heard calls Friday for dramatic changes in campaign finance laws to blunt the impact of unregulated independent expenditures

During a daylong conference at USC, the panel also heard arguments that the proliferation of independent expenditures is a natural reaction to tough contribution limits, that they are a legitimate exercise of free speech, and that they do not present a problem for the democratic process.

Commission President Miriam Krinsky said Friday’s debate held among political candidates, ethics reform advocates and residents will help inform the panel’s discussion of whether new rules are needed in response to this year’s record $3.2 million in independent expenditures.

Such spending is not coordinated with the candidates and is not subject to limits imposed by the city.

“It’s our purpose to start thinking of some ways to improve the system,” Krinsky told the more than 60 people at the conference. “Independent expenditures are by far the biggest challenge we face.”

She noted that the independent expenditures in this year’s mayor’s race were 10 times the amount in any previous race.

Under city election law, candidates for citywide office cannot accept individual contributions of more than $1,000. In City Council races, the contribution limit is $500. Candidates receive matching funds if they limit their campaign spending to amounts prescribed by the city.

However, during this year’s elections, several groups, including the state Democratic Party, billboard companies and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, independently spent millions of dollars to support or oppose candidates. For political parties and unions, the spending is considered legal communication with members and is not subject to contribution or spending limits.

Other independent expenditure campaigns--those conducted without coordination with the candidates--also have no spending limits.

Former Councilman Mike Feuer, who ran unsuccessfully for city attorney, said his race was affected by more than $700,000 in independent expenditures by billboard firms and then-Mayor Richard Riordan on behalf of Rocky Delgadillo, who won.

Feuer said such large independent expenditures undermine efforts of the city’s campaign finance laws to create a level playing field.

“There is no doubt in my mind that unbridled spending has an enormous impact on the outcome of races,” he said.

Feuer called for a new law that would lift the spending limit for candidates facing opponents backed by major independent expenditures but keep the cap on the benefiting opponents. He also called for additional matching funds to be provided to candidates when opponents benefit from independent expenditures.

Raising spending limits also was backed by Joshua Rosenkranz, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

Lifting spending limits for some candidates but not others, however, creates practical problems, said Lance Olson, general counsel to the California Democratic Party. For example, the Ethics Commission would have to decide which candidate benefits from an independent expenditure, he said.

“Who is going to make that judgment?” Olson asked. “I think that’s pretty dangerous ground.”

Olson said many groups that want a voice in the democratic process value the ability to spend money independently to support candidates, given that they cannot contribute more than $1,000 directly to a citywide candidate.

He said a 1976 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that government cannot put limits on the amount spent on independent expenditure campaigns.

Karen Getman, head of the state Fair Political Practices Commission, said there is a legitimate role for independent expenditure campaigns to get out the message of groups that are not part of the mainstream.

“What some people call distortions, other people call having a voice,” Getman said.

There may be other things government agencies can do that don’t involve more restrictions or more public matching funds, she said, including a better effort to analyze and publicize the sources of campaign funds. Others called for more enforcement of laws preventing coordination between independent campaigns and the candidates they support.

Rosenkranz also supported a New York City law that provides $4 in public matching funds for every $1 in individual contributions, rather than the dollar-for-dollar match provided in Los Angeles.

In New York, it has allowed a much more diverse group of people, including low-income people, to run for office and freed them from fund-raising so they can campaign directly with voters, he said.

Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, proposed a 2-1 match in primary races for City Council seats. He said the city should provide full public financing of City Council campaigns for candidates in runoff elections who agree to spending limits.