Donation Limit in Mayor’s Race May Be Voided

In a move that could trigger an all-out spending war in the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the city attorney’s office has said that campaign contribution limits should be lifted almost entirely if a wealthy candidate, such as multimillionaire lawyer Richard Riordan, decides to use his fortune in the campaign.

In a draft opinion to be considered later this month by the City Ethics Commission, Assistant City Atty. Tony Alperin has said mayoral candidates should be able to raise as much as they can from big contributors to put them on an equal footing with wealthy candidates who spend more than $30,000 of their own money.

The so-called “rich man” provision in the campaign finance law has been on the books since 1985, but the opinion for the first time spells out how it might be applied in next year’s mayoral race.

Though some mayoral hopefuls said the proposed ruling would “level the playing field” so they could compete with wealthy candidates, Riordan’s campaign chairman said he would fight the interpretation as a violation of the City Charter.

Some political experts said the lifting of the limits in the 1993 campaign would all but erase contribution and spending limits approved by voters in 1985. A ballot measure in that year held contributors to donations of $1,000 to each mayoral candidate, with a $7,000 cap on the total amount of money a single contributor could give to candidates for mayor, City Council, city attorney and controller in any given election.

The city attorney’s opinion deals with the $7,000 aggregate contribution lid.

“Clearly, the sky is the limit,” said Richard Lichtenstein, a political consultant. “The limits law is worse than Swiss cheese with holes in it. If (the opinion) holds up, the only thing that will limit the astronomical amounts of money that will be spent is candidates’ ability to raise it.”

Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Panorama City), one of those expected to enter the mayor’s race, said the rich-man provision points out the difficulty of limiting campaign contributions.

“The concern is that despite the good intentions of some people this is going to turn out to be the most expensive mayor’s campaign we have ever seen,” Katz said.

Several candidates said Riordan will set the pace for spending.

The downtown lawyer, who was injured in a bicycle accident Monday and was unavailable for comment, has said he hopes to raise all of his estimated budget of up to $2.5 million for the April primary from outside donors.

Riordan has already brought in $600,000 and says he will only tap his personal fortune, estimated at $100 million, if he falls short of his fund-raising goal, said Bill Wardlaw, his campaign manager.

If Riordan ends up spending more than $30,000 of his own money, the rich-man provision would be invoked and other candidates would be able to raise funds in increments exceeding the $1,000 limit. They would be allowed to continue accepting the larger donations until they raised as much as the wealthy candidate spent of his own money.

That aspect of the provision has not been disputed.

Questions arose, however, over the limit on the total contributions a donor can give for all races in a single election. The 1985 law said contributors could give $500 per City Council race and $1,000 for each citywide office--which would total $7,000 for the 1993 election.

But in a Nov. 12 letter, Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky questioned that limit, telling Ethics Commission officials who interpret the law that poorer candidates should not be limited in any way in trying to catch up to a rich competitor.

Yaroslavsky, who is considered a possible mayoral candidate, said his call for a review of the limits was an intellectual exercise, designed to prevent an advantage for wealthy candidates.

“Whether I’m in or out of the race is neither here nor there,” Yaroslavsky said. “Because if I am not in, there will be other candidates like me who are not millionaires. The whole point is we want to create a level playing field.”

Yaroslavsky, who was involved in drafting language for the 1985 ballot measure, said he believed that the law was intended to lift all limits if a wealthy candidate spent large sums in a campaign.

“We tried at that time to avoid creating further disadvantages,” Yaroslavsky said, adding that if the $7,000 limit were kept in place, “it would be a tragedy for the political and electoral process in this city.”

Yaroslavsky said his query to the Ethics Commission was made on behalf on a mayoral hopeful whom he would not identify.

The commission is expected to discuss the issue Dec. 17.

Of the current likely contenders for mayor, at least two--City Councilman Michael Woo and Katz--have shown the ability to raise the kind of large donations that would be permitted under the rich-man exemption. Woo benefited from about $250,000 in donations from his father, Wilbur, in winning a City Council seat in 1985. Katz has drawn donations of up to $20,000 from unions and other groups in campaigns for state office.

Woo’s campaign manager, Vicky Rideout, bemoaned the possibility of contribution limits being lifted, saying that Riordan “ought to abide by the limits that were passed by the voters and that everyone else is abiding by.”

But Katz said fairness requires that the limits be lifted if Riordan spends his own money. “In practical terms, it will still be very difficult to match what a wealthy person does, but at least this gives people a fighting chance,” Katz said.

Wardlaw, Riordan’s campaign chairman, said the attorney will argue strenuously that the $7,000 limit per contributor should be followed.

“I think the law is unambiguous,” Wardlaw said. “The aggregate limitation contained in the law is not lifted. I think they would be violating the charter of the city of Los Angeles to do so.”

Riordan’s campaign finance practices, meanwhile, are also likely to result in the lifting of another provision of the law.

Next year, for the first time, mayoral candidates will be able to apply for campaign matching funds from the city if they agree to limit their spending to $2 million.

But Riordan has already announced that he will not accept campaign matching funds from the city. Under that circumstance, if he succeeds in raising more than $1 million, the limit on other candidates for mayor will be lifted.