Council Delays Vote on Closing Loophole in Campaign Law

After wrangling for more than two hours, the Los Angeles City Council on Friday edged toward plugging a loophole that has allowed political parties and unions to pour huge amounts into city political campaigns without disclosing where the money came from and how much was spent.

Feeling its way through a politically charged issue, the council amended proposals drafted by the city Ethics Commission that would force disclosure of the secret fund-raising and spending before the June 5 runoff. But council members delayed a vote to adopt the ordinance until late next week at the earliest.

The proposed ordinance would require disclosure by political parties, unions and other organizations that spend more than $10,000 on mailers and communications urging their members to support or oppose a candidate in the upcoming election. In the recently completed first round of the mayor’s race, the Democratic Party and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor aggressively sought the election of former Assemblyman Antonio Villaraigosa, raising questions about the adequacy of the city’s election rules.

A loophole created by Proposition 34, approved by the state’s voters in November, allows political parties not to disclose money raised and spent on communications with their members in off-year municipal elections until after voters go to the polls. Other organizations such as unions do not ever have to disclose the extent of such spending.

Los Angeles Ethics Commission President Miriam Krinsky said urgent action is needed to deal with the problem seen in the April election of large amounts of undisclosed fund-raising and spending.

Krinsky said the public needs to know who is donating and how much is being spent to influence city elections.

But Councilman Mike Hernandez, a supporter of Villaraigosa, objected that the proposals would taint the election process by changing the rules in mid-campaign.

Hernandez’s remarks kicked off a freewheeling council debate that underscored the sensitivity of the issue, which is capturing political attention with little more than five weeks until the runoff.

Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski applauded the panel’s effort to attack the problem of unregulated “soft money” outside the reach of the city’s campaign finance laws.

While supporting disclosure, Councilman Joel Wachs said the proposal is at best a “bandage on a hemorrhage.”

Wachs, one of the mayoral candidates who was attacked in mailers sent by the state Republican Party, said unlimited spending on such communications creates an incredible disadvantage for others.

Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas pressed unsuccessfully to delay a decision on the issue, warning that it would be imprudent for the council to act swiftly in the politically charged context of the campaign.

Council President Ruth Galanter also sounded a cautionary note. “Money is essential to a candidate in order to get a message out,” she said. “Money is always going to be flowing in the political process.”

Galanter said she believes the public should know how much is being spent and where the money came from, but she had reservations about imposing requirements on smaller organizations.

Ultimately, the council decided to delay a vote until next week because Hernandez blocked immediate action.

Bob Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies, said that unless the council acts the loophole could allow millions to be spent in city elections with no disclosure until weeks after the votes are counted.

But the proposals could quickly run into a buzz saw of opposition from the state Democratic Party.

Lance Olson, the party’s general counsel, sent a long letter warning that such ordinances conflict with state law and cannot be enacted legally.

No opposition was voiced before the council to another element of the proposed ordinance, which would require recorded telephone calls to carry the name of the responsible party.

The first round of the mayor’s race was marred by anonymous phone calls featuring a woman impersonating Supervisor Gloria Molina and last-minute calls with anti-Semitic overtones.