Ethics Panel Seeks Parity in Elections

Frustrated that unregulated, independent expenditure campaigns could be unfairly influencing Los Angeles elections, the city Ethics Commission considered countermeasures Tuesday, including an increase in taxpayer funding of candidates.

The panel initially balked at the idea of full public financing of campaigns after it was told the city would have to come up with $25 million each election year, on top of the $5 million currently spent, to cover all candidates’ costs.

“The question is whether the city can afford it,” commission President Gil Garcetti said. “That is my ultimate goal: to try and find a way to have 100% public financing. But we may have to do it in incremental steps, and maybe the next step is to adopt the New York City approach, where instead of the 1-to-1 match, you have it at 4-to-1.”

Los Angeles provides candidates who agree to limit spending with $1 of public money for every dollar individuals contribute, up to $800,000 in the case of mayoral candidates. This year, $5.1 million was given to candidates -- who received a total of $19 million in private contributions.

Labor unions, developers and others, which can independently spend unlimited amounts to back candidates, this year spent $4.9 million in an effort to influence voters.

The biggest independent expenditure was $600,000 by the California Teachers Assn. in support of City Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa, who went on to win the mayor’s race.

A staff report on this year’s election sent to the commission Tuesday said that 80% of the money raised by candidates came from individuals, while 86% of the money involved in independent expenditures came from labor unions.

The effect of such independent expenditures is debatable. For instance, Mayor James K. Hahn and council candidate Flora Gil Krisiloff received the bulk of independent expenditures in their races this year, but ended up losing. But independent expenditures were believed to be a major factor in Hahn’s victory four years ago.

Hahn lost his reelection bid after Villaraigosa accused the mayor’s administration of so-called pay-to-play practices that link city contracts to campaign contributions.

Independent spending by noncandidates has ballooned from less than $300,000 in 1993 to more than $4.2 million in this year’s mayoral campaign. And city officials have been struggling for years to find ways to level the playing field.

“I still feel independent expenditures, if you look at the long term, have an undue influence on elections, and the question remains what can we do?” Commissioner Bill Boyarsky, a former Times editor, said.

The commission received a report on full public financing provided in Arizona, Maine and Vermont, but made no decision to allow further analysis. Arizona and Maine seek to blunt the effect of independent expenditures by providing equal public funding to candidates not benefiting.

The commission was urged to pursue the idea by Susan Lerner, executive director of the California Clean Money Campaign. She told the panel that full public financing of campaigns does not eliminate independent expenditures, but it gives candidates “certainty that they have the money to respond.”

Lerner also said that candidates can show more independence if they know they don’t have to raise campaign funds from private interests.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that cities cannot ban or restrict the amount of independent expenditures, because donors have 1st Amendment rights to spend their money to support candidates they like.

Stephen Kaufman, an attorney whose clients include labor unions, told the Ethics Commission that it is important for unions to be able to get involved in elections where business interests are also trying to sway the outcome.

In discussing changes to the matching funds program, city officials wondered whether taxpayers would agree to spending $25 million more on campaigns when the city is struggling to find funds to hire more police officers.

“It’s not necessarily a bad investment, but it is a significant investment,” commission Executive Director LeeAnn Pelham said.

Boyarsky joined Garcetti, the former Los Angeles County district attorney, in voicing support for the concept of full public financing, but Commissioner Dale Bonner said such a costly and dramatic change would probably have to be championed by an elected official.

“It would require a fair amount of leadership coming from somewhere other than this commission,” Bonner said. No elected city official has stepped up to support the idea.

Any recommendation by the commission to increase taxpayer funding of campaigns would need City Council approval.

Meanwhile, an independent expenditure campaign by a billboard company that admitted violating campaign finance laws drew an angry rebuke Tuesday from commissioners.

Clear Channel Outdoor had stipulated that it failed to properly disclose independent expenditures made from 2001 through 2003 by providing free billboards touting candidates.