Ruling Limits Contributions to Candidates to $250 Total : Campaigns: Decision also clearly restricts amount that independent committees working <i> against </i> individual candidates can receive.

In a new ruling that may inhibit the work of independent committees in the 1992 mayor’s race and beyond, the San Diego city attorney’s office has decided that total contributions from any individual to political candidates and outside groups working on their behalf cannot exceed $250 in any election.

The opinion, dated June 10 and distributed this week to the two mayoral contenders and independent political groups, clarifies the city’s already restrictive campaign laws by addressing the growing phenomenon of independent committees working against individual candidates, as well as groups working for them.

“When it adopted the ordinance, the council contemplated the possibility that more than one committee may be formed to support or oppose a single candidate in a single election,” wrote Deputy City Atty. Cristie McGuire. “All contributions to all ‘committees,’ as defined by the ordinance, are clearly covered.”

The growth in recent years of independent committees aimed at defeating individual candidates, such as former Councilmen Ed Struiksma and Bruce Henderson, introduced new questions about campaign finance, said Mikel Haas, deputy director for elections and legislative services in the city clerk’s office.

The city clerk’s office requested the ruling after receiving inquiries that began on the night of the June 2 primary election, Haas said.

The issue first surfaced in Henderson’s 1991 council race, when the city clerk’s office told supporters of challenger Valerie Stallings that they could not contribute $250 to the candidate and $250 more to the independent effort to oust Henderson, Haas said. Stallings defeated Henderson in the run-off election.

Under the city’s restrictive election financing laws, individual contributions to political candidates are limited to a maximum of $250 in the primary and $250 more in the run-off. Political action committees and other groups may not donate.

“What we’re saying is that anyone who plays ball in our ballpark has got to play by our rules,” Haas said. “We don’t care if you’re an independent committee, a recipient committee or a county committee, you gotta play by our rules.”

The ruling applies only in two-candidate run-off elections, not multi-candidate primaries, McGuire wrote.

In the mayor’s race, campaign observers have speculated that growth management advocate Peter Navarro would be the target of at least one independent campaign by business or development groups strongly opposed to his views.

The ruling, some suggested, could dampen enthusiasm for that tactic if contributors must choose between giving the $250 maximum donation to the independent effort and Navarro’s rival, County Supervisor Susan Golding, or dividing it among the two operations. Others suggested that donors might favor the committee over the candidate.

“I would assume that most people would give their money to the candidate, and, as a second choice, to the independent expenditure committee,” said Golding strategist George Gorton, who said he favors an election without independent committees. “If they’re precluded from doing that, I would much rather that they give the money to the candidate.”

But others said independent committees will not be a major factor in an election that offers contributors a clear choice of where to put their money.

“I think there’s going to be enough money to conduct a good campaign for Susan Golding,” said Tim Haidinger, chairman of the Golden Eagle Club, which conducted an independent expenditure against Navarro near the end of the June 2 primary campaign. “I’m not sure how much is going to be done in independent expenditure campaigns.”

Golding said the ruling will not affect her campaign efforts, because city laws prohibit candidates from having any contact with independent committees. Navarro declined to comment, saying he had not seen the ruling.

Strategists on all sides of the issue, however, agreed that the ruling may need further clarification by Witt’s office or a judge because it appeared to create questions about whether the work of certain kinds of groups would fall under its parameters.

Mac Strobl, a San Diego political consultant, said he is seeking a private attorney to review the decision.

For example, the Sierra Club has collected donations for years from its members, money that may be used this fall on behalf of several candidates endorsed by the club, including Navarro, said Michael Shames, the organization’s political director.

Shames wondered how the city intends to preclude donors who gave money to the organization two years ago from donating to Navarro this year.

“How would you police it? How would you monitor it,” asked Frank Panarisi, president of the Construction Industry Federation. “How would we know who gave elsewhere?”

Similar objections might be raised by political parties, Golding said, or other groups such as labor unions.

But Haas said that the ruling has no time limits, and it will be up to contributors to follow the law.

The ruling does not prohibit individuals or companies from spending as much as they want independently, a right of free expression guaranteed by the Constitution, Haas said. But they may not collect money from donors, he said.