Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to empirically evaluate Charter Amendment H of the Los Angeles City Charter. The focus was to evaluate the success of this city charter amendment in recent city council elections and the matching funds program. Methodology. This study employed the combination of quantitative and qualitative analyses. Secondary data triangulated with in-depth interviews with incumbents and challengers in primary elections of 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 were utilized. Finally in-depth interviews with Los Angeles City Ethics Commission staff members were employed for comparison and contrast with election candidates' views. Findings and conclusions. No statistically significant differences were found between the incumbent's and the challenger's fundraising amounts for all four primary election races. Interviews of candidates and challengers reveal a tendency to disagree that Proposition H had any real impact on equity of fundraising for those incumbents who have been in office for two terms or more. Those incumbents having fewer years in office tended to agree that the charter amendment improved their chances of winning elections. The Ethics Commission staff members' respondents concurred with this last finding. Recommendations. Campaign finance reform is a worthy goal for the entire electorate and Charter Amendment H, while not seen as having a significant impact on act on career politicians, did help others in more recent races according to the findings. The public should be vigilant in keeping elections as open and as fair as possible watching the fund-raising activities of those who want to serve.