COUNTY BILL MAY BE BEST BET FOR PASSAGE.

Byline: David Bloom Daily News Staff Writer

With two competing state initiatives already on the ballot to overhaul election spending and contribution rules, a Los Angeles County initiative with similar designs might seem superfluous.

But the way Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky sees it, Proposition B on the Nov. 5 ballot could actually prove to be the only reform package that becomes law in 1996.

``First of all, let's not assume the state initiatives are going to pass,'' said Yaroslavsky. ``And, two, the state initiatives have a bigger problem with constitutional challenges.''

Proposition B, for Los Angeles County voters only, for the first time, would put limits on who could contribute to candidates for county supervisor, district attorney, sheriff and assessor, how much they could give, and when they could give.

It also would create voluntary spending limits; deal with inequities created by self-financed wealthy candidates and allow officeholder accounts similar to those used by Los Angeles city elected officials.

``We're trying to level the playing field between the wealthy candidate and opponents,'' Yaroslavsky said. ``No other measure deals with the huge advantage a wealthy candidate has.''

The measure was placed on the ballot by the supervisors on a 3-2 vote with Supervisors Michael D. Antonovich and Dean Dana opposed, and Supervisors Gloria Molina and Yvonne Brathwaite Burke supporting Yaroslavsky.

Proposition B has been heavily criticized by Antonovich, who contends that the measure adds ``red tape'' for challengers seeking to unseat incumbents.

``These requirements only aid the affluent, the bureaucrats, the lawyers and the incumbents,'' he said.

Still, the majority of supervisors said something had to be done because contributions in some county races have soared as high as $170,000 from individual companies. More common are $5,000 and $10,000 contributions, often from companies and people with county contracts or needing county regulatory approvals.

If Measure B passes, elected officials could receive contributions up to $1,000 in their officeholder accounts, but could receive no more than $75,000 per year. No money could be spent from the account within six months of an election.

The measure would ban contributions from political committees and parties, as well as ``bundling'' of contributions, in which an intermediary collects smaller donations from others and funnels them to a candidate.

It would also ban contributions from lobbyists, who are big donors to supervisors now, even as they are asking for support on projects on behalf of their clients, who also are often contributors.

The measure also would allow candidates to raise and spend more than the limits when their opponents are wealthy candidate campaigning with large amounts of personal money. The limits would be completely removed from a candidate if the opponent puts in more than $300,000 of personal funds.

The spending cap formula for countywide races would be 25 cents per resident, roughly $2.3 million now. The cap formula for supervisor races is 75 cents per district resident, or about $1.5 million.

The measure also would shorten time frames for raising funds, to roughly a two-year period around the election.

The county measure has little support from the groups that have their initiatives placed on the statewide ballot.

But Robert Stern, co-director of the California Commission on Campaign Financing and a contributor to both state propositions, said the measure would be ``very meaningful because there's never been any limits on county races.''

``By the end of the process, people felt this measure was OK,'' said Stern, whose landmark 1989 study of campaign spending in California included a highly critical chapter on the county's experience.

``There was a feeling that it could have been stronger, but it's OK.''