L.A. ethics panel votes to make fundraising season shorter
After a heated hearing Thursday, the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission put off a controversial vote to more than double the limits on how much a candidate can accept in campaign contributions.
But in a separate vote that could have a big effect on how elections are run in Los Angeles, the commission moved to shorten the length of the fundraising season.
If the commission’s ruling is approved by the City Council, candidates in council elections will have only 12 months in which to raise money, compared to 18 months now. And candidates for citywide elections will get an 18-month fundraising period compared to the current two-year period.
Ethics commission staff members say both measures would allow candidates to spend less time on fundraising and more time talking to voters. But critics say the measures would give a greater advantage to incumbents with large networks of special interest donors and would drown out the voices of regular voters.
A few months ago, council President Herb Wesson asked the commission to consider raising the caps on contributions because he said candidate-controlled campaigns risk being overshadowed by independent expenditure committees, which the Supreme Court has ruled do not have to comply with spending limits.
In a report, the commission staff recommended raising the limits to allow candidates for council to accept $1,100 per donor per election cycle, up from the current $500 limit. Candidates for mayor, city attorney and city controller would see the cap lifted to $2,200 from $1,000. The increases reflect inflation since 1985, when the caps were approved.
But there is a debate over interpretation of the City Charter, with some saying that its campaign finance requirement is trumped by a provision of the municipal code that calls for a review of the contribution limits every five years.
The last review was in 2008. At that time, commission members decided not to raise the limits because they said it would unfairly benefit incumbents. A report from the commission at the time did not mention the charter provision.
On Thursday, Commissioner Marlene Canter said she had a “tremendous amount of doubt” over the interpretation of the law, and said that before making a decision she wants to see a written opinion by the city attorney about the necessity of the increase.
The commission also asked for an analysis of what the increase would be if the city raised its limits to reflect inflation between now and several other dates, including 1990, when the charter provision was written, and 2003, when the city code was updated.
The commission will vote on the increases March 8. Members plan to make it an all-day meeting because interest in the topic is heavy.
On Thursday, opponents of the increase testified. They included Thomas O’Grady, who last year ran for a council seat against incumbent Tom LaBonge. O'Grady said he raised $85,000 to LaBonge’s more than $300,000. Although most of O’Grady’s fundraising came from small contributions of about $150 per individuals, the majority of LaBonge’s were $500 contributions.
“You’re making it more difficult for us to be competitive,” he said.
-- Kate Linthicum at Los Angeles City Hall