Both Parties Favor--and Fear--Proposals for Campaign Reform

SACRAMENTO — A businessman who wanted to talk to an influential state legislator about a problem with a toxic waste permit was told that a $5,000 contribution to a campaign fund-raising dinner would buy him half an hour of the lawmaker’s time.

And for an additional $5,000, the man was informed, he could sit at the head table, thereby guaranteeing another conversation about his problem.

Senate Minority Leader James W. Nielsen (R-Woodland), while declining to name names, cited this as an example of the political fund-raising “extortion” and “strong-arm tactics” going on in California.

A recent report by a blue-ribbon commission summarized the situation this way:

“California is witnessing a new political gold rush. Reporters warn that legislators are being corrupted with money. Contributors complain they are hounded with incessant fund-raising appeals. Lobbyists protest they are covertly shaken down with threats of adverse legislation. Candidates report that some spend 50% to 70% of their time raising money. Incumbents vastly out-raise challengers. Newcomers are deterred from politics.”

Nielsen and other lawmakers hope a campaign finance reform package, which they contend would reduce the influence of special-interest money on the Legislature, will be passed this year and signed into law by Gov. George Deukmejian.

The rub, however, is that both political parties deep down fear that tinkering with the present system could well give the other side an advantage. So each party, somewhat half-heartedly, pushes its own particular brand of reform while aggressively opposing the other’s.

Deukmejian vetoed a campaign finance reform bill two years ago. And some legislators privately would prefer no changes at all in the present system. Others argue that it will take a ballot initiative to do anything substantial about solving the problem, and one is in the works. But the voters, by nearly 2 to 1, rejected a campaign reform proposition in 1984.

One crucial problem for reformers, they say, is the lack of any widespread public concern about how political campaigns are financed. Some say it will take a major scandal to kindle enough concern to pressure lawmakers into reform.

“Every year, the influence of money on both political parties in California increases, and the influence of ordinary people decreases,” said Senate Majority Leader Barry Keene (D-Benicia).

Who would be the winners and losers under campaign finance reform?

The present system favors incumbents over challengers because people already in office have more ability to raise money from special interests seeking favors from the Legislature. It also currently favors the Democratic Party over the Republican Party because Democrats control the Legislature and hold more influence over the life and death of bills.

Depending upon how it is written, a campaign finance reform plan generally would tend to give challengers a better break against incumbents, many experts argue. But exactly who the winners and losers would be is a subject of debate.

For example, some experts contend that partial public campaign financing would make incumbents worry more about challengers. Others argue it would take 100% public financing to give newcomers a real chance against well-entrenched officeholders.

There also is a wide divergence of opinion among legislators on what should and should not be included in a campaign finance reform plan.

Spending ceilings are opposed by some incumbents of both parties who know that such restrictions would curb their ability to vastly outspend serious challengers. Other incumbents who are not faced with serious election foes insist that spending limits must be established as soon as possible. Positions can change from election to election.

Proposals to ban the transfer of campaign funds from one lawmaker to another and to prohibit fund raising in non-election years are opposed by many Democrats, who insist that Republicans generally have an easier time raising money.

“The problem is that Democrats have to scratch for their money to accumulate it,” said Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles). “The Republicans don’t have to do that.”

GOP members oppose public financing of political campaigns because, they say, citizens object to using taxes for this purpose. As evidence, they point to polls and the voters’ rejection in 1984 of a proposal for partial public financing.

Privately, Republicans also fear that public financing would help Democrats more than it would them because the GOP generally is successful at raising money on its own from wealthy individuals and businesses.

Democrats want public financing to help even things up against the GOP if, as most reformers advocate, the transfer of political money from one legislator to another is banned.

The practice of transferring contributions particularly helps Democrats at present because Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) and Senate leader Roberti are able to solicit vast amounts of money from special interests and then hand it over as they see fit to politically needy colleagues.

Winners and Losers

Other groups who have been seeking campaign finance reform for years have more definite ideas of who they think the winners and losers would be.

“The winners would be the small donors--the mom-and-pop campaign contributors,” said Robert M. Stern, general counsel to the California Commission on Campaign Financing, a blue-ribbon panel that conducted the legislative campaign financing study. It is a privately financed, bipartisan group composed of leading citizens and former politicians.

“Grass-roots politics would return,” Stern said. “The small donor would get a chance to participate in the political process. The small donor now says, ‘What good is my $10 when compared to a $1,000 special-interest contribution?’ ”

Walter Zelman, the executive director of Common Cause, a longtime advocate of campaign finance reform, said: “The general public would benefit. It would change the rules and level out the playing field a little bit. It would give challengers a better chance against incumbents (if they received some public financing).”

The state Fair Political Practices Commission noted in a recent report that the $44.8 million spent on 1984 legislative races reflected a 3,100% increase over the campaign costs of 25 years ago. It also estimated that the price tag could hit $87 million by 1990.

Lobbyists Seen as Losers

John Keplinger, executive director of the commission that is the state’s political watchdog agency, said he believes that the special interests and their lobbyists would be the “losers” under political campaign finance reform.

“Most of them (lobbyists) don’t want the current system changed,” Keplinger said, “no matter how loudly they protest about being hit up for campaign contributions. They don’t want to get taken out of the (legislative) ballgame.”

But a top Sacramento lobbyist for 40 years, James D. Garibaldi, replied: “It is in everybody’s best interests to do something about it. We in the third house also would like to see it done.

“Would it hurt me? No, I don’t think it would hurt me. I play by the rules of the game, whatever they are.”

This year, there have been several proposals to change the way legislative campaigns are financed.

Assembly Speaker Brown has introduced a bill that would limit contributions and expenditures, ban donations during non-election years, prohibit the transfer of political money from one legislator to another, and implement partial public financing of campaigns. The proposal was developed by the California Commission on Campaign Financing.

Deukmejian, a Republican, vetoed a similar bill sent to him by the Democratic-controlled Legislature in 1984, saying it was “inappropriate” to use taxpayer funds for campaign financing purposes.

Brown said he hopes to persuade Deukmejian to sign the new bill by tacking on a provision allowing voters to ratify the plan. But the governor still is reported by his staff to be “unenthusiastic” about using any tax funds for legislative campaigns.

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling

Campaign finance reform is complicated by a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which held that spending limits violate a candidate’s right of free speech by prohibiting the unlimited use of his or her own money. The court ruled that campaign spending limits could be invoked only if candidates are entitled to public financing.

Members of the California Commission on Campaign Financing have launched an initiative drive to place their new plan on the November ballot. The commission freely admits that this is an attempt to prod the Legislature and Deukmejian into compromising on the Brown bill.

A possible alternative bill, by Sen. Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward), has already been passed by the Senate, 22 to 10, and sent to the Assembly.

Under Lockyer’s plan, legislative candidates would be given a choice: either limits on campaign contributions and no limits on spending, or spending limits and no contribution limits. The sponsor thinks this freedom of choice approach might satisfy the high court’s ruling.

The Fair Political Practices Commission also has ordered its staff to draft a bill to grant Californians income tax credits for making campaign contributions to legislative candidates as another alternate approach.

Sen. Nielsen contends there are more “strong-arm” methods being used to obtain campaign contributions in the Assembly than in the Senate. But he acknowledged, “There are some who are very good at extortion tactics in the Senate.”

“I don’t like the word illegal,” he said. “But I do think it is a very despicable thing and casts a very terrible pall over the Legislature. I am damning the system.”

Lobby Backlash Cited

The Senate GOP leader also said he sees a growing “backlash” within some lobby groups.

“They are saying, ‘I won’t play. I will not be extorted. If that costs me some bills, then so be it,’ ” Nielsen said.

But the GOP leader said no amount of new laws can completely clean up campaign financing and sever its inevitable link to legislation.

“I don’t know,” he shrugged. “Some of those reforms would be helpful. But to stop the opportunity for extortion, you’re not--no matter what you do. You just hope the integrity of the members improves a little bit.”