Politicians Again Stunned by Voters on Propositions

California voters, demonstrating their strong independent streak in casting ballots on state propositions, dealt major setbacks to many of the state’s top political figures, ranging from Gov. George Deukmejian to Schools Supt. Bill Honig and including Senate leader David A. Roberti and anti-tax crusader Paul Gann.

Moving to reduce the influence of money contributed to legislators by special-interest groups, the voters Tuesday approved Proposition 73, a measure likely to undermine the current legislative leadership by banning the transfer of campaign funds among candidates.

Proposition 73 also will prohibit the use of tax dollars to subsidize campaigns--dashing hopes of political activists who had sought public financing to curtail the power of special-interest contributors. Although the voters simultaneously approved Proposition 68--which would have provided tax dollars to legislative candidates--it will be superseded by Proposition 73, which passed by a larger margin.

Sponsored by three maverick legislators, Proposition 73 also will force political candidates throughout the state--from the governor to city council members--to empty their campaign treasuries this year or face giving the money back to contributors. The requirement could cost Deukmejian and other potential gubernatorial candidates more than $3 million in contributions they have already raised for the 1990 campaign.

In a blow to Honig and teachers’ unions, the voters narrowly defeated Proposition 71, an initiative that would have relaxed the state’s constitutional spending limit and made more money available for education and other programs.

And the electorate rejected Proposition 72, a competing measure sponsored by Gann and development interests that would have given more money to transportation projects by altering the spending limit imposed by a Gann initiative approved by voters in 1979.

Deukmejian’s $1-billion bond measure for transportation projects, Proposition 74, was hanging in the balance Wednesday and its fate may not be determined for weeks, a spokeswoman for Secretary of State March Fong Eu said. With 99.6% of the precincts reporting, it trailed by 1,458 votes--but 50,000 more votes remained to be counted.

Deukmejian Hopeful

The Republican governor, who had put his prestige on the line campaigning for the bond measure, said, “I am hopeful that Proposition 74 will ultimately prevail and that California will be able to market $1 billion in bonds to help relieve traffic congestion and improve our overall transportation network.”

While voters were reluctant to give Deukmejian a clear victory on his bond proposal, they approved a record $2.2 billion in other bond measures. Among them was Proposition 70, a $776-million parks measure placed on the ballot by environmentalists who charged that parks had been shortchanged in Deukmejian’s budgets. The governor opposed the measure.

Deukmejian had also joined with Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), Senate President Pro Tem Roberti (D-Los Angeles) and other political leaders in urging defeat of the two campaign finance initiatives.

Roberti, surveying the election results and the losses suffered by many state leaders, observed: “Typical California. They (the voters) make decisions pretty much independent of us.”

Turnout Is Low

Just under 50% of the state’s registered voters cast ballots Tuesday, the second-lowest total in a presidential primary since 1944, Eu’s office reported.

Proposition 73--the campaign finance measure sponsored by Assemblyman Ross Johnson (R-La Habra), Sen. Joseph B. Montoya (D-Whittier) and Sen. Quentin Kopp (I-San Francisco)--was the sleeper of the election.

Supporters spent only $30,000 in promoting the initiative while opponents of Proposition 68 and 73 spent more than $1 million trying to defeat both measures, including $300,000 contributed by Roberti alone.

Johnson confessed Wednesday that passage of the initiative was a “pleasant surprise.” Other legislators also seemed unprepared for its passage. In the Senate, lawmakers huddled together, studying the fine print in an attempt to figure out how they will be affected.

Proposition 73, which takes effect Jan. 1, will limit campaign contributions from individuals, businesses and political action committees to amounts ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 each fiscal year.

Leadership Setback

The initiative also will prohibit the transfer of campaign funds from one candidate to another, undercutting the power of legislative leaders who in the past have doled out contributions to their allies. In addition, it will place limits on legislators’ outside income and ban newsletters mailed to constituents at taxpayers’ expense.

Proposition 73 contains no limit on campaign spending and bans public financing in state, legislative and local campaigns--wiping off the books a public financing ordinance in Sacramento County.

The measure was written in such a way that it appears to preempt all of the major sections of Proposition 68, although the question could be left to the courts to resolve.

Proposition 73 takes precedence because it won by a margin of 58% to 42%. Proposition 68, which had the backing of a broad coalition that included Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, businessman Walter Gerken, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley and Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp, was approved by a margin of 52.8% to 47.2%

Proposition 68 would have provided tax dollars to legislative candidates who agreed to abide by campaign spending limits. It also would have adopted stricter campaign contribution limits and tougher restrictions on legislators’ outside income than those contained in Proposition 73. In addition, it would have banned fund-raising in non-election years and prohibited the transfer of money from one candidate to another.

The key difference between the two initiatives for many voters was the public financing provision, which was attacked heavily. One television commercial aired by the opposition portrayed members of the Ku Klux Klan organizing to receive tax money under Proposition 68.

By passing both campaign finance measures, Johnson said, “The people of California were saying in no uncertain terms, ‘We want this system reformed.’ They were willing to even consider the use of public financing.”

Sees a Downturn

Republicans have long sought to prohibit the transfer of money among candidates--a campaign tactic that has most benefitted the Democratic legislative leadership. The ban on transfers, combined with contribution limits, will help reduce campaign spending, Johnson said.

“We’ll see a dramatic de-escalation in the insane arms race we’re all involved in,” Johnson said.

But a disappointed Walter Zelman, manager of the Proposition 68 campaign, said the passage of Proposition 73 will not solve the problems of special-interest influence and expensive legislative races.

“What we have today with 73 is the appearance of reform but no reform at all,” Zelman said. “I believe it will do absolutely nothing to stem the flow of special-interest money. It will strengthen the hold of incumbents and make people think we have done something to clean up the system when we haven’t. The call for reform will be back again.”

Both Roberti and Brown said Proposition 73 will make it harder for Democrats to raise money because Republicans have more individual contributors who are able to give the maximum of $1,000.

Fund-Raising Task

“The problem with 73 is we’re going to have to spend a lot more time raising money, because there is no limit on the amount that can be spent,” Roberti said. “There’s only limits on the amounts that each individual contribution can be.”

Although the opponents of Proposition 73 had charged in the campaign that it would increase the influence of special interests, Roberti said he was uncertain whether that would actually happen: “That was part of the campaign. We said that. I just don’t know.”

Honig tried to put the best face possible on the defeat of Proposition 71, which was a major part of his campaign to increase spending for schools. Proposition 71 lost by a margin of 51.1% to 48.9%.

He noted that the voters approved Proposition 75, an $800-million school bond measure by an overwhelming margin of 65% to 35%, a strong indication the public is willing to spend more money on education.

And the voters defeated Proposition 72 by a vote of 61.5% to 38.5% after a campaign in which Honig and other opponents charged it would deprive the schools of money.

Voters rejected Proposition 71, Honig explained, because they were not prepared to lift the spending limit and allow the Legislature and governor to spend money on a variety of programs.

A Complex Question

Honig also blamed the loss in part on the complexity of the state spending limit--often called the Gann limit after its sponsor. Despite spending $800,000 on the campaign, Honig said, the school advocates were unable to get their message across.

The schools chief said he has not abandoned his effort to change the limit and will proceed with a November initiative that would guarantee the schools a 38.9% share of the state budget and devote any budget surplus to education.

“Eventually we’re going to have to do something about changing the limit or else we will have to cut back drastically on important investments in the future,” Honig said.

The defeat of Proposition 72 marked only the second time that an initiative sponsored by Gann was rejected. But Gann said he takes consolation in the fact that Proposition 71, Honig’s competing measure to alter the spending limit, also was defeated.

“It seems to me that what the people were saying is, ‘We want the Gann limit left intact. We don’t want Gann fooling with it or anyone else,’ ” the veteran tax fighter said. “That’s the message I got.”

Times staff writer Mark Gladstone contributed to this story.