Campaign Reform: Yes on 68

Proposition 68 may be California’s last best hope for years to restrain the corrupting influence of huge amounts of campaign funds in Sacramento. We California voters can regain a measure of control over our state Legislature by voting Yes on Tuesday on Proposition 68. It is the campaign eform initiative supported by Common Cause,the League of Women Voters, the American Assn. of Retired Persons and a score of other reputable groups interested in good government.

Just consider the sources of legislative campaign contributions in 1986 legislative races. More than 90% of the $57 million spent in 1986 was raised outside the legislative districts in which the campaigns were conducted. Most came from lobbying groups based in Sacramento. Most of the money was funneled through political-action committees. Only about 13% came from individual donors.

In 1986 incumbent state Assembly members outspent their challengers by 30 to 1. Senators outspent their opponents by more than 60 to 1. In 100 races not a single incumbent was defeated. Spending for this year’s primary was soaring 40% above 1986 levels, even though there were real contests for only a handful of seats.

With rare exceptions, legislative seats in California are bought with paid advertising and not through a thoughtful discussion of issues and persuasion of voters. In critical close elections, campaigns often are directed by hired guns sent in by legislative leaders in Sacramento. The bill is paid by the lobbyists, political-action committees and other special interests through their big contributions.

And what do the interests get for their money? Only access, they claim. But access is pure gold in Sacramento. The interests that can win the ears of lawmakers with the force of the checkbook find their investments returned many times over. In the end the California taxpayer loses because of special benefits and loopholes granted to the interests that bankroll the campaigns.

Proposition 68 would limit the size of individual political campaign contributions, ban transfers from one legislator’s campaign to another, pro-vide for modest public financing of campaigns linked to limits on total campaign spending and give incentives for raising money in the legislative districts rather than from Sacramento. It would ban off-year fund-raising and restrict the amount of gifts and free travel that legislators could receive.

Proponents of a rival ballot measure, Proposition 73, claim that their proposal is campaign reform, too. But Proposition 73, a weak alternative, is being supported in part by the special interests to divert attention and support from Proposition 68, which was drafted by a bipartisan commission of distinguished Californians including the late former Chief Justice Donald R. Wright and the presidents of Stanford University and Caltech. Voters should not be fooled by this diversion; they should vote No on Proposition 73.

Voters in California should ponder the 1986 statistics: $57 million spent, incumbents outspent challengers by as much as 60 to 1 and not a single incumbent was defeated. Big money scares off challengers and keeps incumbents in place--just the way the free-spending special interests like it. The California voters can put a stop to this cushy Sacramento-controlled game by voting Yes on Proposition 68.