Candidates Pay the Price in Bid to Win Office : Politics: Beverly Hills council contenders collectively spent less than they have in the past, but still led the way on the Westside.

By G. JEANETTE AVENT

April 28, 1994 12 AM PT

SPECIAL TO THE TIMES

The prize is a $330-per-month job with long hours, lots of dissatisfied clients, and no job security. Yet when election year rolls around in Beverly Hills, half a dozen candidates typically jump into the fray and spend with great gusto--eager to secure a council seat in the city with international cachet.

Eight candidates in the city’s April 12 City Council elections had plunked down a total of $153,395 in campaign cash as of March 26--the latest date for which figures are available. That is lower than in some previous city elections.

In the 1984 race, eight candidates spent $380,000; in 1986 six hopefuls spent $225,000. And in 1988, two council candidates alone parted with $195,492.

But the campaign spending in Beverly Hills this year still eclipsed that in other Westside races. In fact, it exceeded by more than $17,000 the amount spent by council candidates in all three of the other Westside cities with elections April 12--West Hollywood, Malibu and Culver City.

Beverly Hills candidates acknowledge that campaign outlays in their city are steep. Businessman Les Bronte, who won a council seat this month in his first attempt, said his campaign costs could rise to $61,000--including $25,000 of his own money--when all accounts are settled.

“It’s crazy to spend that kind of money,” he said.

But, Bronte said, challengers must spend heavily to get the same name recognition as incumbents, who go before the public every week during council study sessions and meetings.

Insecurity, he said, also causes local spending to soar: One candidate’s supporters see another’s bringing in large donations of $5,000 and feel they must keep pace. “You really want your candidate to win, but realize it takes dollars,” he said. Competing against each other, he added, candidates tend to raise and spend what the community will bear.

“(The election) becomes an auction,” he said.

In 1992, the city’s League of Women Voters attempted to curb spending before that year’s election by brokering a voluntary agreement among candidates to limit expenditures to $50,000. Only one of the nine candidates in 1992 exceeded the limit. The league raised its ceiling to $60,000 for this year’s campaign. Final finance reports are not in, so it is uncertain if any of this year’s council hopefuls topped the limit.

MeraLee Goldman, the top vote-getter in the Beverly Hills council election, said campaign outlays in her city are “outrageous.” Goldman, who as of March 26 had spent $36,575, said costs are high because serious candidates must send out mailers, place advertisements in the local papers the Friday before the election, and post flyers on doors the day before the election.

“(Candidates) spend it because it’s traditional,” Goldman said. With four citywide mailings, lawn signs and other expenses, she said, “we did what we considered the minimum amount to do the job.”

In neighboring cities, candidates are astonished by the campaign spending in Beverly Hills. Steve Martin, who won a seat on the West Hollywood council this month, said even the Beverly Hills League of Women Voters ceiling, $60,000, is “an absurd amount to spend.”

Martin estimates his final campaign bill will come to $20,000--about $5,000 less than he had wanted. His fund raising, he said, came up short in part because two council members--Abbe Land and Paul Koretz--are competing for contributions in the city to finance their runs for state Assembly.

“When we started (fund raising), people felt they had already been picked on,” he said, laughing.

Culver City’s freshman Councilman Ed Wolkowitz said his city has some campaign spending traditions, but “we don’t spend $60,000.”

Wolkowitz, who expects his campaign bill to total $19,000, said poor economic conditions have dampened fund-raising prospects. Wolkowitz said the amount he spent was adequate to run an effective campaign.

But, he acknowledged, “There’s this mind-set that more is better, and the more you raise, the better your campaign is and your candidate is. There’s ego gratification in raising money.”

In Beverly Hills, Bronte described a different sort of gratification.

“It’s for the privilege of serving the community of Beverly Hills,” he said. Then he added with a laugh: “It’s for going to a lot of dinners and eating a lot of food I don’t like.”

On the Costs of Campaigning

“I think it’s outrageous,” said newly elected Beverly Hills Councilwoman MeraLee Goldman of campaign spending in the city. But “(candidates) spend it, because it’s traditional,” she said, adding that she hopes her final tally won’t come near the $60,0000 voluntary ceiling.

Steve Martin, West Hollywood’s freshman councilman, called $60,000 “such an absurd amount to spend.” He expects to spend $20,000.

Culver City’s freshman Councilman Ed Wolkowitz said his city has some campaign spending traditions too, but “we don’t spend $60,000.” He expects to spend about $19,000.

Top Spenders

Chart shows the four candidates who had spent the most as of March 26. Rankings may change as subsequent campaign reports are filed.

BEVERLY HILLS

MeraLee Goldman*: $36,575

Les Bronte* $33,109

Robert K. Tanenbaum: $28,124

Alan Robert Block: $27,723

CULVER CITY

Ed Wolkowitz*: $10,786

Mike Balkman*: $10,306

Richard Marcus: $7,770

Jim Hilfenhaus: $7,211