Ersatz Campaign Reform

Californians keep passing election campaign reform laws only to have them slapped down by the federal courts. The result is that the state still has no campaign contribution limits in force. Anyone--including unions and corporations--can give unlimited amounts to any state campaign. So something must be better than nothing, right?

The voters face this question on Nov. 7 when they will decide Proposition 34, a measure that was sneaked through the state Legislature this summer with no real public hearing and no critical examination. Its chief authors, the leaders of the state Senate and Assembly, claim that it imposes reasonable limits that were crafted to survive the courts. But on close inspection, this “something” is clearly seen to be worse than nothing. Californians should reject Proposition 34.

One reason is that the last major campaign finance reform measure approved by the voters, Proposition 208 in 1996, still clings to life in the federal courts. After the 1996 election, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton rejected Proposition 208 on the ground that its low contribution limits--$250 per giver to legislative candidates and $500 for statewide office--violated the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. But, to the surprise of many, the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently gave the states new latitude in setting tough contribution limits. This offered new hope for Proposition 208.

Meanwhile, a federal appeals court sent the Proposition 208 suit back to Karlton for a full trial, which was held this summer. He will announce his ruling sometime after Nov. 7.

But even if Proposition 208 is upheld, its key provisions will be repealed by Proposition 34 if that measure passes. In fact, critics claim that the major reason legislators put 34 on the ballot was their fear that 208 would prevail. They abhorred the idea of running for office under the strict limit of $500 per campaign contributor. Their own measure sets limits of $3,000 for contributions to legislators, $5,000 for statewide offices other than governor and $20,000 for governor. While 208’s limits are overly restrictive, 34’s are excessively generous, especially the $20,000 cap on individual gifts to gubernatorial candidates.

Worse still is that Proposition 34 creates the same sort of “soft money” loophole that corrupts the federal campaign finance system. There is no limit on soft money contributions to the political parties. The parties could become the new sugar daddies of their favored candidates. By contrast, Proposition 208 limits individual donations to parties to $5,000 a year.

Don’t look in the official ballot pamphlet for the advice of those that have led the charge for real campaign finance reform: the League of Women Voters, Common Cause and former acting Secretary of State Tony Miller, the chief author of Proposition 208. All of them oppose Proposition 34. Slick use of a legislative prerogative denied them their say in the ballot booklet.

What happens if Proposition 34 loses and Proposition 208 is killed by the courts? California will be back to square one, with no reform law at all. But the state has come this far without limits. It can weather the two years that will pass before the reformers have a chance to put a court-proof initiative on the 2002 ballot. That’s a better prospect than being stuck with Proposition 34.