A Political System in Trouble : California Campaign Spending Should Be Linked to Public Funding

John Bright, a 19th-Century British politician who worked for parliamentary reforms, once came upon the scene of a street accident at which there was a seriously injured victim. Bright took off his hat, dropped some money into it, and then circulated among the crowd of onlookers saying, “I’m 10 sorry. How sorry are you?”

There is widespread agreement that the California political system is in trouble. Editorials lambaste it, voters avoid it and elected officials try, and sometimes fail, to keep their heads above it.

We’re all sorry to see the unrestrained political-campaign spending and fund raising that characterized recent elections. And we’re sorry to see the record-breaking lows in voter participation that perhaps are partly in response to the record-high expenditures.

Campaign reform is a hot topic. It has been in the past, too, and most often nothing was done. This time I hope that we’re sorry enough to succeed.

The first step is to call a truce in the campaign-funds arms race. Spending in legislative races has increased 3,100% since 1958. In 1986 spending in those races jumped to $57 million, 31% higher than in the 1984 elections. The cost of running for statewide offices grows exponentially. At today’s rate a candidate for governor will need to raise $12 million to $15 million to compete seriously.

We must impose limits on the amount of money that can be raised and spent on political campaigns.

The group called Californians to Limit Campaign Spending offers a series of workable contribution limits that would encourage small-donor support. The group’s initiative nearly qualified for the June, 1986, ballot and may very well go to the voters in 1988.

The limits that the group proposes ($1,000 from individuals, $2,500 from businesses and organizations, $5,000 from small-contributor political-action committees) would become more effective when tied to expenditure caps.

However, expenditure ceilings are valid only as a voluntary condition of accepting public matching funds. The courts have found that our First Amendment rights of free expression--that is, our constitutional right to contribute money to candidates--cannot be abridged by our desire to reform political behavior.

Thus disdain for public financing is used as an excuse to avoid campaign-spending limits. If we have public matching funds for presidential candidates, why not for state candidates?

It’s time to make a choice between living with public financing and living in a state in which decision-makers ultimately become full-time fund-raisers and part-time public servants.

Along with linking public funding to expenditure ceilings, we also should insist that candidates seeking public money debate their opponents. Having candidates face tough questions at public debates would help increase voter interest and demonstrate respect for voters’ efforts to make informed decisions.

Ten million Californians chose not to participate in the 1986 election. Are we sorry enough about that to recognize the need for change when we see the worst voter turnout since the election of 1942?

Political reforms shouldn’t become rhetorical pumpkins when the polls close. Lessening the pressure for constant fund raising would create a more productive work environment for the good women and men whom we send to Sacramento to serve in the legislative and executive branches of government.

But other pitfalls remain.

For one thing, there is the potential conflict of interest from a legislator’s outside income. Abstaining from voting on a measure inimical to the family business has the same effect as voting no, but leaves fewer fingerprints.

There have to be curbs on earnings that divert time from the job--including honorariums, the fees collected for giving speeches to groups interested in legislation actively under consideration.

At the same time, an appropriate salary for the valuable fiscal and policy work that is performed by legislators must be established. A panel of respected private-sector leaders, who would be appointed by the governor, could be asked to consider the evidence and recommend appropriate compensation.

In 1978, with then-Sen. George Deukmejian and others, I co-authored a ballot measure to this end. It was turned down by the voters. Today the problems are more acute, and the chances for favorable voter consideration are improved.

A fairer salary for legislators, with limits on outside earnings, also would attract the talented individuals who otherwise might shun public service because of the financial sacrifice involved.

It doesn’t take an expert to identify a political system in trouble. But it takes gumption to rebuild rather than condemn. All of us have a stake in that restoration, and it’s high time we proved that we’re more than 10 sorry.