With Prop. 73, It Won’t Be Politics as Usual Next Year

California voters last week approved the most sweeping change in campaign finance laws since the post-Watergate era, and the impact may be felt by every elected official and candidate for state or local office.

By a 58%-to-42% margin, voters approved a campaign finance measure, Proposition 73, that will stop the kind of campaign contribution and spending practices that were much in evidence this spring.

Had the measure been law, Los Angeles County Supervisor Deane Dana would not have been able to lend $712,500 of his campaign funds to his son, Deane Dana III, for a Republican primary challenge against Assemblyman Gerald N. Felando.

Nor would Felando, a San Pedro Republican, have been able to receive $76,000 in cash and loans from his Republican colleagues in the Assembly.

And Assemblyman Curtis R. Tucker (D-Inglewood) could not have collected $34,000 in campaign contributions and a $2,500 speaking fee from a single source, the California Medical Assn.

The initiative, which will take effect New Year’s Day unless it is challenged in court, places limits on contributions to candidates for every state and local office--from the Legislature to city councils and school boards. It places no limits on how much a candidate can spend.

The measure limits campaign contributions to $1,000 from individuals and businesses, $2,500 from political action committees of two or more persons and $5,000 from “broad-based” groups that have existed for at least six months and represent at least 100 members. The limits apply to each fiscal year from July 1 to June 30.

The measure prohibits the transfer of campaign money between candidates, and places a $1,000-a-year limit on gifts and honorariums--such as speaking fees--from a single source.

And beginning Jan. 1, it will prevent officeholders and candidates from spending the money that remains in their campaign war chests on future campaigns. They will, however, be able to donate the money to a charity or use it for non-political purposes. They may not spend it on themselves.

One provision of the measure takes effect immediately--a ban on taxpayer-financed newsletters and mass mailings by state and local officeholders.

Proposition 68

Voters also approved another measure, Proposition 68, which would have established public financing of legislative campaigns. Since Proposition 68 won by a slimmer margin, 52.8% to 47.2%, any provisions that are inconsistent with Proposition 73, including public financing, will not take effect.

Despite the absence of public financing for legislative campaigns, Robert Stern, general counsel of the private California Commission on Campaign Financing, who developed the framework of Proposition 68, said passage of the two measures “really is a victory” for campaign reform.

“It does shake up the system,” said Stern, who has been monitoring the rapid escalation in campaign contributions and spending for years.

He was formerly general counsel of the state Fair Political Practices Commission and co-author of the Political Reform Act that was approved by the voters in 1974 after the Watergate scandal.

Stern predicted that Proposition 73 will incite a “fund-raising frenzy” next year as candidates struggle to rebuild campaign war chests.

Proposition 73 prohibits the use of current campaign funds for campaign purposes after the first of the year, sparking predictions that officeholders will give the money to charity or possibly return it to their contributors.

Stern said he expects incumbents to return as much of the money as they can before the end of the year and then get much of it back again after New Year’s Day.

He said politicians considering a bid for higher office will be surprised to learn that, under Proposition 73, they can only raise money for one office at a time--declare what office that is--and cannot later shift it from that campaign to another.

That provision and the ban on transfers to other candidates could limit the clout of South Bay officials, such as Torrance City Councilman Dan Walker and Inglewood Mayor Edward Vincent, who have large campaign accounts.

Walker and Vincent have expressed an interest in running for higher office and often have made contributions to other candidates.

A 10-year veteran of the Torrance council, Walker has amassed a war chest he estimates at $80,000 after recent campaign expenses, political contributions and charitable gifts.

“If the State of California tells Dan Walker and any other individual who has a campaign account that they can’t use it or something else has got to be done with the funds, I’ll simply do what the law says I have to do,” he said in an interview Friday.

Walker said he expects the measure will be tested in court.

Vincent, who was not available for comment, has helped to finance candidates for the Inglewood City Council, school board and treasurer’s post.

Tied to Fiscal Year

Proposition 73’s limits on fund raising are expected to be felt more by local officeholders since the primary and runoff in local elections occur in the same fiscal year. Legislative primaries are in June of one fiscal year, while the general elections are in November of the next fiscal year. The campaign limits are tied to the fiscal year.

Dana Reed, a Costa Mesa attorney, who specializes in campaign finance matters, said “there is a substantial amount of reform” in Proposition 73.

He predicted the campaign contribution limits “will save developers a lot of money. By and large they are used to writing $5,000 or $10,000 and $2,500 checks.”

Reed said Proposition 73 is “going to level the playing field between incumbents and serious challengers. It doesn’t do anything to help the perennial candidate.”

The proposition was sponsored by Independent Sen. Quentin L. Kopp of San Francisco, Democratic Sen. Joseph B. Montoya of Whittier and Republican Assemblyman Ross Johnson of La Habra.

Kopp predicted that the measure will make local officials more accountable to the voters by reducing the influence of special interests such as land developers.

“The contribution limit will have a salutary effect because in local races there are contributions of more than $1,000,” he said. In addition, “you’ve eliminated the transfers, which were also used at the local level.”

The ban on newsletters, he said, also will apply to local governments if the mailers come from the public official. City, county or school board mailers of a general nature would be allowed, he said.

But in a pre-election analysis, the Fair Political Practices Commission, which is charged with enforcing the measure, said Proposition 73 “prohibits all newsletters or mass mailings at public expense at any time, whether sent by a candidate or not.”

The commission is expected to meet in late July to interpret the two measures.