City Considers Public Financing of Elections

In a bid to reduce the influence of campaign contributors in citywide elections, three Los Angeles City Council members will submit a proposal today asking city staff to develop a public financing system for candidates.

City Council campaigns in Los Angeles routinely cost more than $500,000 for leading candidates. This year’s two top mayoral candidates -- incumbent James K. Hahn and challenger Antonio Villaraigosa -- spent more than $13 million combined.

A draft of the motion -- by Eric Garcetti, Wendy Greuel and Bill Rosendahl -- offers no specifics. Rather, if it passes the council in the coming weeks, it would direct the city’s chief legislative analyst’s office to draw up a proposal within a 90-day window.

A chronic complaint about the current system is that key city decisions -- particularly contract negotiations -- are influenced by campaign contributors. There is also the perception among many constituents that city officials make more time for those who give them money.

“If you look at the incumbents, the fact that they had no challengers tells you flat out that incumbency gets the support of the special interests,” said Rosendahl, who was outspent by his opponent in this year’s election but still won by nearly 13 percentage points. In the spring elections, four council incumbents won by wide margins and three ran unopposed.

Garcetti said that he would like to see campaign finance reforms instituted in time for the 2007 elections. Seven council incumbents will be up for reelection that year.

The challenge of so-called clean systems is that the fundraising burden shifts from individual contributors to taxpayers. The city already provides some matching funds to candidates, and spent about $5 million in this past election cycle.

A recent report by the city Ethics Commission concluded that the city would have to spend an additional $25 million during election years to cover candidates’ costs. Coming up with that kind of money would be a challenge in a city that has chronically struggled to find money for basic services.

Proponents of campaign finance reform say they may not push for a full public finance system. But they say any money spent would be worth it because more qualified people would run.

“I was someone who was told I couldn’t win my race because I couldn’t raise the money,” said Greuel, referring to her 2002 race against Tony Cardenas in which the two candidates spent over $2.4 million combined. “We want to take that out of the equation.”

In recent years, Arizona and Maine have adopted clean money systems. In both states, candidates must show broad-based support early in their campaigns by receiving a large number of very small donations.

That, in turn, makes them eligible for publicly funded campaigns up to a limit -- and allows candidates to boast that they are not beholden to special interests.