Aims to Make Races Fairer for Poor Candidates : MacDonald Asks County Election Law Changes

Aiming to “tighten up a few loose spots” in local election laws, San Diego County Supervisor John MacDonald on Tuesday proposed several major changes, including lifting the $250-per-person contribution limit for candidates whose opponents spend more than $50,000 of their own money and strengthening rules governing repayment of campaign debts.

At a news conference in his county office, MacDonald explained that his proposals are intended to alter local election laws to reflect changes in the manner in which political races are conducted and financed that have occurred in the decade since the county’s campaign ordinance was adopted.

“Politics is a slightly different game now than it was then,” MacDonald said. “These changes could make (the election law) a little fresher and, hopefully, fairer.”

MacDonald’s plan, scheduled for review by the supervisors next week, would affect all county races for supervisor, sheriff, district attorney, recorder, county clerk, assessor and treasurer. The City of San Diego operates under similar but separate election laws.

One of MacDonald’s proposals focuses on the emergence of so-called “independent expenditure” committees, which spend money or provide other services on behalf of candidates, theoretically without consulting the candidates or their campaign officials. Such committees typically send out mailers or purchase TV and radio advertisements that feature candidates they support or, in some cases, attack their opponents.

Because of the shortcomings of current laws, “voters may not know where that money is really coming from,” MacDonald said, and such committees often “hide behind nice-sounding names” like “Citizens for Good Government.”

Under MacDonald’s proposal, committees or individuals making independent expenditures totaling more than $2,000 would have to inform the county voter registrar’s office of their intention to do so within 24 hours of making a commitment, as measured by such things as placing an advertising order. In addition, any mailers, billboards or newspaper ads would be required to list the names of the committee’s five largest donors, as well as the amounts they contributed.

Another major component of MacDonald’s plan--the proposal to lift the $250-per-person contribution limit for candidates whose opponents underwrite their campaigns with more than $50,000 of their own money--would, he argued, “give a little better break” to candidates running against wealthy opponents.

The supervisor admitted, however, that there “might be some constitutional questions” about that provision of his campaign reform plan--specifically, about whether it could be construed as an unfair “penalty” on wealthy candidates that infringes on their First Amendment rights. Further research on that legal question will be conducted by the county counsel’s office, MacDonald said.

Noting that rules concerning the repayment of campaign debts are “very blurred and confusing,” MacDonald said he believes the problem could be eliminated through stricter earmarking of campaign contributions for primary or general elections.

Moreover, MacDonald’s plan--which would not take effect until January, 1989--would forbid any donor who had contributed the maximum $250 to a given campaign to donate additional funds in subsequent years to help retire any debt remaining after the race.