CAMPAIGN REFORM GROUPS PROVE FUND FRIENDLY.

Byline: Mark Katches Daily News Sacramento Bureau

Organizers of two November campaign finance reform initiatives - seeking to place strict limits on political fund raising - are themselves finding it difficult to turn down big money contributions.

In fact, they're depending on them, campaign records show.

One group, Californians Against Political Corruption, wants to limit contributions to statewide candidates to $200 per individual - with $100 limits in legislative district races.

But the group has not set any such limit on itself. It raised $322,717 through Dec. 31, with $300,029 coming from one source - the California Public Interest Research Group, records show.

``We'll take whatever we can get,'' said Wendy Wendlandt, the state campaign coordinator for Californians Against Political Corruption. ``The way the game is played now is to take big campaign contributions.''

A competing group, Californians for Political Reform, wants to place a $500 limit on individual donations to statewide candidates, with $250 limits on legislative races.

But the reform-minded group hasn't applied the same standards to its own campaign, records filed with the secretary of state show.

The group raised $379,000 and has taken 39 contributions or loans exceeding $1,000, records show.

Neither group would place any limits on ballot measures - reasoning that there is not the same potential for corruption.

``You can't corrupt a measure on the ballot,'' said Tony Miller, the former secretary of state who is now treasurer for Californians for Political Reform. ``You can corrupt politicians. The courts have made that distinction.''

Californians for Political Reform has gotten more than $77,000 from California Common Cause, $84,700 from the American Association of Retired Persons, and $28,500 from the League of Women Voters.

``We're playing by the rules,'' Miller said. ``We do have a few large contributors, and we will take that money because we know there will be hundreds of thousands from large special interests to defeat our measure,'' Miller said.

But critics say both initiative backers are setting a double standard.

``They don't practice what they preach,'' said Sen. Quentin Kopp, I-San Francisco, who co-wrote the state's last campaign finance reform measure eight years ago, Proposition 73, which the courts struck down.

Kopp is supporting a bill by Assemblyman James Rogan, R-Glendale, that is nearly identical to his Proposition 73, but removes clauses that did not stand up in court.

The Legislature could place the Rogan bill on the November ballot, leaving voters to wade through three initiatives on the subject.

If it makes it that far, Kopp - who intends to take a leadership role in the campaign - vowed to limit all campaign contributions to the amount spelled out in the Rogan bill - $1,000 from individuals and $5,000 from political action committees.

Currently, there are no state limits on fund raising in California although some cities, including Los Angeles, have adopted their own guidelines.

Assemblyman Jim Brulte, R-Rancho Cucamonga, who has emerged as one of the most successful fund-raisers in the Capitol in the post-Willie Brown era, questioned the methods of the reform campaigns.

``It's intellectually dishonest,'' said Brulte, who collected $1.1 million in campaign contributions last year. ``If they think this is a good idea, they ought to try to run their campaign using the campaign limits they advocate. The same standard should apply for initiative campaigns as we have for statewide races.''

But the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that limits cannot be placed on initiative campaigns because it is considered a restriction of free speech.

With the likelihood of three initiatives on the ballot, the odds would seem to favor some form of political finance reform this year. But there is concern the three competing measures will cancel out each other by only serving to confuse voters, Miller said.

The Common Cause measure has already been certified for the ballot, while the rival initiative is waiting for the secretary of state to validate the 866,660 signatures submitted this month.

Even if all three measures pass, only the one that gets the most votes will take effect. It is almost a certainty that a court challenge will follow no matter which one wins, said Wendlandt.

In either scenario, advocates of the various reform movements say they are worried that - despite all the posturing and fund raising - it could result in another missed opportunity to reform a system that saw legislative candidates spend a record $45.2 million statewide in the November 1994 election.

Miller said the Californians Against Political Corruption measure is the least likely to survive a court challenge because of its strict limits. But lawmakers say neither of the two initiatives will survive court tests. That's why they are supporting Rogan's bill, AB 3027, as a third alternative nicknamed ``the Son of Proposition 73.''

Rogan contends that it has the best chance to succeed. Proposition 73 was supported by nearly 60 percent of the voters in 1988, but was thrown out in 1990. While it was in effect, it cut political campaign contributions almost in half, Rogan said.

``We've corrected the constitutional defects that have been identified in previous litigation,'' Rogan said. ``If it passes we can have campaign finance reform the next day.''

Rogan's bill sets no spending limits on campaigns and limits transfers to other candidates from campaign committees to $1,000.

Miller said it is not surprising that lawmakers want higher limits on individual and PAC donations because it better serves their interests.

``Politicians by and large are afraid of change,'' he said. ``They're fearful of the unintended consequences.''