Licensing of Political Consultants Urged : Panel Also Wants State to Require More Detailed Reports on Activities

The state Fair Political Practices Commission agreed Wednesday to ask for legislation that for the first time would require paid political consultants to obtain licenses from the state.

Shorn of its most controversial provision--a mandatory code of conduct for running political campaigns--the legislative proposal also would require the consultants to register with the commission, get the candidate’s approval of significant expenditures, report in detail how they spend a candidate’s money and get the candidate’s approval for political advertising.

Under the plan, which has been loudly opposed by many consultants, failure to comply would mean fines and, in some cases, loss of the license. At earlier hearings on the proposal, legislators have said they see little prospect of its being enacted.

The aim of the legislation is to stop misleading and fraudulent campaigns, according to Dan Stanford, commission chairman, who has been pushing for the changes.

Because the measure would require that consultants clear campaign literature and ads with candidates, the candidates would no longer be able to say that they were unaware of questionable claims and smear tactics, Stanford said.

‘Disenfranchised Vote’

“I believe that any vote cast in the state of California based on false and misleading, libelous and slanderous material is a disenfranchised vote,” Stanford said. The commission endorsed the proposal on a 3-1 vote, with only Stanley M. Roden dissenting.

Roden argued that the voters are free under existing law to judge the ethics of a campaign and the honesty of candidates and campaign committees. He said that the guarantee of free speech under the First Amendment prevents the commission from “doing anything about misdeeds.”

The licensing plan is a response to a recent flurry of what Stanford has labeled “dirty campaigns.”

In separate action Wednesday, the commission called for legislation to require every page of political mail to be marked “paid political advertisement.” The measure is a response to mailers sent out in the 1984 campaign that at first blush appeared to be official political documents.

Commissioners postponed action on a far-reaching proposal that would require detailed disclosure of who pays for “slate mailers.” The firms that put together these mailed advertisements, which endorse a number of issues and candidates, charge fees for their services but are not required to report the source of the money.

Controversial Features

The commission also voted to propose legislation to streamline reporting requirements for political campaign committees and lobbyists. However, they dropped some of the more controversial features of these proposals.

For example, the commission staff had proposed increasing the minimum campaign contribution that must be reported from $100 to $200.

Roden predicted that raising the limit would simply increase the number of $199 contributions.

The commissioners also rejected a staff proposal that would have imposed a $10-a-month limit on the amount that firms interested in legislation could spend on entertaining legislators. Current law imposes that $10 limit on lobbyists but not the firms that hire them.