Campaign Donor Limits Will Pay Off : * But Reforms Must Be Enforced to Serve Their Purpose

Politicians are shaking the money tree around the county, hunting for funds for upcoming races and paying off past debts. Anyone who expected the new limitations on campaign contributions in Anaheim and for many county offices to provide instant solutions let hopes get ahead of reality.

But last year’s reforms of donations to political office-seekers were needed and will work, if enforced, as they must be. There’s no reason to despair yet.

Campaign contribution reports, required by law, showed that the five Anaheim City Council members raised more than $150,000 during the first half of the year. The timing was important, because the council, prodded by an advisory measure approved by voters last year, forbade council members and candidates from accepting contributions of more than $1,000 from any one donor. But the new law did not take effect until July 1, a date the lawmakers insisted on to give themselves time for a final fund-raising push under the old law to pay off debts from past campaigns.

Thus Anaheim Mayor Tom Daly received more than $75,000 from Jan. 1 through June 30 this year. Most of it went to pay off debts from his race for mayor last year, when he spent more than $260,000.

At the county level, Supervisor William G. Steiner has raised $56,680. Steiner was appointed to the seat by Gov. Pete Wilson this year to replace Don R. Roth, who resigned and then pleaded guilty to ethics violations. Steiner is up for election next year, and two other seats on the board are open, so it could be an expensive year. In 1986, Roth and Jim Beam spent well over $1 million in battling for the 4th District seat, which Roth won. As of the end of June, three likely candidates for the 2nd District seat had raised close to $100,000 among them.

Allegations of influence peddling against Roth helped force the supervisors to put their own campaign contribution reform on the ballot last year. The voters overwhelmingly approved limiting supervisorial candidates and seekers of other high county offices to contributions of $1,000 per donor in each election cycle. That was a good move, as was the provision in the new law closing a loophole that allowed political action committees to contribute without limit.

Politicians estimate it can cost $500,000 for a candidate with strong opposition to run for a seat on the Board of Supervisors. At that rate, it would take at least 500 contributors to finance a race. Contributors hope to win favor with a politician, and it’s better to have an officeholder listening to 500 people than to 50 fat cats who kicked in $10,000 each.

Fund raising has a corrosive effect on government, with winning candidates either scrambling to pay off debts or hustling to raise a big enough bankroll to scare a potential opponent out of the race. If there is opposition after all, and if it’s tough, the incumbent aims to raise more to beat the foe.

The first limits on contributions to supervisors came in the 1970s, after a series of scandals. In Anaheim, political contributions increased so much that lobbyists began to complain that the system was out of control. Also noticed by many was the fact that Anaheim city councils tended to vote for projects favored by lobbyists who had donated enormous amounts to their campaigns.

The latest reports show the cash cows have not run dry. But limiting contributions and enforcing the limits is a good idea, as the voters recognized. The dollars are still chasing the politicians and vice versa, but welcome reform has to be considered a positive step.