EDITORIAL : VOTE NO ON MEASURE 6.
Most members of the Los Angeles City Council support the measure because it enlarges the slush fund, or general-purpose political cash, that each of them can have.
Every elected L.A. official may legally accept as much as $10,000 a year in contributions for those cookie jars, which are formally known as officeholder accounts.
If this measure passes, the limit will jump to $75,000 a year, and other restrictions also will be loosened. For example, the maximum contribution an individual donor could make to an officeholder's account would increase from $250 to $1,000.
Also, the politicians could spend the dollars in many questionable ways - mostly promoting their own career and image, more than improving service to constituents.
The current rules on officeholder accounts were enacted only five months ago when voters, both in L.A. and statewide, passed Proposition 208 on the state ballot. The only argument for going back to the old rules is that L.A. council districts are quite large; but if the council would agree to cut those districts in half, they wouldn't need so much money, and the people of L.A. would have better representation, too.
In a system that already has too many abuses, we doubt that hard-working taxpayers are in any mood to let council members accept $75,000 a year in tax-free political cash from lobbyists and anyone else seeking to buy influence at City Hall.
We urge voters to send City Hall insiders a message they'll never forget, so they'll never have to ask again. Vote no on Referendum Ordinance 6.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Daily News (Los Angeles, CA)|
|Date:||Apr 1, 1997|
|Previous Article:||REINING IN CITY : COUNCIL'S OK OF LIVING WAGE DESPITE PREDICTED ADVERSE ECONOMIC EFFECTS SHOWS NECESSITY FOR PASSAGE OF CHARTER REFORM.|
|Next Article:||EDITORIAL : 3 FOR COLLEGE BOARD.|