City Funding for Campaigns Put on Ballot : Politics: A divided Long Beach council approves the proposal designed to limit election spending.

Long Beach voters will decide in June if they want to help finance campaigns and limit spending in city elections, which backers say would help level the playing field in local races.

A divided City Council approved the campaign reform proposal, sponsored chiefly by Councilman Alan S. Lowenthal. The measure, similar to a reform plan enacted in Los Angeles, would provide matching funds and limit contributions from individuals, corporations or political action committees. Candidates’ participation would be voluntary.

“I’m ecstatic the council agreed to this,” Lowenthal said after Tuesday’s 5-4 vote. “It’s very hard for them, with their great advantage as incumbents, to limit themselves as to when and how they could raise money.”

The reform plan would have to be approved by a majority of voters June 7.

Council hopefuls could spend no more than $40,000 during a primary campaign and $20,000 in a runoff. Contenders for other citywide offices, such as prosecutor or auditor, would be limited to $100,000 for primaries and $50,000 in runoffs.

Mayoral candidates face primary limits of $200,000, and would be limited to $100,000 for a runoff. The new limits would be a fraction of what Mayor Ernie Kell spent to win reelection in 1990. In that election, in which he edged Councilman Thomas J. Clark, Kell spent $580,000, a record for a city election. He outspent his opponent 3 to 1.

Under the proposed measure, individual contributions would be limited to $500 in the mayor’s race and $250 in council races, forcing candidates to reach out to a wider network of supporters rather than relying on a few wealthy contributors, Lowenthal reasoned. Large contributors presumably would have less influence on city government as a result.

Also, candidates would not be allowed to begin raising money until 15 months before an election. The time limit is aimed at cutting down on campaign war chests.

To provide matching funds for qualified candidates, the reform act would create a separate Clean Government Fund and solicit donations from citizens in monthly utility bills. If voluntary contributions fell short, the city’s general fund would make up the difference, Lowenthal said.

According to estimates from City Auditor Gary L. Burroughs, the city would need about $228,000 a year to offer matching funds to all candidates in a four-year election cycle. The fund would also pay for a full-time administrator in the City Clerk’s office to oversee the program.

While Lowenthal and his supporters lauded their decision as an opportunity to control campaign spending, detractors blasted the act, saying the city couldn’t afford to subsidize politicians.

“I don’t think the people will support this,” said Councilwoman Doris Topsy-Elvord.

“They won’t even tax themselves to get additional police officers, and I certainly don’t think they will want to pay for this,” Topsy-Elvord said, referring to the 1992 defeat of a ballot measure to raise property taxes in order to hire 100 additional police officers.

Others opposing the ballot measure were Vice Mayor Jeffrey A. Kellogg and Councilmen Douglas S. Drummond and Les Robbins. Councilmen Clark, Warren Harwood, Evan Anderson Braude and Ray Grabinski joined Lowenthal in supporting the measure. Mayor Ernie Kell, who doesn’t have a vote on the council, also expressed support.

Mayoral candidates would have to raise at least $20,000 and City Council candidates $5,000 to qualify for matching funds. Candidates for other city offices would have to raise at least $10,000.

Those who meet the requirements would receive $1 for every $2 they raise, up to one-third of the spending ceiling. In runoff elections, the city would match every $1, up to half of the ceiling.

In primary elections, for example, mayoral contenders could receive as much as $66,666 in matching funds.

The proposed ordinance also carries penalties for candidates who break the rules. Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor, fined up to $500 and sentenced to six months in jail.

The ordinance would not affect candidates who refuse matching funds.

“If someone doesn’t take public money, we can’t control their spending,” Lowenthal said. “That’s the law.”