$6 MILLION TAXPAYER BILL L.A. CANDIDATES RAISE HUGE SUMS, TAKE MATCHING FUNDS TOO.

Byline: Dominic Berbeo Staff Writer

Los Angeles taxpayers face a $6 million bill to fund political campaigns in this year's city elections, even though loopholes in the law have lifted spending caps in some races and allowed contribution limits to soar from $1,000 to $7,000 a person.

Sweeping political reform measures passed by Los Angeles voters a decade ago created a taxpayer matching funds program in which city candidates could receive taxpayer dollars if they agree to spending limits and meet fund-raising thresholds. This spring's bill is $4.2 million; the June runoff could cost up to $2 million more in city funds.

This year, however, spending caps in the campaigns for mayor and city attorney have been lifted because of loopholes, as candidates go on raising huge sums while still accepting taxpayer funds.

While some say the matching funds program has been effective in reducing big-money interests at City Hall, others say the money spent has amounted to merely fattening the campaign coffers of powerful candidates.

``We have always been opposed to spending public funds on political campaigns,'' said Jon Coupal, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. ``This is clearly money that could have been spent to meet legitimate needs of the city.''

In the current campaign cycle, funds raised by the six top mayoral candidates range from $1 million to nearly $3.9 million through March 24, the most recent reporting date. Five of the six have received a total of $2.5 million in matching funds so far, with the city expecting to pay up to $1.6 million more in matching funds in the event of a June runoff, plus additional matching funds in various other city races.

The city has given some $12 million in public funds to political candidates for their campaigns since 1993. The current election cycle is expected to be a record-breaker, with $4.2 million spent to date just in the primary.

Measure H was passed in 1990 and implemented in the 1993 elections as an attempt at leveling a playing field that inevitably includes wealthy candidates and big-money corporate donors.

Jim Knox, executive director of California Common Cause, a nonprofit political reform group that supported Measure H, says the money is well spent.

``The matching funds program has been tremendously successful in broadening the candidate base,'' Knox said. ``Wealthy candidates dissuade other viable candidates from running. If there were no matching funds, I don't think all six major (mayoral) candidates would be running.''

Since Los Angeles implemented matching funds, he said, the policy has spread to the cities of Long Beach, Oakland, San Francisco and Petaluma.

Coupal, however, says that real campaign finance reform would include total disclosure of those making contributions and their relationships to candidates, lobbyists and City Hall business.

``Full disclosure would be far more effective reform,'' he said. ``This way voters would know who is financing campaigns.''

To qualify for matching funds, mayoral candidates must agree to limit spending to $2.2 million in the primary and $1.76 million in a runoff.

Also, they must agree to spend no more than $100,000 of their personal funds in the primary, with a similar limit in a runoff.

And they must raise at least $150,000 in individual donations of $500 or less.

If they qualify, the candidates are eligible to receive up to $667,000 each in money that matches individual donations dollar-for-dollar to their campaigns, and an additional $800,000 each in the general.

Candidates for other city offices, including city attorney, city controller and City Council member, are also eligible for lesser funds, and must meet similar but lesser thresholds and limits.

Overall, of the 74 candidates currently running for various city offices, fewer than half - 32 - have received matching funds from the city program.

Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, a nonprofit watchdog group, helped draft Measure H. Matching funds have helped challengers take on well-funded incumbents, he says.

Two examples, he says, are council members Laura Chick and Rudy Svorinich beating incumbents Joy Picus and Joan Milke Flores, respectively, in the 1993 elections.

``All four candidates participated in the matching funds program,'' he said. ``This allowed them to spend much more time campaigning and less time seeking funds.''

The City Ethics Commission, which was created under Measure H, administers the matching funds program.

Lee Ann Pelham, executive director of the commission, says matching funds have helped level the local political playing field in various ways, some more subtle than others.

``The courts have repeatedly said we can't have spending limits and we can't limit personal funds spent,'' she said. ``But we can give incentives to limit spending.''

She said there has been a notable increase in the percentage of individual contributors vs. corporate givers, and the average amount spent on winning council races has leveled off at $350,000, compared to several races that spent in excess of $500,000 in the late '80s.

But loopholes in the system abound, Pelham said, and the city should take a close look at putting a cap on independent expenditures in the matching fund requirements.