SACRAMENTO -- Races for county assessor are usually sleepy affairs that attract relatively little in campaign donations. Not in San Bernardino County in 2006.

Bill Postmus, the chairman of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, spent $2.4 million last year to win the assessor's job, pulling in donations of at least $10,000 from 50 contributors, including a home builder that gave him $244,000.

Two of his fellow supervisors raised a total of $1.6 million for their re-election campaigns, with individual donors giving as much as $85,000, even though they faced no opposition for re-election.

"It's a shocking amount of money that was raised," said Reggie King, chairman and chief executive officer of Young Homes, Postmus' largest contributor.

Postmus and the other candidates were able to collect such large donations because San Bernardino County has no limits on how much money candidates can raise from contributors.

While limits are in place for statewide, congressional and even presidential candidates, most candidates running for local office in California face no restrictions on how much money they can raise from individual donors.

An Associated Press review found that only 13 of California's 58 counties and 96 of its 478 cities put limits on the size of donations. A sampling of local campaign finance records from the 2005-06 period shows that some races are attracting huge amounts of campaign cash -- in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars per candidate.

The lack of contribution limits can give wealthy donors more clout in local races than on the state level, said Ned Wigglesworth, a lobbyist for the campaign reform group California Common Cause.

"Local races are just as open to influence from special interests as statewide races, and even more so in some cases," he said. "Whereas $20,000 in a state campaign might buy you a seat at the table, $20,000 in a local race buys you the whole conference room."

He supports donation limits and public financing for local races and a requirement that local candidates disclose donations online to make it easier for voters to track the source of candidates' money.

But few local governments put the candidates' campaign finance statements online now. Most have only paper records on file at the county seat or city hall, requiring residents to travel, sometimes long distances.

Assemblyman Anthony Adams, R-Hesperia, has introduced a bill that would require cities and counties to put their campaign finance reports on the Internet.

"The amount of dollars being raised and spent on local elections has increased exponentially," Adams said. "It's more and more important that average citizens can easily and readily review the campaign disclosures we are all required to submit."

In some communities, particularly those facing growth pressures, developers are the main campaign contributors. Casino-operating Indian tribes also are generous donors to friendly candidates.

They often give much larger amounts than those allowed candidates for state offices.

In Placer County, Supervisor Robert Weygandt spent $481,000 last year to fend off a challenge from Jerry Simmons, a member of the local community college board. Weygandt's supporters included the United Auburn Indian Community, which operates the Thunder Valley Casino in Lincoln and gave Weygandt $114,000.

Simmons spent $417,000, including $100,000 he received from Sacramento-area developer Angelo Tsakopoulos. Tsakopoulos' son, Kyriakos, chipped in another $101,576 for his own campaign against Weygandt.

A third supervisorial candidate, Rocky Rockholm, spent $444,000 to win another seat on the Placer County board, getting individual donations of as much as $32,500.

By comparison, a candidate for governor can receive no more than $24,100 per election from most donors.

Weygandt says campaign fundraising and spending has increased dramatically in Placer County, although he's unsure about the need for contribution limits. He does believe, however, that contributions should be reported online to give voters easy access to that information.

"I do think our form of government is a grand experiment and remarkably successful, but it is fragile...," he said. "If we take it for granted too much and the system doesn't provide continuing public access, it is much more fragile than I would have thought before I got into this business."

Big campaign funds can provide local candidates with money for more than just the usual campaign mailers, billboards and television and radio commercials.

Some local officials last year used campaign money for staff parties, staff retreats to Las Vegas and Disneyland, beauty queen sponsorships and contributions to community groups, charities and their political allies.

California briefly imposed tough caps on donations to local candidates.

Proposition 208, approved by voters in 1996, allowed most donors to give no more than $250 per election to candidates for local offices and the Legislature and $500 per election to statewide candidates.

"We didn't think the sky should be the limit," said Tony Miller, a former acting California secretary of state who was one of the proposition's authors.

A federal judge struck down the limits in 1998, ruling they were too stringent to allow the typical candidate to communicate with voters.

Voters approved a new set of limits in 2000, Proposition 34, but those caps only apply to campaigns for state offices. In addition to the limits for gubernatorial candidates, they allow most donors to give up to $6,000 to other statewide candidates, such as secretary of state, and $3,600 to people running for the Legislature.

Limits in those California cities and counties that have them range from $100 to a few thousand dollars.

As in state politics, however, there are ways around the local limits, principally through independent expenditures -- campaign money that doesn't go into a candidate's coffers.

Los Angeles puts a $500 limit on donations to city council candidates and a $1,000 cap on contributions to candidates for mayor and other city posts. But in 2005, unions, landlords, architects, environmentalists and others avoided those caps by spending a total of $4.4 million on their own campaigns supporting or opposing city candidates.

The spending included $600,305 by the California Teachers Association in support of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and $510,228 by the Service Employees International Union backing Villaraigosa's chief opponent, then-Mayor James Hahn.

In nearby Santa Monica, which puts a $250 cap on donations to candidates, the company that owns two beach-front hotels spent at least $563,000 last year on ads, telephone banks, brochures and precinct walkers to oppose City Councilman Kevin McKeown and support two of his rivals.

McKeown won re-election and was helped, he said, by a newspaper article revealing that a participant in a cable television ad attacking him actually supported him.

"Had that not happened, I have no way of knowing what that TV campaign might have done," said McKeown, who spent nearly $35,000 on his bid for a third term.

Even though they may face slim chances of winning court challenges, several California cities have tried to limit independent expenditures by capping the amounts individual donors can give to independent expenditure campaigns.

San Jose tried that approach, allowing contributors to give no more than $250 per election to independent expenditure committees.

But a federal judge threw out the restrictions last September, ruling they went too far in limiting free speech. The ruling was followed by a surge of independent spending in the race for mayor that included $1.8 million from Service Employee International Union branches.

"The independent expenditures seem to have ruled the roost here," said San Jose City Attorney Rick Doyle. "They have just taken off and gotten out of control. ... We're sensitive to the First Amendment concerns, but there needs to be a very close and serious look at ways to regulate these expenditures."

The city is appealing the ruling.

Miller, the Proposition 208 co-author, said there is a public benefit in local governments capping donations made directly to candidates, despite the independent expenditure loophole.

"An independent expenditure, if truly independent, is at least one step removed from direct contributions to a candidate," he said. "There is less of an appearance of impropriety and less of a risk of impropriety."

Trying to impose contribution limits on candidates can be a hard sell in some areas of the state. Riverside County Supervisor Bob Buster said he can't get any of his colleagues to support the idea.

"What we're seeing here is the fundraising base is getting smaller in proportion to the population, but the amounts (given) are getting larger and that's not a good thing for the future," he said.

Three of Buster's colleagues raised a total of more than $1.5 million for election campaigns last year, with donors giving up to $20,300.

Postmus, the new San Bernardino County assessor, says he sees nothing wrong with unlimited contributions.

"We have something in America called freedom of speech," he said. "Citizens have the right to give campaign contributions. I don't have a problem taking them because I know I am a fair and impartial person when it comes to issues."

Postmus' chief benefactor, however, said he wouldn't mind seeing local contribution limits: "It would leave me better off than I am," said King, the home builder.

He has been supporting Postmus since the official's first run for county supervisor in 2000.

"I believe in his intelligence, integrity and his energy and his ability to bring others along to make the county better," King said.

Huge donations have had an effect in local races throughout the state.

In the fast-growing Sacramento suburb of Elk Grove, Mayor Rick Soares and Councilman Dan Briggs lost their seats in November after a firefighters' political action committee spent $150,000 to support their opponents.

The committee was financed by developers. Donations included two contributions of $49,000 and a third totaling $41,150.

Soares charged that developers funneled the money through the firefighters' committee rather than giving it directly to the candidates they supported in an attempt to hide its true sources. Elk Grove does not have donation caps.

Big money is even showing up in campaigns in some smaller towns. In Live Oak, a city of 7,400 about 50 miles north of Sacramento, Mayor Mel Wilkins and Councilwoman Paula Ford also lost re-election bids in November after a group with funding from several developers spent $25,750 to defeat them.

Wilkins said he was targeted because of his opposition to unchecked growth. In contrast to the spending by his opponents, he said his re-election campaign cost $700 and consisted of his wife and children passing out fliers.

Role of special interest campaign contributions studied

By Timm Herdt
Friday, February 15, 2008

SACRAMENTO — When Californians approved Proposition 34 in 2000 they put in place limits on the amount of money anyone could give to a candidate for state political office. In the process, they opened the door for a relative newcomer to political campaigns in the state, independent committees funded by unlimited contributions from special interest groups.

Eight years later, those groups not only have barged in the door but also have nearly taken over the house.

Independent expenditure committees have become powerful and sometimes even dominant players in state political campaigns, the state Fair Political Practices Commission was told Thursday.

Over the past four election cycles, for example, these committees have upped their combined spending on legislative races from $376,000 in 2000 to $23.5 million in 2006, an increase of 6,144 percent.

"It's a situation that is out of control and is thwarting the will of the people," said commission Chairman Ross Johnson.

"With Proposition 34, it was expected that fewer special interest dollars would find their way into campaigns. However, thanks to the orgy of independent expenditures, just the opposite has occurred."

'Shine a light'

The commission has no authority to limit the role of the committees, and indeed the U.S. Supreme Court has established the First Amendment right of such groups to spend as freely as they wish.

But Johnson and other commissioners hope to use their regulatory power to impose additional reporting requirements that could make these committees' roles in campaigns more transparent to the public.

Just by holding the hearing and preparing its report on the role of independent committees the commission has taken an important step, said Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation.

"They're going to exist no matter what we do," Alexander testified. "The best we can do is shine a light on what they do."

Data compiled by the commission staff show the 2006 campaign for state controller was the most dramatic example yet of the role independent expenditure committees can play.

The two candidates, Republican Tony Strickland and Democrat John Chiang, combined to spend $3.2 million on their campaigns. At the same time, interest groups independently spent $5.6 million, or 64 percent of the total spending on the campaign.

Most of the independent money spent on behalf of Chiang came from labor unions, while Strickland benefitted from independent expenditures financed by Indian gaming tribes, tobacco and energy firms, horse racing tracks and the computer software firm Intuit, which alone gave $1 million.

'Plausible deniability'

In contrast, the contribution limits established by Proposition 34 allow donors to contribute no more than $6,000 directly to a candidate for controller.

Under the law, candidates cannot communicate with or coordinate in any way with independent committees.

Not only does the system provide big donors with a way to evade contribution limits, Alexander said, but it also facilitates what she called "dirty tricks" by giving candidates "plausible deniability" to disavow any connection to attack ads that have been produced on their behalf.'

Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, said his research shows independent expenditure committees devote all their resources in legislative races to just 10 percent of the contests, those that are the most highly competitive.

"In my view, independent expenditures do corrupt the process," he said.

Johnson said the notion that interest groups do not unduly influence candidates when they give unlimited amounts to independent committees "defies logic."

He noted his wife was in the audience and that on Thursday morning he had left on the table a box of chocolates and a Valentine's Day card signed by "a secret admirer."

"I believe Mrs. Johnson knows who her secret admirer is," he said.

"It's the same with candidates and officeholders. They know who their secret admirers are. They don't live in a cave."

Independent-expenditure campaigns give candidates extra boost

01:32 PM PST on Friday, February 15, 2008

Role of special interest campaign contributions studied