Hahn Vetoes Measure to Cut Campaign Fund-Raising Time

By MATEA GOLD

July 14, 2001 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

The first city ordinance vetoed by Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn since he took office is a campaign finance reform effort that would have limited the amount of time during which he could raise money for his reelection, should he run again in 2005.

The ordinance, proposed by the city Ethics Commission, would have reduced from two years to 18 months the period before an election in which a mayoral candidate could raise money for the campaign. The commission recommended the measure to increase competition between challengers and incumbents. Typically, incumbents start their fund-raising earlier than challengers, so shortening the time is thought to benefit those seeking to take on sitting officials.

The proposed law also would have given candidates who stuck to the city’s spending cap faster access to public matching funds.

The council unanimously approved the measure in late June. In a letter this week to the City Council explaining his decision, the new mayor said he endorsed “the spirit behind the ordinance” but did not believe “increasing the amount of taxpayer dollars” to candidates was justified without a broader review of the campaign finance system.

Although the council could override the veto, members so far have not expressed interest in taking on the new mayor over the issue.

The ordinance would have changed the formula for public matching funds and allowed candidates faster access to that money, but the maximum amount they could have received would have remained the same. In cases in which a candidate broke the spending cap, his or her opponents would have received an increased share of public matching funds.

As a result, the measure would not have increased the total amount the city appropriates to its matching money trust fund, which is limited by the City Charter to $2 million a year.

Bob Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies, said New York City recently adopted a similar rule and has seen an increase in the number of candidates who have been able to participate in municipal elections. He called Hahn’s veto “very disturbing.”

“It would have given you more time to campaign rather than fund-raise,” Stern said. “It sends a signal that the mayor is not interested in campaign finance reform.”

Deputy Mayor Matt Middlebrook insisted that Hahn did not veto the ordinance to preserve a wider fund-raising window for himself.

“He is totally committed to strong campaign finance laws locally,” Middlebrook said. “He was concerned that before we increase the expenditure of public funds that we take a comprehensive look at the entire city campaign finance system. . . . He is not opposed to either one of these recommendations on their face.”

He said that Hahn will work with the Ethics Commission and the City Council to develop a more complete package of reforms.

Middlebrook added that as a mayoral candidate, Hahn advocated closing a loophole in state law that allows political parties to spend undisclosed sums backing candidates in member communications. At the time, the Democratic Party was launching a massive campaign on behalf of Hahn rival Antonio Villaraigosa.

LeeAnn Pelham, the Ethics Commission’s executive director, said that she was disappointed by Hahn’s veto, but added that the panel will continue pushing for the reforms.

“Making our laws strong is not an exercise for the easily winded,” she said.

Proponents of campaign finance reform said the ordinance that Hahn vetoed would have made smaller donations more valuable for those participating in the matching fund program. For example, a donation of $500 that once was worth $500 in matching funds would have been matched by $1,000 under the proposed law.

Rebecca Avila, a former executive director of the Ethics Commission who is now project manager for the Pew Campaign Finance Disclosure Project at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication, said she was puzzled by Hahn’s veto.

“The goal here is for matching fund dollars to increase the value of small contributions in elections, and that’s the kind of contribution you want in a city race,” Avila said. “It makes it just as worthwhile for [candidates] to attend a neighborhood forum as it is to attend a reception held by a large law firm with a contract with the city.”

Former City Councilman Mike Feuer, who advocated the measure when it came before the council, said that it was not a panacea for what ails campaign fund-raising, but added that it would have been a step in the right direction.

“I know from my early campaigns that to be a credible candidate from the outset is very much a function of how well one fund-raises,” he said.

“This might have enabled candidates to emphasize other strengths that they had.”

The Ethics Commission began considering the reforms last summer and recommended the measures after an analysis of four city elections and the role that matching funds played in them. Candidates in the program told the commission that the public funds helped them compete with wealthy candidates, but that because the money was not available until 18 months before a mayoral election, incumbents who began fund-raising two years out still had an advantage.

“Our analysis showed that incumbents always have a greater advantage and fund-raise early,” said Barbara Freeman, senior analyst for the commission.

“The concern is an incumbent who raises a bucket of money early on can blow the competition out of the water.”