Election Finance Reform Measures Get Put on Hold

Proposals to rewrite the rules for financing California elections now appear to be on hold until next year, despite repeated pronouncements by powerful lawmakers that reform is needed to overcome the Legislature’s tarnished image as “the best that money can buy.”

Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), whose own reform bill currently is bottled up in an Assembly committee, blamed lagging public interest for the Legislature’s inability to find a way of financing expensive campaigns without relying on money from special interests.

“We’ve done some surveying and found campaign finance reform shows up in the basement on citizens’ want list,” said Brown, who has been able to preserve his power base by raising large amounts of money from special interests and giving it to Democratic Assembly candidates.

“That means it is more of an issue with us, and with the press, than it is with the public. And we may not be able to generate the appropriate kind of public response to public financing that would be the heart of campaign reform.”

The median cost of winning a contested Assembly race was $513,900 in 1986, a seven-fold increase over the $70,571 cost of 10 years ago. The increase is even more dramatic in the Senate, where the median cost of winning a competitive race in 1986 leaped to $960,308, compared to $97,608 a decade ago, according to the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Soaring campaign costs have caused some critics to describe the Legislature as “the best that money can buy.” Calls for reform of the system took on new urgency this session because of a highly publicized scandal involving illegal campaign contributions by one-time fireworks magnate, W. Patrick Moriarty.

In the wake of that scandal, which sent Moriarty to prison and also resulted in the conviction on political corruption charges of former Assemblyman Bruce Young (D-Norwalk), the Senate passed a campaign finance reform bill. But Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) noted that there may not be enough time to obtain final passage this year.

The session ends Sept. 11, leaving only one month after the lawmakers return from their four-week summer recess on Aug. 17 to deal with many complex issues.

Still to be resolved are other major issues such as a proposed tax rebate, making state income taxing policies conform to federal law and financing a state bid to obtain a federal super collider atom smasher.

Expecting little or no action on campaign reform from the Legislature, a number of private groups are taking matters into their own hands in pushing four initiatives they hope to qualify for the 1988 ballot. They are:

- A ballot proposal by Walter B. Gerken of Newport Beach, chairman of Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co., and Common Cause, a citizens activist group. It narrowly failed to qualify for last November’s general election ballot. A recount of names on qualifying petitions currently is under way. This initiative borrows heavily from recommendations made by a privately financed bipartisan group, the California Commission on Campaign Financing. In addition to limiting contributions and expenditures, authorizing partial public financing of campaigns and banning transfers of funds among candidates, it would prohibit contributions in non-election years.

- A measure by Rep. William M. Thomas (R-Bakersfield) that would prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to help finance legislative campaigns and would require candidates to raise more than 50% of their money in the district they wish to represent. It would also limit the total gifts and speech-making fees a legislator could accept in any one year to 30% of his or her annual salary. There would be no limits on campaign expenditures. This plan also is endorsed by anti-tax crusader Paul Gann.

- A proposal by Paul McCauley of Los Angeles and Don Floyd of San Diego, both members of a group called Crime Victims for Court Reform that was active in the successful fight to remove former Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird from the state Supreme Court bench. It would prohibit transfers of funds between candidates and also bar anyone from holding the office of Assembly Speaker or Senate President Pro Tem for more than two years.

- Another plan by a maverick coalition composed of Assemblyman Ross Johnson (R-La Habra), and Sens. Quentin L. Kopp (I-San Francisco) and Joseph B. Montoya (D-Whittier) that would cover all state and local elected officials--not just legislative candidates. It would limit contributions, prohibit taxpayer financing and ban transfers, but would not impose spending limits. Johnson also was the sponsor of Proposition 40, a 1984 campaign finance reform initiative, that was rejected by the voters.

Efforts to Curb Costs

Campaign financing reform generally involves efforts to curb increasing costs of legislative races by limiting the size of both campaign contributions and expenditures.

Supporters contend that the only way to limit spending under current court rulings is to tie spending ceilings to the availability of public financing.

Opponents argue that taxpayers’ money should not be used to pay for political dreams.

One reason for the lack of action on campaign finance reform is that both Democrats and Republicans fear that tinkering with the present system might give the other side a political advantage.

So the status quo continues while both sides argue over the details of what should and should not be done.

And, although they profess to be working hard toward campaign finance reform, both Brown and Roberti simultaneously continue to pour contributions from special interest groups into campaign war chests.

Favorites Get Funds

The money is doled out to favorite incumbents and challengers who agree to help the two Democratic leaders maintain their powerful positions.

Although legislative leaders complain that fund raising is the part of political life they dislike the most, none is predicting speedy passage of reform bills.

Asked what would happen on campaign finance reform in the Legislature this year, Brown said recently:

“Probably not much.. . . . The (public) surveys show it is in the basement, 1%, 2%, no higher, on items of concern and priority. That’s shocking; that’s real shocking.”

The Assembly Democratic leader, who also had a 1986 campaign finance reform bill die for lack of votes, previously vowed to personally push for an initiative if the Legislature does not act on campaign finance reform this year.

Now, Brown says he does not know if he will follow through on that promise “if the public is as indifferent to the issue as it appears to be.”

The Speaker’s own campaign finance reform bill is bottled up in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee waiting for amendments. It cleared the Elections Committee in late May only after he temporarily appointed himself to that panel at the last minute to make sure that it passed.

‘Not Ready to Say’

Asked if he would take up his bill in the Ways and Means Committee after the recess, Brown said: “Maybe and maybe not. I’m not ready to say at this point.”

Passage would require agreement by Republicans as well as Democrats because the measure requires a two-thirds majority for passage. Democrats control the Assembly by a smaller, 44-36 margin.

But the Assembly Speaker, who seldom has problems getting his pet bills out of his own house, said this measure faces an uphill fight. “I don’t have the Democratic votes to get the bill out of the Assembly,” Brown said jokingly. “I’m not even sure I can get it heard in Ways and Means.”

As it stands now, the Speaker’s bill would limit contributions that a candidate could accept in either primary or general election campaigns to $1,000 from individuals and $5,000 from organizations. Contributions in non-election years would be limited to $500 and $250, respectively. Transfers of contributions between candidates would be forbidden.

It also says that no Assembly or Senate candidates who accept public financing could spend more than 75% of the average cost in the last general election of winning a contested race for their respective houses. Funds for public financing would be raised by a voluntary checkoff of up to $3 on state income tax returns--similar to the current $1 checkoff on federal returns for presidential elections.

Matching Funds

The first $250 of any contribution would be matched on a three-to-one basis with state taxpayer funds. Individual contributions from registered voters within a candidate’s legislative district would be matched on a five-to-one basis.

The maximum amount of public funds that a candidate could receive would be limited to one-third of the allowable spending limit.

Regarding the Senate’s campaign finance reform efforts this year, Roberti indicated some reluctance to support public financing, but added: “We’ve been trying. We’ve passed a bill (authored by Sen. Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward)) out of our house. And I think it has a reasonable chance of passage in the Assembly.

“But it probably couldn’t reach the governor’s desk until next year. And the governor probably wouldn’t sign it. I don’t like public financing all that much myself either, but I don’t know what other options we have at this juncture.”

The Lockyer bill passed the upper house by a 24-6 vote in late June and is awaiting a hearing in the Assembly Elections Committee.

Imposing Limits

Like Speaker Brown’s bill, the Lockyer measure would impose limits on contributions and spending, implement partial public financing, and prohibit transfer of campaign funds among legislative candidates.

Sen. Milton Marks (D-San Francisco) has introduced a constitutional amendment that would require voter approval before the Lockyer bill could take effect.

But Gov. George Deukmejian in 1984 vetoed a bill similar to the Lockyer measure that also called for public financing. And a spokesman for the governor, Press Secretary Kevin Brett, said the state’s chief executive has not changed his mind about public financing.

“The governor remains unenthusiastic about taxpayer-supported campaigns,” Brett said. “He does not believe it is appropriate for the taxpayers to subsidize political ambitions.”

Actually, some taxpayers have been subsidizing political ambitions for the last five years.

Tax Refund Gifts

Under a 1983 state law signed by former Gov. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., California taxpayers have been able to contribute up to $25 of their tax refund, or add that amount to their tax liability, to the political party of their choice.

A total of $1,400,581.40 has been donated in the last five years, with $732,073.02 going to the Democrats and $606,046.89 going to the Republicans, according to the Franchise Tax Board.

The Peace and Freedom Party has received $27,464.89, the Libertarian Party $21,831.61 and the American Independent Party $13,165.03.