More Candidates Reaching Into Own Deep Pockets

It started when Richard Riordan spent $6 million of his own money to help win the Los Angeles mayor’s office in 1993.

Since then, a host of wealthy candidates, from liberal firebrand Tom Hayden to conservative businessman Steve Soboroff, have tapped their ample bank accounts in an attempt to win election to City Hall.

As Hayden and Soboroff demonstrated this year, the financial gamble does not always pay off. But that has not stopped others from trying, including two candidates who lent themselves more than $100,000 in this month’s 4th Council District election.

Beth Garfield, partner and founder of a Wilshire Boulevard law firm, lent her campaign $350,000, which helped win her a spot in the Oct. 23 runoff for the 4th District seat.

Such loans, some believe, can throw a monkey wrench into the city’s campaign finance program, which gives matching funds to candidates who agree to spend no more than $330,000 in council primaries.

The program attempts to level the playing field for candidates without vast financial resources.

“What it means is, if she [Garfield] wins, after the election she will be able to raise money from special interests and put it directly into her pocket,” said Bob Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies and an author of the state political reform law.

The number of wealthy candidates financing their own campaigns has grown since campaign reforms put strict limits on candidates’ acceptance of individual contributions, said Xandra Kayden, a senior fellow at the UCLA School of Public Policy and Public Research.

The Supreme Court has ruled that government agencies cannot limit the amount of personal funds a candidate may put into a campaign. But the practice has raised concerns that elected office might become a bastion of the wealthy or that such candidates might try to buy elections without paying their dues to the community, Kayden said.

Mayor James K. Hahn recently vetoed a proposal to limit fund-raising to pay off debts to six months after an election, as part of a broader package of campaign finance reforms. But the city Ethics Commission plans to continue efforts to curb the practice, panel Executive Director LeeAnn Pelham said.

Documents compiled by the Ethics Commission reflect a mixed record of success by candidates who contribute to their own campaigns. They include:

* Riordan contributed $6 million to his 1993 mayoral victory, including $3 million in the primary, when his personal funds accounted for 69% of his campaign account. He put $250,000 of his own money into his 1997 reelection.

* Donald Lumpkin put $147,000 into his unsuccessful 1993 campaign for the 9th Council District seat. That represented 72% of his campaign funds.

* Former state Sen. Hayden lent his campaign for the 5th Council District seat $341,000 this year and lent $100,000 to his 1997 mayoral campaign.

* State Controller Kathleen Connell spent $100,000 of her own money in her failed quest for the mayor’s office this year.

* Encino businessman Ted Stein put $201,000 of his own money into an unsuccessful run for city attorney in 1997. His personal funds represented 14% of his campaign money.

* Attorney Mike Schaefer contributed $108,000 of his own money to his unsuccessful campaign for the 4th District seat.

* Soboroff contributed $667,000 of his own money to his failed campaign for mayor this year.

Soboroff said there are valid reasons for self-financing part of a campaign. He decided to do it because he did not believe it was right to accept public matching funds, and he believed he could not abide by the city spending limit because he lacked name recognition with voters, he said.

Hayden, in loaning $341,000 to his council effort, cited problems with slowness in the matching funds program and his desire to jump-start his campaign.

At the time, he said he would pay back the loan as he received contributions during the campaign.

But only a small amount of the sum has been repaid three months after the election, and he is about to start fund-raising efforts to retire the rest of his campaign debt, said Sandy Brown, a campaign coordinator.

“We will be making payments to Tom as we raise the funds,” she said.

Political consultant Julie Buckner sees both sides of the issue. Currently working on Tom LaBonge’s campaign against Garfield, she recently worked on the Los Angeles school board campaign of Marlene Canter, who beat an incumbent after loaning more than $1 million to her campaign.

“The upside is you can say, ‘I am independent and not beholden to any special interests,’ ” Buckner said. The downside is “some voters are turned off by it.”

Garfield defended her choice to loan money to her campaign, saying she sees no difference between paying back the loan with contributions received before the election or afterward.

“I made a decision I was not going to be outspent in the race and I needed sufficient money to get my message out,” she said.