The cities of Santa Monica and Pasadena have lost a court ruling in their four-year fight to overturn successful ballot initiatives aimed at preventing political corruption.

In 2000, voters in both cities passed the Oaks Initiative, a ballot measure sponsored by the Oaks Project of the Santa Monica-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. The initiative is designed to prohibit “pay to play” practices in which individuals give gifts or political contributions to gain favor from city officials.

Carmen Balber, a consumer advocate with the Foundation, said her group is working with Los Angeles city officials on incorporating its ideas with existing proposals. She said she hopes to introduce a new law through the Council “sooner rather than later.”

“With conflict of interest and ‘pay to play’ issues being at the forefront of press coverage of the mayor’s race, this is something voters are concerned with,” she said. “The possibility of introducing it in Los Angeles is on the radar and on the horizon.”

The Oaks Initiative, written more broadly than the proposed ban in Los Angeles, prohibits city officials from receiving campaign contributions, jobs or gifts worth $50 or more from people or companies that receive a contract, permit or other benefit from that official valued at $25,000 or more during a year’s time.

Officials of both cities opposed the initiative, which was passed by about 60 percent of voters in each location.

“It’s unconstitutional because the restrictions and prohibitions in the law are so broad that they infringe on clearly established constitutional rights,” said Santa Monica City Attorney Marsha Moutrie. “One of the things it infringes on is the right to participate in making contributions.”

Those arguments suffered a setback when, in a largely procedural ruling, a three-judge panel in the 2nd Appellate District affirmed a lower court’s decision against Santa Monica and reversed the portion of another lower court’s decision that favored Pasadena. The cases brought by the two cities have been consolidated.

Moutrie said she advised Santa Monica’s city clerk in May 2001 not to enforce the law until a judge resolved its constitutionality. The city specifically noted concerns about violating someone’s civil rights if the law were enforced.

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge dismissed the city’s suit in 2002.

The panel noted that “strong public policy and public interest principles are at stake,” according to the opinion.

The panel also ruled against Pasadena, where a resident sued because the city clerk and mayor refused to certify the initiative after it was passed by voters. Pasadena said it did not have to certify an initiative it considered unconstitutional.