New Limits on Political Spending Proposed

Amid concerns over the influence of unregulated political spending, the Los Angeles Ethics Commission on Tuesday advanced a package of reforms.

The commissioners targeted money spent on behalf of a city candidate--but not in coordination with him or her--that now largely elude rules limiting spending and contributions.

Last year, those “independent expenditure campaigns” hit a record $3.2 million, compared with $36.4 million spent by candidates and regulated by contribution limits, officials said.

“The aim of the whole package of reforms is to make sure independent spending doesn’t drown out the voices of those candidates who agree to participate in the matching-funds program and who agree to spending limits,” commission President Miriam Krinsky said.

Like many cities, Los Angeles tries to control the effect of money on elections by providing matching funds to candidates who agree to limit spending. Participating candidates are limited to $330,000 in a City Council race and agree to accept no contributions exceeding $500. The spending caps for both candidates in a race are lifted if independent expenditures exceeding proscribed limits are made on behalf of a candidate.

Ethics commissioners directed their staff Tuesday to draft the following provisions:

* Lift the spending limit only for candidates whose opponents benefit from independent expenditures. Lifting the limits for both candidates “really made a mockery of the rules,” former Councilman Mike Feuer told the commission.

* Political parties and unions that spend more than $1,000 communicating with members in support of a candidate must report it to the Ethics Commission within 24 hours. Now, no reporting is required.

* Public matching funds would be provided faster for those whose opponents benefit from independent campaigns.

* Unions and corporations would be prohibited from making independent expenditures. Instead, they would be required to form a political action committee.

But the commission asked for more legal analysis on a proposal to require elected officials to abstain from voting on issues involving entities that helped them with independent expenditures. Assistant City Atty. Tony Alperin told the panel the proposal is probably unconstitutional.

To address the advantage wealthy candidates have in funding their campaigns, the panel agreed to consider prohibiting candidates from using contributions after election day to repay loans they made to their campaigns.

“Imposing this restriction would eliminate the appearance of corruption or any perception that newly elected officials would be repaying themselves with funds from those that seek to influence them,” said Ian Filep, the commission’s policy director.