Campaign Reforms Target Influence of Special Interests

The Los Angeles City Council gave initial support Tuesday to a few of the city Ethics Commission’s 60 campaign-finance recommendations, but delayed action until next week on the bulk of the proposed changes.

The four rule changes adopted by the council are aimed at reducing the influence that special interests have when they independently spend large sums of money to benefit a candidate.

Although individuals, companies and political organizations can contribute no more than $1,000 to the campaign of a mayoral candidate, for example, they can spend an unlimited amount on their own to benefit a candidate.

In the 2001 city election, unions, political parties, gaming interests and others spent a record $3.2 million on such independent campaigns, four times more than was spent on such campaigns in the decade leading up to that election.

The council voted 9 to 3 Tuesday to require that any independent expenditure of more than $1,000 be reported within 24 hours, along with a signed declaration, under penalty of perjury, identifying which candidate the expenditure is meant to help or hurt.

However, the council delayed action on a companion rule change that would lift the spending and contribution limits just for candidates whose opponents benefit from independent expenditures. The panel also delayed action on accelerating the payment of city matching funds to disadvantaged candidates.

It may be hard to determine who is benefiting from an independent campaign, said Council President Alex Padilla, who is also concerned that special interests will be able to manipulate the new system to benefit their favored candidates.

“We have proposals to improve the system, but we know there are some serious flaws in the proposals,” Padilla said.

The council voted to require anyone behind an independent expenditure campaign to make a disclosure when lobbying the elected official they helped. The council also agreed to ban independent expenditures from the treasuries of companies or unions, instead requiring them to form a political action committee that would have to disclose the sources of funds.

And in a nod to inflation, the council voted to increase the spending limit in mayoral runoff elections from $1.76 million to $1.8 million.

However, council members rejected a commission proposal to reduce the primary election spending limit for City Council candidates from $330,000 to $275,000. Some council members said that would hamper efforts to reach voters.

“The cost incurred running for office has increased, but the contribution and spending limits have not,” Padilla said. He argued that independent expenditures appear partly to be a response to spending limits adopted more than a decade ago.

Councilwoman Janice Hahn said the higher spending limit would assist challengers who need to overcome the advantage of incumbents.

LeeAnn Pelham, executive director of the Ethics Commission, said the reduction was proposed because candidates have told the commission they can run an effective campaign on $275,000, and the lower limit allows contenders to spend more time talking to voters rather than raising money.

Padilla introduced a measure Tuesday to oppose accelerating matching funds for disadvantaged candidates. He also opposed lifting campaign contribution and spending limits only for disadvantaged candidates when an independent expenditure is made. The lifting of caps should apply to all candidates, including the candidate who benefits, he said.

The council is scheduled to take up the Ethics Commission proposals again April 23.