State Leaders Unite Against Reform Plan : Officials Oppose Curbs on Campaign Spending, Donations

In a rare show of unity, Gov. George Deukmejian and the top legislative leaders of both parties joined Friday in opposing a June ballot measure designed to curb campaign spending and limit political contributions.

Providing a clear sign that they believe the measure, Proposition 68, could hurt them politically, the Republican governor, Democratic Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, Democratic Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti, Senate GOP Leader Ken Maddy and Assembly GOP Leader Pat Nolan simultaneously issued separate statements attacking the initiative.

“Proposition 68 is promoted as campaign reform, but I believe it is a fundamentally flawed measure that would seriously damage California’s political process and citizens’ freedom of access to that process,” Deukmejian said, firing the opening salvo in the campaign against the initiative.

Intended to Cut Influence

Sponsored by business leaders, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, Proposition 68 is intended to reduce the influence of special-interest contributors on the state’s elected officials.

The measure would limit the amount of money legislative candidates could spend in a legislative campaign, restrict the amount that campaign contributors could give to candidates and provide matching tax dollars to candidates who qualify.

It also would prohibit transfers of campaign money among candidates--a key source of power for legislative leaders--and limit the size of honorariums, a lucrative source of outside income for many legislators. And in an effort to reduce the fund-raising advantages of incumbent lawmakers, the initiative would ban political donations in non-election years.

Walter Gerken, former chairman of Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. and a leading sponsor of the initiative, said he was not surprised by the opposition from the state’s political leaders. “The incumbents are caught up in the current system and they don’t want anybody to change it,” he said.

Fred Woocher, a spokesman for the Proposition 68 campaign, marveled at the sudden unanimity of the five elected officials.

“They can’t agree on a plan to lower auto insurance rates, they can’t agree on a plan to clean up toxics, they can’t agree on a plan to improve education in this state, but they can quickly agree they don’t want to be cut off from the special-interest contributions that fill their campaign coffers,” he said.

Planned Months Ago

The unprecedented joint announcement was planned several months ago during private meetings between Deukmejian and the four leaders of the Legislature, said Kevin Brett, the governor’s press secretary.

In unleashing a barrage of criticism against the initiative, the Republicans and Democrats offered different arguments designed to appeal to their own constituents.

Republican leaders Deukmejian, Maddy and Nolan all said they objected to Proposition 68’s provision of public financing, which could provide as much as $187,500 for an Assembly candidate and $300,000 for a Senate contender during an election year.

“These revenues would be better utilized for priority services such as education, criminal justice and transportation, not to further political aspirations,” said Deukmejian, a longtime foe of public financing for campaigns.

Both Nolan and Maddy also argued that political extremists could qualify for matching funds under the measure because it does not specifically make them ineligible. “The worst of the flaws,” Maddy said, is that the initiative “would allow extremist candidates, such as Nazi Party and Ku Klux Klan members, to spread their hateful messages with tax dollars.”

‘Unconstitutional’ Limits

On the Democratic side, Speaker Brown contended that Proposition 68 does not go far enough, saying, “I will continue to oppose such measures until there is a definitive way to provide for true reform.”

Brown, who sponsored a bill last year that was similar to Proposition 68, also charged that the initiative contains “unconstitutional” limits on campaign contributions.

Senate President Pro Tem Roberti, meanwhile, called Proposition 68 “unfair” and said it will favor “only the wealthy.” He said that prohibiting legislative leaders from transferring money to other candidates will make it tougher for low-income contenders to mount serious campaigns.

Both Roberti and Brown also announced their opposition to Proposition 73, a rival measure sponsored by three legislators that would impose limits on campaign contributions, ban the transfer of campaign money from one candidate to another and prohibit any public financing of candidates in state and local campaigns. None of the Republican leaders took a stand on Proposition 73.

Advocates of Proposition 68 say the measure is needed to curb the influence of special-interest spending on decisions made by state officials. In 1987--a year in which no regular elections were scheduled--legislators raised more than $25 million, Gerken pointed out. Of that money, all but $400,000 was raised by incumbent legislators, he said.

In some legislative races, campaign spending has exceeded $2 million. Proposition 68 would limit spending by candidates in Assembly races to $150,000 in the primary election and $225,000 in the general election. Candidates in Senate races would be limited to $250,000 in the primary and $350,000 in the general election.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that campaign spending limits are only constitutional if they are accompanied by public financing for candidates.

Proposition 68 would restrict campaign contributions from individuals to $1,000 per election and from organizations to $2,500 per election.