Los Angeles
James Hahn and Antonio Villaraigosa are both liberal Democrats beloved by and beholden to labor unions. But as these two veteran candidates enter the final week of the Los Angeles mayoral campaign, ambition has turned them into bitter rivals.
Hahn, the incumbent, calls his challenger “a fancy smile and a fancy suit.” Villaraigosa, a former California assemblyman who sits on the city council, says Hahn’s leadership has brought L.A. nothing more than “corruption probes and stagnation.”
The Midwest has its tractor pulls; southerners love their stock cars. But out here in the blue states, mayoral races are the best show in town. Two men mud-wrestling in $1,200 suits may not sound very interesting–until you realize just how far belligerent trash talk carried the World Wrestling Federation.
In Los Angeles, incumbent mayors almost always win a second term. But Hahn, a political grandee if not a man of the people (he hates having to press flesh at political rallies), is running far behind in a recent Los Angeles Times poll. He claims to have built 35 new libraries, empowered neighborhood councils, and begun reforming Los Angeles’s onerous municipal business tax. What he neglects to mention is that the library and council improvements stem from initiatives taken by former mayor Richard Riordan, and the only businesses Hahn has been known to help are those that contribute to his political coffers.
Both the FBI and local district attorneys are investigating multiple “pay to play” scandals involving Hahn appointees to the commissions running L.A.’s harbor, airport, and Department of Water and Power. Hahn’s cronies are suspected of making political contributions a prerequisite to being awarded municipal contracts. Two contributors to Hahn’s previous mayoral campaign have been charged with money-laundering. A couple of weeks ago, St. Louis-based public relations firm Fleishman-Hillard paid $5.7 million to settle a civil suit accusing it of massive overbilling on a Department of Water and Power contract, during which the firm spent much of its time writing press releases and planning events for the mayor.
“James Hahn may be individually honest, but you have to wonder about the money-laundering, suspected illegality, and claims of corruption that have occurred on his watch,” says Jaime Regalado, executive director of the Edmund G. “Pat” Brown Institute of Public Affairs at California State University, Los Angeles. “Hahn’s will go down as one of the most mediocre administrations in the history of the city.”
Hahn has won six consecutive citywide races during his 23 years in municipal government. But he may not have time to recover before the May 17 runoff. Last month, his campaign was embarrassed by news that Los Angeles had failed to make the short list of cities competing to house California’s newly conceived Institute of Regenerative Medicine because his office never completed the necessary paperwork. The stem-cell institute would have brought $3 billion in new jobs and investment to the city. Attempting to regain momentum, Hahn quickly scheduled a ribbon-cutting to celebrate the opening of a regional city hall in the San Fernando Valley. If the ceremony seemed somewhat strained, it was because the event coincided with a Los Angeles Daily News disclosure that the building was months behind schedule, 20 percent over budget, and only partially complete.
“We need to have a lean and mean system of doing business here instead of the doofus way we do things now,” L.A. city controller Laura Chick told the News.
An up-from-the-barrio scrambler who removed a “Born to Raise Hell” tattoo from his right arm when he became a serious politician, Antonio Villaraigosa was on the verge of beating Hahn four years ago when word leaked he had petitioned the Clinton administration in 1996 to pardon a wealthy cocaine dealer. Earlier, Villaraigosa headed the regional office of the ACLU. In that capacity he tried to block an injunction, sought by Los Angeles, prohibiting gang members from congregating in public parks. In a mass mailing paid for by Indian gambling interests, the Hahn campaign combined the two events and denounced Villaraigosa as a gangster-loving liberal unfit to lead the city. The message struck a chord with crime-weary voters, who on Election Day gave Hahn a seven-point margin of victory.
This year Villaraigosa was again cruising to victory with an 18-point lead in the polls. In addition to his Hispanic base in East Los Angeles, he had support from South Central blacks and the Westside Jewish community. Hollywood money was pouring in. Then, in the week he received the Democratic party’s formal endorsement, disaster struck with the announcement that L.A.’s district attorney planned an inquiry into $47,000 worth of campaign donations given to Villaraigosa by employees of two Florida companies seeking lucrative concessions at Los Angeles International Airport. Villaraigosa immediately returned the money, but the damage was done. On the day Villaraigosa received John Kerry’s imprimatur, Hahn supporters showed up with signs reading “Miami Vice.”
L.A.’s mayoral race is on track to become the most expensive political campaign in city history. In order to receive matching funds from the city, Hahn and Villaraigosa both agreed to limit their individual campaign expenditures to $1.8 million. This sum largely consists of contributions of $1,000 or less from individuals and small businesses. But funds spent “independently” by unions, corporations, and other groups seeking to influence the election are not regulated at all.
Four years ago, $1.75 million was spent independently on behalf of the two candidates. This year, unions, property developers, existing contractors, and potential concessionaires already have spent more than $2.6 million, according to L.A.’s Ethics Commission.
The prize contributors hope to purchase is influence over how Los Angeles spends its $5.95 billion budget. Since one of the largest chunks of the budget goes for salaries and pensions, fire, police, teachers’, and other municipal unions are major contributors. Their funds underwrite the mass mailings and commercials necessary to reach voters spread across the city’s 470 square miles. Corporations seeking lucrative concessions are also generous. The $47,000 Antonio Villaraigosa recently returned to a company called Travel Traders is a paltry sum for a company competing for a monopoly concession at LAX. Last year, the DFS Group, which runs the airport’s duty-free shops, had more than $90 million in sales. Airport Management Services, which controls the gift shops and newsstands, reported revenues of $55 million.
Ultimately, however, the election is decided by ordinary voters. Four years ago, Hahn edged out Villaraigosa with support from the San Fernando Valley, an area that contains 36 percent of the city’s population but contributes 40 percent of the city’s registered voters. The valley may not be as receptive this time around, given the disingenuous tactics Hahn employed to crush its 2002 campaign for cityhood. “A politician can’t declare war on his constituents and then come back and ask for their support,” says David Fleming, a respected valley civic leader who formerly served on Los Angeles’s fire and ethics commissions. “Hahn is an absentee mayor who hasn’t kept his promises. The valley will vote against Hahn, not for Antonio.”
Ironically, Los Angeles Republicans, who are few but invariably turn out to vote, could decide the race between two liberal Democrats. Would L.A. conservatives really vote for a former director of the ACLU?
“I endorsed James Hahn four years ago, but my disappointment in his values and lack of leadership eventually turned to disgust when weekly reports of scandal were consistently met with implausible denials and silent indifference,” says Keith Richman, L.A.’s sole Republican in the California Assembly. “Antonio Villaraigosa was not my first choice for mayor, but he has one very important thing going for him: He is not James Hahn.”
–David DeVoss is a senior correspondent with the East-West News Service in Los Angeles.
