Tough Limits Proposed for Office Seekers

Ventura County would adopt tough limits on campaign donations and switch enforcement duties from the district attorney to a newly created ethics panel under a series of reforms proposed by one official Monday.

Individual donors should be limited to $500 per candidate for each election, campaign spending should be capped at $75,000 and candidates should be required to post late donations on the Internet, said Supervisor Steve Bennett in wide-ranging proposals for campaign finance reform.

He also suggested creating an independent ethics commission to monitor cash flow. This is needed, Bennett said, because Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury is elected and endorses candidates for the Board of Supervisors, creating a “natural conflict of interest.”

A previous ordinance named the district attorney the enforcer of campaign finance rules.

“A law this comprehensive has significantly increased disclosure requirements, and there’s more to monitor,” Bennett said. “It’s not that [Bradbury has] done anything wrong. This law is modeled after many other jurisdictions.”

Bennett, based in Ventura, promised to control campaign spending when he ran for supervisor last year. His proposals come six weeks after Thousand Oaks Supervisor Frank Schillo saw his own proposed spending caps defeated in a split vote by the Board of Supervisors.

The potential costs of reform are a concern of Supervisor Judy Mikels. She’s also worried that candidates would face an overwhelming thicket of rules.

“It appears to be potentially very complicated and possibly costly,” she said. “And the worst thing that can happen is if it turns out to be a deterrent to someone who wants to run because it’s such a hassle.”

Bennett says the board should hold off on enacting an ordinance until late 2002 because fund-raising has already begun for two supervisors’ seats and six other county offices that are up for reelection next year. He released his proposals early, Bennett said, to trigger public debate before a final version is hammered out.

“I’m trying to identify major issues so we begin the public discourse on this,” he said. “But I’m open to changes and a healthy discussion by the board. The important thing is to do it right and not to do it fast. There are a lot of details that have to be addressed.”

A 1991 county ordinance limited contributions to $750 in a primary election and $250 in a general election. It was changed in 1996 to reflect a new state law that was later found unconstitutional, leaving the county with no law restricting the amount of money that could be raised in a political campaign.

Ethics Panel Would Be New Thing for County

Like the earlier ordinance, Bennett’s proposed reforms would cover 11 elected positions: the five-member Board of Supervisors, the district attorney, sheriff, assessor, auditor-controller, treasurer-tax collector and county clerk-recorder.

Turning enforcement duties over to an ethics panel, however, would be a significant change. Supervisors would have to hash out who sits on the panel and how members are appointed, Bennett said. Civil penalties in the form of fines probably would be the best way to enforce the new rules, he said.

Counties and cities across California have formed similar panels to monitor campaign spending, said Robert M. Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Government Studies, a nonpartisan group that studies campaign finance reform.

District attorneys are more concerned with locking up criminals than going after campaign finance infractions, Stern said. That’s why it makes sense to create a panel whose primary focus is to make sure candidates are playing by the rules.

“What we’ve seen is that it’s unusual for D.A.s to bring enforcement actions in this area, and that is why we support ethics commissions,” he said.

A 1995 campaign finance law adopted by the city of Ventura--written by Bennett, who was then a councilman--does not include an independent panel. Thousand Oaks considered a watchdog component when it passed its own contribution law, but decided against it.

Bradbury was unavailable for comment Monday.

Bennett said continual changes in campaign finance law make it difficult to craft an ordinance that is both workable and free of loopholes.

Many efforts try to limit both the size of individual contributions and how much a candidate can spend.

Although he is recommending donation limits of $500 per individual, that amount should be lowered to $200 for candidates who refuse to accept a spending ceiling, Bennett said. He also suggests requiring that all contributions be made by check, that candidates who raise more than $25,000 post donations on the Internet and that last-minute contributions be reported within 48 hours.

Public Political Funds Another Possibility

The county could consider whether to publicly finance candidates, something that five jurisdictions in California have already done, Bennett said. The cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Francisco, Oakland and Petaluma offer matching funds to candidates once they reach a fund-raising threshold.

Stern said this encourages candidates who might not have the name recognition or fund-raising machinery to run for public office.

“The goal is to increase competition,” he said. “But public financing is more controversial because it costs money.”