2 Supervisors Propose New Campaign Rules

Moving to rein in runaway campaign spending, Ventura County Supervisors Steve Bennett and Kathy Long have unveiled a proposed law that would impose strict spending limits on candidates and require timely disclosure of contributors.

The ordinance, which goes before the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, would also create an ethics commission empowered to review alleged violations and order substantial fines for lawbreakers.

Bennett and Long say an ordinance is needed to curb spending that has spiraled in recent elections. In last year’s primary election, for example, two candidates for district attorney spent a combined $1.5 million. A two-way battle for the Thousand Oaks-based supervisor’s seat in March, meanwhile, cost more than $600,000.

Those dollar amounts match or exceed spending for state-level offices in some cases.

“When you talk to John and Jane Citizen on the street and they hear that a million dollars was spent on a local campaign, they are appalled,” Long said. “They just feel there is a true connection to amounts contributed and that elected person’s position on the issues.”

Under the proposal, campaign spending would be capped at $150,000 per election for supervisors, and at $500,000 for countywide offices, such as for sheriff and district attorney. Because state law prohibits spending restrictions, the caps would be voluntary.

Fund-raising provisions, however, would apply to all candidates. Those who stick to the spending caps would have a $600-per-contributor limit, while those who don’t would be restricted to $300. Bennett said that he hopes the carrot-and-stick approach would persuade most candidates to accept the spending limits.

But the proposal is already under fire by some high-level county officials who believe it is too complex and will scare away all but incumbents and the toughest challengers.

Sheriff Bob Brooks noted that violations of state laws are already monitored by the district attorney’s office and the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission. Another layer of rules will deter average citizens who want to throw their hats into the ring, he said.

“Having run for office twice myself, it is an absolute maze of regulations and oversight,” Brooks said. “To now have a third commission with enforcement powers looking at the same things -- it’s just a very daunting thing for a new candidate.”

Brooks and other officials also questioned whether spending limits are set too low. For nonincumbents, especially, it takes a lot of money to buy name recognition and the professional staff needed to run a campaign, he said.

“The limits would make it very difficult to get enough mailers out to let people know what you stand for,” the sheriff said.

Bennett countered that the limits are reasonable. He acknowledged that the law can appear unwieldy, especially in comparison to previous controls used for county offices. A 1991 ordinance limited individual contributions to $750 in a primary election and $250 in a general election, with no spending limits.

It was changed in 1996 to reflect a new state law that was later found unconstitutional, leaving the county with no limits for the past several years.

“I would love to write a simple law,” Bennett said. “But the law has gotten more and more complex on this. If you want to do something that doesn’t have loopholes that you can drive a truck through, it has to be fairly comprehensive.”

One loophole that won’t be closed is the infusion of so-called soft money to a campaign, typically in the hard-fought final days. Those are the dollars raised by an independent committee to promote a specific candidate or cause.

But independent committees would have to follow additional reporting and disclosure requirements. Supervisor Linda Parks said it is important to target soft money, because it is often used to circumvent the intent of campaign finance laws.

She was targeted in three “hit” mailers in the final days of her supervisorial campaign last March, financed by an independent group calling itself the Ventura Taxpayers for Responsible Government.

“It was the dirtiest part of the campaign and they slipped under the radar,” Parks said. “This [proposal] would hold them to tougher standards.”

Under the draft plan, the ethics commission would be made up of five volunteer members, selected by the presiding judge of the Superior Court from a pool of candidates nominated by members of the Board of Supervisors.

The commission would have authority to subpoena individuals and documents, to negotiate settlements and to assess fines. Fines could be as high as $5,000 per violation, or up to three times the value of contributions not properly reported.

Commission members also could refer more serious violations to the district attorney’s office for prosecution. Long said the county can control its costs by using volunteer judges and attorneys to administer the tribunal.

Supervisors John Flynn and Judy Mikels expressed reservations that the commission could be objective if its members are nominated by the people they are supposed to be monitoring. “It’s something that could really be misused,” Flynn said.

Mikels said she supports a finance law but think the county should move cautiously.

“Have there been demonstrable ethics violations that haven’t been addressed by everything else we have in place?” she said. “I need to know what we are trying to accomplish or what we are trying to solve.”