|
|
|
Voters
Approving
|
|
|
|
A proposition to set political contribution limits appeared headed toward victory early Wednesday morning. With 79 percent of precincts reporting, Proposition 34 was leading by 60.1 percent to 39.9 percent. Its passage would mark the fourth attempt to amend California's campaign finance rules in 24 years. Proposition 34, which will go into effect in January of next year, will allow unlimited contributions to local candidates and would set a $3,000 limit for legislative candidates. It would also set a $20,000 limit for contributions to gubernatorial candidates and other state seats to $500. These limits are considerably less than those of Proposition 208, another campaign finance bill that passed by voter referendum in 1996. Proposition 208 would limit donations to local candidates to $100 and would set contributions to legislative candidates at below $250. It would also limit contributions to gubernatorial and other state seats to $500. But Proposition
34 hits the ballot after years of dispute about appropriate campaign
finance restrictions - and according to citizen groups like the
League of Women Voters and the California Common "(Proposition 34) is written for the politicians, by the politicians," said Trudy Shaeffer, program director for the League of Women Voters. She says the
measure, which appeared to voters in the form of a ballot summary,
is written unfairly because it presents only one side of the issue
and does not explain that an approval of 34 will void "Most legal observers say there is a good chance that the court will (uphold) 208, if not in district court, then at least on appeal," Shaeffer said. Proposition
208 is delayed in federal court, where opponents claim its small
campaign limits hinder freedom of speech and are unconstitutional,
especially in a state that relies so heavily on A Federal District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a preliminary injunction barring the enforcement of 208 in 1998, and since then the proposition has been awaiting trial. Ninth District Court Judge Lawrence K. Karlton, who is now in charge of the final ruling, has delayed the trial further - partly because now that voters have passed Proposition 34, the need for a final reading is obsolete. Part of his
decision would have been based on the results of a recent Supreme
Court case, which upheld contribution limits in Missouri. As a result
of that case, Nixon vs. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, Karlton made a similar comment during a July evidence trial, saying Proposition 208 may make it impossible for the ordinary candidate to mount an effective campaign for office. Proponents of 34 say the measure is the only viable option for voters, since Proposition 208 is stuck in court, and they believe the measure is unlikely to be approved by Karlton. "California
has no restrictions on campaigns or spending, and it has created
a situation where $100,000 donations are common," said Tom
He says the current ballot measure will be accepted by the courts since it is based on federal guidelines for campaign finance reform. "This will reduce the campaign finance arms race currently happening, and it will hopefully serve to restore faith in California government," Knox said. "A politician does have the right to collect necessary funds to get the message out to voters. In California, it is more expensive, and we are in a world where…it is impossible for an assemblyman to get any media attention at all (without large sums of money)." Knox has the
support of a number of citizen groups and individuals. Dan Stanford,
former chair of the California Fair Political Practices Commission,
and Howard L. Owens, region nine director of the National The proposition also has the support of the Laborers International of North America, says representative Ken Caserez. "Previous campaign finance reform has been held up in the courts, and we feel it is time to push some campaign finance reform through so we have something on the books so we can start working from there," Caserez said. But opponents of the measure say union groups support Proposition 34 because it allows them to donate large sums of money with relatively no hassle. Tony Miller, director of Californians Against Phony "Reform", says Republicans in the legislature opposed the measure when it first came up because it gave Democrats an unfair advantage. "Unions which fund Democrats are given a huge advantage over Republicans" since every union local is deemed to be a separate entity, while corporations which usually donate to Republicans are restricted to smaller donations, Miller said. But Caserez challenged this, saying each local is an entity of its own, and union members are not required to donate to a candidate unless members of that local decide to do so. Shaeffer is
also upset with Proposition 34 because she says the measure would
wipe out most of Proposition 208's clean-government reforms. These
include the measure's ban of off-year fundraising, But according to Ray La Raja, a PhD candidate in UC Berkeley's political science department who is also an expert on state party financing, there would still be problems with Proposition 208 even if it were upheld in the courts. "Prop. 38 had ridiculously low contribution limits, a fact that will encourage candidates to exploit every loophole they can find," La Raja said. "208 also would put challengers at a severe disadvantage against incumbents." But he added that Proposition 34 does not limit "soft money" contributions to political parties. La Raja said it is unclear what role parties will play under Proposition 34, but he predicted that it would be possible for contributors to funnel money through parties to help their favored candidate. "It seems to me that the effect of Prop. 34 will be similar to the effect of current federal campaign finance laws," La Raja said. "Candidates will continue to race around, trying to get as much money as possible, but they will also rely more on party soft money to help them with issue ads and direct mail." The debate over campaign spending limits has both sides criticizing the other's advertising strategy. While Shaeffer claims Proposition 34 passed the legislature without any public hearing, Knox said the legislature has spent years debating campaign finance reform. Shaeffer said this was "ridiculous." "We were
shut out of contributing," she said. "Healthcare has been
an issue for many years, but you wouldn't want to pass something
without But Knox disagreed. He said the 1996 referendum for Proposition 208 was adopted without public hearings, either, and he added that if the courts accept Proposition 208, it would be after the federal court had changed it to be constitutional. "It would look like Swiss cheese," Knox said. California has a 120-year history of attempting to enact some sort of campaign finance reform, and much of the history of propositions and campaign finance disclosure is tied together, according to a web site for the Secretary of State. A 1893 law required candidates to file detailed financial statements of campaign receipts and expenditures with the Secretary of State. Twenty years later, as part of the Progressive reform movement in California, the referendum was added to the state constitution, and ballot measures began to play an increasingly important role in state politics. This was helped
by a 1921 law, which required organizations supporting or opposing
statewide propositions to disclose financial statements. The "Political Reform Act of 1974" forced lobbyists to file their financial activities in the Secretary of State's office, the same place candidates file their financial receipts and expenditures. Three campaign
finance measures have taken place since 1974: Proposition 73, which
was deemed unconstitutional because of a defect in the way contribution
limits were applied per fiscal year; Proposition 208, which is being
held up in the courts; and Proposition 25, which was defeated in
the primary because it tried to create a public financing component
of campaign finance reform.
|
||
