CITY OKS ETHICS PLAN MINUS KEY PROVISION.

Byline: Harrison Sheppard Staff Writer

The Los Angeles City Council approved a long-delayed campaign finance reform package Tuesday that the head of the Ethics Commission denounced as a ``watered down'' plan that fails to solve the problem of soaring independent expenditures.

Mayor James Hahn, City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and others who have benefited from independent campaign expenditures lined up against the toughest proposals, and the council modified many of the reforms and outright rejected the key provision on an 8-7 vote.

That measure would have blunted the influence of independent expenditures by allowing candidates who didn't receive such support to raise more contributions and spend more money than candidates who do benefit. About $1 million was spent on this year's council elections independent of the campaigns themselves.

``Today our laws are being essentially eviscerated by what has happened on the independent expenditure front,'' said Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, a supporter of the ethics proposals.

The council has passed some 25 elements of the commission's package after locking them in committee for many months. Ethics Commission President Miriam Krinsky said the package the council passed fell far short of the goal.

``Our feeling is one of disappointment that the council didn't seize the opportunity, after over two years of consideration of this issue, to bring about some true meaningful reform to address the dramatic impact of independent spending that has flooded into our races,'' Krinsky said.

The City Attorney's Office had raised legal criticisms of the rejected measure, saying that singling out certain candidates to spend more and not others could be a constitutional violation.

Hahn had threatened to veto the original measure, citing Delgadillo's concerns, but will sign it without the controversial provision, Deputy Mayor Matt Middlebrook said.

Among the measures passed Tuesday was one to provide access to city matching funds faster for candidates who don't benefit from independent expenditures.

Councilwoman Janice Hahn said she believes that, without banning independent expenditures altogether, the Ethics Commission proposal wouldn't have done much to limit their power.

``I just don't see this being real reform,'' she said. ``If we want reform, why don't we get more people to vote in this city?''

Council President Alex Padilla, who opposed the measure, said he thinks all candidates should be treated the same, including the ones who benefit from the expenditures.

``It was to make sure we treated all candidates equally,'' Padilla said. ``The city attorney had significant concerns on the legal grounds of treating (matching funds) participating and nonparticipating candidates differently.''

Padilla proposed an amendment that would have given the same added benefits to candidates who receive independent expenditures and those who don't.

Ethics officials described Padilla's plan as not only counter to their objective, but a step backward from current city law because it would increase the benefit enjoyed by those who already receive massive amounts of independent expenditures.

Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, who supported the Ethics Commission plan, said Padilla's plan could ``literally unravel what we've done for the last 10 or 12 years.''

``It really is a rolling back of the clock,'' Miscikowski said. ``It really is significantly tinkering with what the voters voted on initially (in 1991 to create the matching funds program). It is really saying when an independent expenditure is made, the sky's the limit.''

``I think it's a really, really drastic step backwards.''

Under current city law, council candidates who accept city matching funds agree to spend no more than $330,000 in the primary campaign and $275,000 in the general. That limit is lifted for all candidates if independent expenditures for any candidate exceed $50,000. Ethics officials argue that it should be lifted only for those candidates who didn't benefit from the independent expenditures.

Under Padilla's proposal, if a billboard company, for example, puts up $200,000 worth of billboards touting a candidate, then all candidates would be allowed to spend more than the $330,000 limit. And they would be allowed to receive up to $7,000 from each individual contributor instead of the current $500 limit.

Under the Ethics Commission proposal, a candidate benefiting from the billboard expenditure would still be limited to spending under $330,000 and receiving $500 per contributor, but the other candidates could exceed the limits.

Padilla's amendment failed 10-5.

The debate was part of a a multifaceted effort launched by the Ethics Commission shortly after the 2001 election, in which the influence of independent expenditures skyrocketed.

In this year's council primary election, more than $1 million was spent on independent expenditures, compared with $145,447 in 2001 and less than $150,000 total in the five primaries from 1991 to 1999.

Independent expenditures are campaign spending, such as mailers and billboards, that are paid for by a third party, supposedly without coordination from the candidate's campaign.

The Supreme Court has ruled that independent expenditures are protected by the First Amendment as a form of speech, so the city cannot limit them directly - meaning an individual can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to support a candidate as long as the money isn't given directly to the candidate's campaign.

The Ethics Commission has been trying to decrease that potentially lopsided advantage by increasing advantages granted through the city's matching funds program to candidates who don't receive independent expenditures.

HOW THEY VOTED:

By a 7-8 vote, the City Council rejected a measure that would have allowed candidates who don't receive high amounts of independent expenditures to spend more and receive higher contributions. Here's how members voted:

YES: Eric Garcetti, Wendy Greuel, Tom LaBonge, Cindy Miscikowski, Ed Reyes, Jack Weiss, Dennis Zine.

NO: Hal Bernson, Ruth Galanter, Janice Hahn, Nate Holden, Nick Pacheco, Alex Padilla, Bernard C. Parks, Jan Perry.

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES:

The following details how current officeholders have benefited from independent expenditures cumulatively since 1993. Most of the expenditures were made in the 2001 and 2003 elections.

Mayor James Hahn: $743,517

City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo: $768,131

City Controller Laura Chick: $15,490

Council President Alex Padilla: $104,916

Councilman Hal Bernson: $0

Councilwoman Ruth Galanter: $922

Councilman Eric Garcetti: $7,004

Councilwoman Wendy Greuel: $56,161

Councilwoman Janice Hahn: $45,368

Councilman Nate Holden: $2,496

Councilman Tom LaBonge: $53,073

Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski: $1,292

Councilman Nick Pacheco: $230,825

Councilman Bernard C. Parks: $5,893

Councilwoman Jan Perry: $26,799

Councilman Ed Reyes: $0

Councilman Jack Weiss: $3,404

Councilman Dennis Zine: $135,126

Councilman-elect Antonio Villaraigosa: $1,054,794

Councilman-elect Tony Cardenas: $164,890

- SOURCE: City Ethics Commission

CAPTION(S):

2 boxes

Box:

(1) HOW THEY VOTED: (see text)

(2) INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES: (see text)