Incumbents Outspending Opponents by Nearly 35 to 1 : Politics: Local legislators appear headed for easy election victories. Some experts say campaign contribution limits designed to help challengers are actually assisting entrenched lawmakers.

Flush with campaign cash from businesses and political action committees, incumbent South Bay state legislators up for reelection this year are outspending their challengers by nearly 35 to 1.

The huge gap appears to be due in part to the inexperience of the challengers, most of whom are political newcomers who would be expected to have a hard time raising large amounts of money.

But some analysts say the disparity also stems from the ineffectiveness of voter-approved limits on the size of campaign contributions, rules that were aimed at putting challengers on an equal fund-raising footing with incumbents.

Proposition 73, approved by voters two years ago, prohibits candidates from receiving contributions of more than $1,000 from individuals and businesses and $5,000 from political action committees. A recent court ruling removed Proposition 73 limits in races for local and statewide office but left them in effect for state legislative contests.

“All those limits have done is force candidates to go to more sources,” said Ruth Holton, California lobbyist for Common Cause, a nonprofit government watchdog group. “That increases the amount of time you have to spend on fund raising, and that can give incumbents an even greater advantage.”

According to the latest campaign finance reports, the five Assembly members and two state senators up for reelection in the South Bay spent more than $943,000 during the first nine months of 1990.

Leading the way were Assemblymen Richard E. Floyd (D-Carson), who spent $217,000; Gerald N. Felando (R-San Pedro), $191,000, and Dave Elder (D-San Pedro), $140,000.

The spending by the other incumbents: state Sen. Ralph C. Dills (D-Gardena) $139,000; state Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles) $110,000; Assemblywoman Gwen Moore (D-Los Angeles) $80,000; Assemblyman Curtis Tucker Jr. (D-Inglewood) $66,000.

By contrast, the 10 challengers have spent $27,000 at most, records show. An exact total is not available because detailed reports are not required of eight challengers who filed statements saying they expect to spend less than $1,000.

Nearly $18,000 of the challengers’ spending was by Democrat Marilyn Landau, a former Los Angeles teachers union official who is running against Felando in the 51st Assembly District, which stretches from San Pedro to Manhattan Beach.

Landau says the state’s limits on contributions have hurt her campaign because her most important sources of money--teachers union PACs--would give her more if the law allowed it.

Felando says he doubts that lifting the limits would help his opponent.

“Those limits apply to me too, you know,” he said Friday. “It’s not just hurting her campaign.”

Still, campaign finance reports indicate that South Bay incumbents have access to far more money from PACs and businesses than do their challengers.

Some of the lawmakers regularly receive donations from companies with plants or offices in their districts. An example: Dow Chemical Co., with operations on Felando’s and Elder’s turf, has contributed $900 to Elder and $700 to Felando this year.

“We make it a practice in all our operating sites to maintain a relationship with the people who represent the districts where we have employees,” said John Ulrich, a Dow public affairs manager based in Sacramento.

Charles Bell, general counsel for the state Republican Party, says “it’s indisputable” that businesses and PACs prefer to contribute to incumbents.

“It’s reflexive,” he says. “Some people here may get money thrust their way even when they don’t ask for it.”

Several South Bay incumbents belong to so-called juice committees, legislative panels that affect industries known for prodigious campaign-giving.

Watson, for instance, chairs the Senate Health and Human Services Committee and Felando sits on the Assembly’s Health Committee. The panels hold sway over bills pertaining to the health care industry--an important source of contributions for Watson and Felando.

Of the $10,871 Watson collected from July through September, the last quarter for which fund-raising figures are available, $2,300, or 21%, came from medical and pharmaceutical PACs and businesses.

For Felando, donations from those sources totaled $10,550, 18% of the $59,069 he received during the three-month period.

Floyd and Dills, meanwhile, receive a significant share of their contributions from the horse-racing and beer and wine industries, which come under the purview of the Senate and Assembly Governmental Organization committees.

Floyd, who chairs the Assembly governmental organization panel, received $13,350 from those industries during July through September--27% of his $50,350 in contributions for the quarter.

Dills, who chairs the counterpart committee in the Senate, collected $8,850 from horse racing and beer and wine interests during the same period--20% of his three-month fund-raising total of $45,349.

In an interview last week, Floyd asserted that there is nothing improper about accepting donations from industries directly affected by his committee. He said that since he has a long history of fighting legislation hostile to the tracks and to beer and wine producers, it is natural that they would contribute to his campaigns.

“These are areas that supported me even before I had the committee,” Floyd said. “If church groups that oppose gambling on tracks and drinking were giving to me, now that might be a surprise.”

Holton of Common Cause dismisses Floyd’s argument, as “an excuse.” If legislators accept contributions under such conditions because they have agreed with the donor’s point of view, she argues, the financial support makes it less likely they will be open to opposing points of view.

“Those donations encourage him to remain closed-minded,” Holton says. “That’s why they’re supporting him, so he doesn’t change his mind. Democracy shouldn’t be up for sale.”

Holton’s group is among the supporters of Proposition 131, a measure on the Nov. 6 ballot that would toughen state campaign finance laws by setting ceilings on candidate spending in addition to tightening limits on contributions.

In interviews, South Bay incumbents said they support spending limits. But several expressed doubt that voters would back public financing of campaigns, another component of Proposition 131.

Current case law dictates that spending limits must be accompanied by public campaign financing. Some experts argue that such a system could pose an unacceptable imposition on the political process.

“I’m not sure the government should be in the business of making it easier for someone to challenge someone else,” said Lance Olson, general counsel to the state Democratic Party.

Holton disagrees: “It’s essential if you’re going to restore competition to the elections process. This year there are only five financially competitive (state legislative) races out of 93. You might as well stop holding elections with a situation like that.”