Big-Spending Campaigners Face Curbs

When it comes to campaign contributions and spending, Los Angeles County is the wild, wild West. The sky is the limit in races for supervisor, district attorney, sheriff and assessor.

Individuals and special interests can give unlimited amounts of money to candidates for county offices. And like an old Western shootout, those candidates can spend whatever they want to beat their rivals.

Millions of dollars pour into the campaign coffers of the county’s elected officeholders each year, mostly from unions, lobbyists, developers, businesses and individuals with an economic interest in county government decisions.

Fearful that two tougher campaign reform measures on the state ballot might pass and severely restrict the rules of the game, two county supervisors wrote their own less stringent reform plan.

Measure B on Tuesday’s ballot would impose the first restrictions on contributions in county races. It would outlaw contributions from political parties and registered lobbyists, establish voluntary limits on campaign spending and restrict the time incumbents and challengers could engage in fund-raising.

The ballot argument, signed by Supervisors Zev Yaroslavsky and Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, makes the case succinctly: “Los Angeles County special interests and lobbyists are buying political influence with campaign contributions. . . . It undermines public confidence in elected officials and the decisions they make. . . . The system is broken and we must fix it.”

Yaroslavsky, the driving force behind the measure, said the proposal is extremely comprehensive and solid. The League of Women Voters and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. support it.

Common Cause is remaining neutral, although “it’s better than the current system,” said Elizabeth Lambe, the group’s local government affairs director.

Instead, Common Cause is promoting Proposition 208, which would establish lower contribution limits in state and local races.

Critics say the county measure does not go far enough.

The California Public Interest Research Group, which is sponsoring Proposition 212, the other campaign reform measure, contends that Measure B “fails to take the tough steps necessary to reduce political corruption in L.A. County.”

Fernando Ingrejas, spokesman for CalPIRG, said “at the local level, the county is one of the last redoubts with no limits.”

Ingrejas said the measure, which relies on variable contribution and spending limits, will not work. “One rich candidate and the whole thing goes down the drain.”

Bob Stern, an expert on campaign finance and ethics laws who participated in negotiations on Measure B, said the proposed law would be a distinct improvement for the county. “It’s the only major California jurisdiction [other than the state] that doesn’t have any campaign financing restrictions,” he said.

The measure would establish a $200 contribution limit in county races, which would increase to $1,000 if a candidate agreed to a voluntary limit on spending.

However, if a wealthy candidate gave his campaign more than $100,000, the limit for others in the race would jump to $10,000 for each contribution. The contribution and spending limits would be lifted entirely for other candidates if a wealthy candidate pumped in more than $300,000.

The voluntary spending limit, based on population, would be about $2.2 million for countywide races and $1.3 million in supervisorial contests.

Contributions would be banned from lobbyists and most political action committees, except broadly based groups with more than 100 members.

The measure would outlaw fund-raising during certain nonelection periods. Candidates for countywide offices--district attorney, sheriff and assessor--could raise money from 18 months before the primary until six months after the general election. Candidates for supervisor could not begin fund-raising until 15 months before the primary.

Violations of the law would be punishable by fines up to $5,000 or six months in jail.

In an apparent effort to beat the restrictions Measure B would impose, all four continuing supervisors--Mike Antonovich, Gloria Molina, Yaroslavsky and Burke--have recently held fund-raisers.

Antonovich opposed the measure, arguing that it would protect incumbents, hurt challengers, and add red tape and bureaucracy. Molina left the board meeting before the vote was taken to put it on the ballot.

Measure B also would allow incumbents to establish separate legal defense funds and officeholder accounts.

Voters will also decide the fate of Measure C, which would give the supervisors the power to dramatically expand the number of high-level county jobs that they can fill outside the Civil Service system.

The proposal, which has attracted no opposition, would give the board the flexibility to create up to 400 senior executive positions exempt from the county’s usual hiring and job protection practices.

“This would give the county the flexibility to bring in people at the managerial level without being constrained by arcane Civil Service rules,” Yaroslavsky said.