2 Measures on Campaign Funding Lead

Propositions that would limit the size of campaign contributions in legislative races were leading by wide margins Tuesday as voters appeared in a mood to reduce the influence of powerful special-interest groups in Sacramento.

At the same time, voters were barely rejecting Proposition 71 and defeated Proposition 72--competing initiatives aimed at relaxing the state’s constitutional spending limit and making more money available for education or transportation projects.

Both Proposition 68 and 73, the two campaign finance measures, jumped to quick leads in early returns. But Proposition 73, leading by a much wider margin than its competitor, appeared likely to negate much of Proposition 68. If both pass, the measure that receives the most votes will take precedence wherever the two conflict.

Public Financing

Proposition 73, which would ban the use of tax dollars in campaigns, would eliminate the controversial provision of Proposition 68 calling for partial public financing of legislative races.

Voters were approving Proposition 73 despite the fact that its backers, Assemblyman Ross Johnson (R-La Habra), Sen. Joseph B. Montoya (D-Whittier) and Sen. Quentin Kopp (I-San Francisco), organized virtually no campaign. Opponents of both measures, including Gov. George Deukmejian and Democratic legislative leaders, focused most of their attention on attacking Proposition 68, suggesting that extremist candidates like members of the Ku Klux Klan would take advantage of matching tax dollars.

“People are obviously confused about the precise aspects of the two measures, but they wanted reform so they voted for both,” said a disappointed Fred Woocher, spokesman for the Proposition 68 campaign. “There was no campaign for the other one. It slid through on the backs of our effort.”

The defeat of Proposition 71 would be a blow to state Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig, who personally campaigned for the measure as part of the answer to school financing problems.

Honig predicted that the failure of Proposition 71 would mean deep cuts in spending on education and other state programs because the current spending limit is not flexible enough to allow government programs to keep pace with inflation.

Proposition 72, sponsored by anti-tax crusader Paul Gann, Orange County real estate interests and the highway construction industry, would have transferred to transportation projects money now earmarked for other state programs.

The initiative took on added significance in recent weeks because it would have added substantially to the recently discovered $2-billion shortfall in state revenues.

For the second time in two years, voters rejected a measure sponsored by political extremist Lyndon LaRouche and his followers that would have subjected AIDS patients to quarantine.

Proposition 69, which was virtually identical to Proposition 64 in 1986, was widely opposed by the state’s leading politicians, public health officials and homosexual activists who argued that it would impede efforts to halt the spread of AIDS.

A record $2.2 billion in bonds appeared headed for passage, but Proposition 74, Deukmejian’s $1-billion bond measure, was barely ahead in early returns and its fate was uncertain.

The passage of Proposition 74 would mark the first time in California that bond funds would be used for highways.

Park Bonds Measure

Proposition 70, the $776-million park bonds initiative placed on the ballot by environmentalists, won passage. It marks the first time since 1914 that voters have bypassed the Legislature to win approval of a bond measure. A broad coalition of backers contended that parks had been shortchanged by the Deukmejian Administration.

Other state ballot measures that were approved were:

- Proposition 66, which requires the election of all county assessors.

- Proposition 67, which raises the minimum penalty for the second-degree murder of a peace officer to 25 years in prison from the current minimum of 15 years.

- Proposition 75, which authorizes $800 million in bonds for the construction and rehabilitation of school construction.

- Proposition 76, which authorizes $510 million in bonds to provide home and farm loans to California veterans.

Proposition 77, which would authorize $150 million in bonds for an earthquake safety and housing rehabilitation program, was winning.

Coalition of Backers

Backed by a broad-based coalition that included Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, Atty. Gen John K. Van de Kamp and some corporate leaders, Proposition 68 was designed to reduce the influence of wealthy special-interest groups that contribute millions of dollars each year to state legislators’ campaigns.

In 1986, for example, legislative candidates spent $57 million to win election. Supporters of Proposition 68 say the total spending on legislative races could reach $80 million this year.

Proposition 68 would provide tax dollars to qualified legislative candidates who agree to abide by spending limits in their campaigns. It also would limit the size of campaign contributions, place restrictions on legislators’ outside income, prohibit fund-raising in non-election years and ban the transfer of campaign funds among candidates.

Proposition would ban the use of tax dollars in state, local and legislative campaigns. It contains no spending limits but would restrict the size of campaign contributions, ban the transfer of campaign money among candidates and limit legislators’ outside income.

Supporters of Proposition 68 raised more than $800,000 from corporations and civic groups to publicize their point of view while the backers of Proposition 73 organized only a minimal campaign effort.

Both initiatives were opposed by Deukmejian, Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti and the California Medical Assn.

Roberti Biggest Opponent

The opposition campaign, which focused most of its attention on Proposition 68, raised more than $1 million. Roberti was the biggest single contributor, kicking in a total of $300,000, including $100,000 on Friday.

The campaign became heated only in the last week as opponents aired a controversial television ad that attacked the public financing provision and depicted members of the Ku Klux Klan plotting to get tax dollars available under the initiative.

The opposition group also sent out hundreds of thousands of mailers that were attacked by Van de Kamp for claiming he opposed Proposition 68 when in fact he was a leading supporter of the measure.

Both Proposition 71 and 72 were designed to raise the voter-approved limit on government spending but with different constituencies in mind: Proposition 71 would increase funds available for schools and other state programs. Proposition 72 would devote more money to highways at the expense of other state programs.

The constitutional spending limit, approved by the voters in 1979, took effect for the first time last year when the state received more money than it could legally spend. The governor and Legislature scaled down spending on education and other programs and gave a $1.1-billion budget surplus back to the taxpayers.

In response, Honig, teachers unions and other education interests sponsored Proposition 71, which would allow the state to spend an estimated $700 million more next year by changing the formula for calculating the spending limit.

Lack of Voter Interest

From the beginning, Honig and other supporters of Proposition 71 had difficulty generating voter interest in the measure because of its esoteric subject matter--even though they spent more than $2 million on the initiative.

“It’s complicated, it’s abstract, it’s the state budget. How do you communicate that with the voters of California?” Honig complained.

Supporters of Proposition 72, the rival spending limit measure, spent nearly $3 million.

By making adjustments in the limit, Proposition 72 would have allowed the state to spend substantially more money each year.

Proposition 72 also would have required that revenues from the sales tax on gasoline be used only for transportation programs--not other state programs that the money is currently spent on. The measure would pump $200 million into transportation programs during the first year and $700 million by the third year.

In addition, the measure would have required the state to establish a budget reserve of at least $1 billion.

Between the shift in transportation funds and the required reserve, Proposition 72 could have increased the state’s $2.3-billion budget shortfall by more than $600 million. Already, Deukmejian has said it will be necessary to cut at least $1.2 billion from next year’s budget because of the budget crisis.

Deukmejian, who opposed both Propositions 71 and 72, put his prestige on the line to win passage of Proposition 74, his $1-billion bond measure for transportation programs.

Opposed Gas Tax Hike

Steadfastly refusing to approve any increase in the gasoline tax, the governor instead proposed relying on bond measures for transportation programs. He called for approval of the $1-billion bond measure this year and another $1.3-billion measure in 1990.

To publicize the issue, Deukmejian masqueraded as a traffic reporter, cruising in a motor home on the San Diego Freeway and riding in a helicopter over the San Francisco Bay Area.

Proposition 74 was opposed by former Gov. Edmund G. Brown Sr. and Democratic legislators who argued that the state should rely on the fuel tax for highway improvements and not start using general obligation bonds, which would cost more in the long run because of interest payments.