State Panel Stalls Major Overhaul of Campaign Funding

The state Fair Political Practices Commission on Tuesday refused to endorse a staff-proposed major overhaul of the way legislative campaigns are financed in California.

Instead, the commission voted 3 to 0 to send the plan back to the staff for rewriting.

“This (proposal) would not cut down the frenzy of fund raising,” said Commissioner Stan M. Roden of Santa Barbara, who made the motion. “This would increase the frenzy of fund raising. But the concept is important and should not die.”

“Everyone has uneasy feelings regarding the system as it presently exists, but no two people agree on what to do about it,” added Roden, appointed to the commission by Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp.

The proposal was drafted late last year, shortly before then-chairman Dan Stanford of San Diego, its biggest booster, resigned to seek the Republican nomination for state controller. At the time, Stanford conceded that such an overhaul would have a difficult time getting through the Legislature--unless it was rocked by a major scandal.

In brief, it would have restricted fund raising during non-election years, imposed limits on contributions during election years, limited fees for legislators’ outside speeches and subjected lawmakers to fines for voting on bills when they have a personal conflict of interest.

Tuesday’s commission vote occurred against a backdrop of growing pessimism in the capitol that the Legislature would take steps to enact substantive campaign finance reform. Meanwhile, a nonpartisan citizens’ commission earlier suggested that the only way to accomplish political reform would be to take the ballot initiative route.

Staff member Jay Greenwood told the commission that the proposed legislation was designed to deal with the belief that “money has an undue influence on the actions taken by our elected representatives.” But Greenwood added that the proposal was “not a panacea or an ultimate solution to the problem.”

The overhaul was opposed by Steve Barrow, a lobbyist for the activist group Common Cause, who said it would not reduce the skyrocketing cost of legislative campaigns.

“Legislative candidates will still have to raise large amounts of money,” he said. “They will be in the same pressure cooker to raise the money, but will have to seek more donations.”

William M. Bennett, a member of the state Board of Equalization, urged the commission to consider including the elected tax-collecting board in the campaign contribution overhaul plan.

Potential Problem Area

Bennett said he believed members should be prohibited from accepting campaign contributions and later voting on tax matters affecting the same person or business firm.

“If this is not curbed,” he said, “it could result in a scandal. Imagine if the collector of internal revenue was elected?”

Commissioner Mike Montgomery of South Pasadena, a Republican appointed to the agency by state Controller Kenneth Cory, took issue with several points in the proposal, including one that would not include money the candidate gets from personal funds in figuring contribution limits.

Montgomery called this the “Tom Hayden job protection act,” in a reference to the Santa Monica Democratic assemblyman’s heavy dependence on campaign funds provided by his wife, actress Jane Fonda, when he first was elected in 1982.

He also suggested that the entire matter might be a better subject for a ballot initiative “because it changes the whole electoral ballgame in California,” and made a motion to table the plan that died for lack of a second. However, Roden succeeded in getting it sent it back to the drawing board for a rewrite.