PUBLIC ELECTION FUNDS URGED COUNCILMEMBERS UNSURE ON ISSUE; DEBATE LIKELY.

Byline: Judy O'Rourke Staff Writer

SANTA CLARITA - City officials have not yet said whether they will explore a public campaign finance plan requested by a group of residents, but Santa Clarita City Council members are giving the matter some thought.

The issue seems to be a mixed bag among the trio of council members up for re-election April 11.

Councilman Frank Ferry, who toiled over the city's failed attempt to levy a $25-a-year special parcel assessment to fund open space and park purchases, questioned whether the public would embrace such a measure.

``Now you're asking people to tax themselves to support candidates they may never philosophically agree with or vote for,'' he said. Ferry had raised $108,000 for April's race, as of Feb. 1.

On Feb. 14, members of the Santa Clarita Valley Clean Money for Better Government Committee asked City Council members to consider campaign finance reform. The maximum contribution for individuals and businesses alike in Santa Clarita elections was raised from $250 to $360 in 2003.

Ferry had suggested increasing the cap to $1,000 to align it with the state limit. He says transparency allows voters to decide how they feel about the source of the money. ``To me, disclosure's the key,'' he said. ``One hundred percent, and sooner rather than later.''

The nonprofit California Clean Money Campaign proposes providing qualified candidates with money deemed adequate to fund their campaigns, in return for the candidates promising to reject other contributions.

Candidates would qualify for public funding by collecting a set number of $5 contributions from people in their district to prove they have support, and by promising not to accept other private funds. Additional money would be available - up to a cap - if the ``clean money'' candidates are being outspent by privately funded candidates, proponents said.

Mayor Laurene Weste said the city already has a strict campaign finance law, and an earlier attempt to regulate contributions from political action committees failed because it violated constitutional rights to free speech.

``We have a restrictive ordinance,'' she said. ``It does make you work hard.'' Weste had raised $48,000.

Councilwoman Marsha McLean said the concept is interesting and deserves public debate. But before she weighs in, McLean wants to scrutinize the pros and cons and the performance of clean-campaign measures elsewhere.

``I have long been an advocate for placing a cap on money spent for local campaigns,'' she said. ``It does cost way too much money to run (for office).'' McLean had raised nearly $22,000.

McLean said grass-roots campaigns can run further on less money because they are fueled by people power. McLean took umbrage at comments questioning the ethics of current officeholders.

``I have a problem with people stepping up there who are saying all politicians, simply because we are elected, are corrupt,'' she said. ``Just because we don't rush to put the (item) on the agenda in two weeks doesn't mean we're not interested in the debate. This discussion is going on all over the state and the country, and we want to be sure when we do debate it we have all the information available.''

Councilmen Cameron Smyth and Bob Kellar are not up for re-election at this time. Kellar is not opposed to talking about reform, but he would focus on money from political action committees rather than individual contributions.

``People have a right to make individual contributions,'' he said. ``If there was a way we in Santa Clarita could have some kind of situation in place whereby no (political action committee) money would be acceptable in a local election - I don't know if it's legally doable, but I might support it.''

Smyth, hoping to succeed state Assemblyman Keith Richman, R-Granada Hills, said he would need to read the group's proposal fully before commenting on it, but he has a philosophical problem with public funding of campaigns.

``That creates a myriad of issues,'' he said. ``I would like to choose which candidate I choose to support. I don't want my tax dollars to fund candidates I don't support.'' He said the spending restrictions often do not hinder people who do not rely on others for funding.

``These things don't address wealthy candidates, people who can fund their own campaigns,'' he said. ``It limits contributions candidates can receive, and opens the door for individually wealthy candidates. You can't restrict their spending.''

Proponents of the clean-money measure locally say it creates a level playing field.

Since 2000, a voluntary clean-money system has funded legislative campaigns in Arizona. Self-described conservative Republican state Sen. Ron Gould, who ran his first Arizona campaign under the clean-election program, said he was dissatisfied with it and is running his current campaign the traditional way. He sees two big problems with the clean system.

``You have appointed bureaucrats in control of your campaign finance system,'' Gould said. ``It's been a problem because they've been partisan.''

He said the system does not take the lobbyists' money out of play because groups still make outside expenditures.

``You get matching money up to a certain point, but there's a cap on matching money and it hasn't really changed the way lobbyists interface with legislators,'' he said.

Gould had served as a Lake Havasu city councilman before entering the state body and said the same problems apply at the city level.

In Santa Clarita, decisions on which issues will land on the council's agenda are made by City Manager Ken Pulskamp the week before the meeting, spokeswoman Gail Ortiz said.

Judy O'Rourke, [phone]

judy.orourke(at)dailynews.com