Gaining Clout and a Riskier Standing

By TINA DAUNT

Jan. 15, 2002 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

When a billboard company recently installed signs along Los Angeles area freeways without city approval, it not only angered local officials, but also threatened to undo a two-year campaign by the industry to increase its influence at City Hall.

During that period, billboard companies contributed tens of thousands of dollars to candidates for local elected office. They provided candidates and council members with free advertising on their huge signs.

And their efforts in last year’s city elections were widely credited with helping Rocky Delgadillo capture the city attorney’s office, creating complications for Delgadillo, who now has the task of dealing with his benefactors in legal disputes.

Having emerged from last year’s elections with a new sense of influence, the companies are now protective of their standing.

So when a Viacom subsidiary caused a ruckus earlier this month by installing billboards on Metropolitan Transportation Authority property before new restrictions kicked in New Year’s Day, a coalition of competing billboard companies was quick to disavow the action.

Viacom forced the subsidiary to reconsider, and the billboards will come down. Other firms, meanwhile, hope the flap won’t derail their most important goal: winning City Council and mayoral support for a new ordinance that would, for the first time in decades, let them erect giant billboards along Los Angeles area freeways.

“It used to be the billboard industry would make a few campaign contributions, and that was it,” said veteran political consultant Rick Taylor. “But now we are seeing huge financial commitments to candidates. Whatever is on the line for them, it must be far bigger than any of us realized, particularly for the large billboards along major streets.”

Indeed, millions of dollars are at stake. One freeway sign can generate up to $90,000 a month in revenue--10 times more than a billboard perched atop a liquor store in some of the city’s residential areas.

Billboard owners’ newfound power and prominence is not without its risks. Delgadillo said he feels burdened by the industry’s generous campaign support. And some City Hall insiders--including the companies’ lobbyist--said the firms subject themselves to greater scrutiny and a potential political backlash.

“My advice to the owners is to just stay out of it,” said the lobbyist, Ken Spiker Jr.

But Ed Dato, director of public affairs at Clear Channel, a large multimedia corporation, said the billboard companies want to participate in the political process. “We feel we have the right to endorse people too,” he said.

For years, billboards have been a major point of controversy in Los Angeles as a proliferation of signs forced city officials to wrestle with new regulations. The council has tried to limit alcohol and tobacco ads near schools, while placing a moratorium on new permits for billboards anywhere in the city.

The moves were intended to give officials time to come up with restrictions that would help reduce visual blight and put teeth into efforts to remove illegal billboards and signs.

The billboard companies--including Clear Channel Communications, Eller Media Co. and Regency Outdoor Advertising--responded with a proposal to take down 1,400 of Los Angeles’ 9,700 signs in exchange for the right to put up 70 two-sided billboards in industrial zones along freeways.

Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas drafted the ordinance and is the city’s most vocal proponent of the deal because, he said, it will give Los Angeles a chance to finally get rid of billboard blight in residential areas.

“The proposed ordinance is reasonable,” said Ridley-Thomas, who has received $1,500 in campaign contributions from billboard companies in the last two years.

The measure--set for council debate this spring--is so important to billboard firms that they have offered Spiker, one of the city’s top lobbyists, a bonus of up to $1 million if he is able to secure legislation overturning the freeway ban. Spiker also represents the industry on a committee that is reviewing the city’s laws regarding signs and will make recommendations to the council.

Further raising the stakes, the billboard companies--most of them publicly traded, multinational corporations--have stepped up their giving to public officials.

“Follow the money,” Taylor said. “They clearly want to help people who they think will help them.”

For example:

* In the 2000 primary and general elections, Regency and Eller provided $686,000 worth of billboard space in support of future Mayor James K. Hahn and Delgadillo as part of their own independent effort. Because these expenditures are not coordinated with the candidates’ campaigns, they are not limited by campaign contribution laws.

* Fifteen companies have given more than $100,000 to candidates for city offices since the council began considering the freeway sign ordinance.

* In the council’s 2nd District race, where Assemblyman Tony Cardenas and Wendy Greuel are locked in battle, Clear Channel has given $50,000 worth of sign space to both candidates.

Then there are the smaller, yet noticeable, favors.

When a friend of Councilman Dennis Zine recently wanted the lawmaker’s name stripped across a patriotic billboard in his district, Clear Channel quickly agreed. The “God Bless America” sign on Ventura Boulevard at Shoup Street includes Zine’s name and his Superman logo.

“They asked for the sign and we said, ‘Yeah, we can do that,’ ” said Clear Channel’s Dato. “It’s a public service. Everyone was in the mood for it right after 9/11.”

Meanwhile, Vista Media--acting at the request of Councilman Nick Pacheco--agreed to donate 60 billboards as part of an anti-gun violence campaign to be unveiled next week.

Spiker said the companies began capitalizing on their unique asset--free billboard space--last year. Clear Channel took the lead, by striking out against billboard adversary Councilman Mike Feuer.

Months before entering the 2000 race for city attorney, Feuer criticized the proposed freeway sign ordinance, because he wanted safety studies done to ensure that billboards would not distract motorists.

His concerns did not stop there. He also drafted an ordinance that banned alcohol and tobacco billboards near schools in Los Angeles. (A similar Massachusetts law was recently deemed unconstitutional, making it unlikely that Los Angeles will try to enforce the new law.)

Before Feuer’s race was over, Eller Media had jumped in and spent about $300,000 supporting Delgadillo, mostly in free billboard space. Regency similarly spent $125,000. Employees for the billboard companies also dug deep into their pockets, giving $8,250 in personal contributions to Delgadillo.

“The message to public officials is: They ought to be very careful about crossing billboard companies,” Feuer said. “If they get involved with a large-scale fight with the billboard industry, there will be meaningful consequences, and careers will be at stake.”

Although Delgadillo benefited from the support, the new city attorney said the billboard industry’s backing has become “the bane of my existence.”

He now faces an uphill battle to prove to the public that he is not beholden to the companies.

“I’m not sure it hasn’t hurt as much as it was intended to help,” said Delgadillo, adding that he never asked the industry for its support.

If anything, a spokesman for the city attorney said, the billboard industry’s generous public support of candidates could backfire.

“In general, entities that play the game of contributing money in exchange for influence . . . are more effective when there is less public scrutiny,” said Ben Austin, Delgadillo’s communications director.

When the Viacom subsidiary STI/Omni Outdoor Systems put up the billboards on MTA land without local approval, Delgadillo appeared to relish playing the role of enforcer against the industry.

A day after the city learned of STI/Omni’s action, the city’s attorneys were in court, obtaining a temporary restraining order to block the firm’s actions.

“If I’m beholden to anyone, it’s the neighborhoods,” Delgadillo said in an interview, adding that he will work to address billboard blight in the city. “I will always err on the side of neighborhoods.”

Nonetheless, Spiker said company executives felt empowered by their success in the city attorney’s race.

“All of a sudden, the billboard companies started going, ‘Wow! Maybe we do have a say in local government,’ ” Spiker said. “They want to help out with certain candidates.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Billboards and Politics

Fifteen billboard companies and their employees have given $54,750 to Los Angeles’ top elected officials and City Council members since 1999.

Mayor James K. Hahn $13,500

City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo 11,750

City Controller Laura Chick 3,500

Council members

Alex Padilla $5,100

Hal Bernson 4,000

Janice Hahn 3,250

Ruth Galanter 3,000

Nate Holden 3,000