Prop. 73 Won’t Dent War Chests But Will Alter Sharing of Funds

California’s first-ever campaign contribution limits, approved June 7 when voters passed Proposition 73, will probably have only a modest impact on the amount of money San Diego County legislators raise, The Times has found after a review of every contribution made to county lawmakers during the last election cycle.

But the ballot initiative’s ban on the transfer of money from one campaign to another could have a more significant effect on how the county’s legislators do business, campaign finance records show.

Proposition 73 limits contributions to $1,000 from individuals and companies, $2,500 from small political action committees and $5,000 from broad-based groups. The measure bans the transfer of money between campaigns and prohibits using public funds for mass mailing politicians’ newsletters.

The initiative also caps gifts and speaking fees at $1,000 annually from each source, although travel costs associated with outside speech-making are exempted from the limits.

Not Many Exceeded Limits

A review of the contributions to San Diego lawmakers in 1985 and 1986 shows that nearly 90% of the money raised by the delegation during those years came in amounts small enough to have been allowed even if the new limits had been in place. Of the $2.48 million the 11 lawmakers received, just $294,093--or about 12%--would have exceeded the Proposition 73 limits.

That amount would be even lower if corporations formed political action committees--increasing their contribution limit to $2,500 from $1,000--or if givers divided their contribution between two fiscal years rather than giving it all in one check. Both techniques are expected to be among the first used to skirt the Proposition 73 limits.

“I don’t think this is going to make a great difference,” Sen. William Craven (R-Oceanside) said of the new caps.

“This just makes it a little more difficult for the same people who have been getting all the money to get it anyway,” said Assemblywoman Lucy Killea (D-San Diego).

Legislators from both parties pointed to the ban on transfers as the more significant portion of the initiative. Lawmakers seemed relieved that they would no longer be under pressure to raise money and then give it away to colleagues or party hopefuls.

In all, San Diego County legislators gave $354,708 to political allies during 1985 and 1986. Killea, who faced a tough Republican challenge in 1986, was the only local legislator who did not transfer money to another politician. Assemblyman Steve Peace (D-Chula Vista) led the way with more than $110,000 in campaign gifts to his colleagues.

Tired of Requests for Money

Craven, who transferred $31,000 to other campaigns during 1985 and 1986, said he has grown weary of Republican leaders’ annual requests for campaign money.

“Invariably, someone comes to you and says ‘We need $20,000’ to take care of some guy you’ve never heard of before and will never see again,” Craven said. “They come out from under a rock, they run a race and then they go back under that rock. I won’t shed any great tears because we won’t have the transfers anymore.”

Assemblyman Bill Bradley (R-San Marcos), though he gave away less than $4,000 during the last election cycle, shared Craven’s view of transfers.

“This will prevent the subsidizing of a candidate who can’t raise money on his own,” Bradley said. “There is nothing more distasteful than having to raise money. I don’t think any candidate likes to go out and beg for funds.”

Sen. Marian Bergeson, a Newport Beach Republican who represents part of North County, said the ban on transfers was probably the “most beneficial aspect” of Proposition 73.

“This will eliminate the building of war chests for no other purpose than to increase the political influence of an individual legislator,” Bergeson said.

Even Peace, the delegation’s top giver, said he welcomes the new prohibition on such transfers.

“That’s nice,” he said of the ban. “I think it will reduce the amount of money raised. It will reduce the ability of people to come in on sneak attacks at the tail-end of the campaign. That’s what you’re trying to guard against. Most of the money spent in campaigns is spent in fear of what someone else is going to do.”

Legislators are still trying to determine whether the ban on transfers will benefit one party more than the other. Conventional political wisdom holds that Democrats gain more from transfers because they associate with fewer private contributors capable of giving large amounts. Instead, their party leaders raise huge amounts from special interest groups and then distribute it to the rank-and-file members.

But Peace said he believes Democrats can change their ways.

“A lot of my fellow Democrats are fearful that Democrats will be at a disadvantage,” he said. “But I believe that Democrats will find that they can be more competitive in direct fund raising than they are. I think being in power for a long time has made it easier to raise the institutional money, so they just do it that way. What they’re afraid of is the unknown. It’s going to encourage us to go out and get people involved in the process.”

Assemblywoman Killea figures to be the San Diego legislator affected most by the ban on transfers between candidates. In her 1986 campaign, nearly 40% of Killea’s money came from her Democratic colleagues.

“I’ve benefitted from that,” Killea said in an interview. “But if it’s the same thing for everybody, it won’t hurt me. The Republicans have done it just as much as we have.”

Assemblyman Robert Frazee (R-Carlsbad) even speculated that the elimination of transfers might rob Republicans of a useful campaign tactic.

“We’ve always benefitted from running against (Assembly Speaker) Willie Brown (D-San Francisco),” Frazee said. “When the Democrats have had a candidate who gets a big chunk of money from the Speaker, you can say ‘The Speaker is trying to interfere in our local politics and buy this seat. Don’t let this happen.’ That’s been an effective campaign tool for Republicans.”

Other aspects of the initiative also have left politicians in doubt. One provision states that money collected before Jan. 1, when the new law takes effect, can be spent for “any lawful purpose other than to support or oppose a candidacy for elective office.”

Assemblyman Ross Johnson (R-La Habra), author of the initiative, said that means legislators can use their current war chests for the expenses involved in holding office, which, depending on the lawmaker, can mean anything from buying a new office typewriter to traveling to Austria for a tour of trash-to-energy projects.

May Have to Return Money

There is a chance that the Fair Political Practices Commission, which must interpret and enforce the new law, will rule that campaign money not spent by the end of 1988 must be returned to contributors or given to charity.

If it does, said Assemblyman Bradley, he would probably throw a free party before the end of the year for his contributors at the Lawrence Welk Country Club, where he holds a fund-raiser each year.

“I’ve been wanting to do that for a long time,” Bradley said. “Maybe now I’ll be forced to do it.”

Assemblyman Peace said that he might buy some office equipment. And Sen. Wadie Deddeh (D-Chula Vista) said he already has “about six charities” in mind to share the bounty should his $155,000 war chest be declared off-limits.

It is clear that the new law requires legislators to clean their slate and start from zero to raise the money they need for future campaigning. That won’t pose a problem for those who normally spend all their funds during each election and start fresh at the beginning of a new term. But for some who have ever-growing war chests, the change may come as something of a shock.

“I started collecting my money in 1969,” said Sen. Craven. “Some of it is getting dusty and old, but I’ve had it for a long time. Now I have to go to my people and say I need some money, and they’re going to say, ‘What the hell happened to the $300,000 you had in the bank?’ It’s going to be tough to explain.”

HOW PROP. 73 WOULD HAVE AFFECTED SAN DIEGO AREA LEGISLATORS

This chart shows how Proposition 73, the campaign finance initiative, would have affected the San Diego County delegation had it been law during the last full election cycle.

Member Amount Amount Over % Over Transferred to Raised in Prop 73 Limits Other Candidates 1985-86 Limits in 1985-86 ASSEMBLY Bradley-R $93,412 $1,500 1.6 $3,276 Chacon-D 170,554 4,757 2.8 3,250 Frazee-R 89,332 1,507 1.7 21,000 Killea-D 385,561 155,202 40.3 0 Mojonnier-R 153,099 7,607 4.9 6,500 Peace-D 363,249 33,282 9.2 110,925 Stirling-R 309,934 13,474 4.3 18,557 STATE SENATE Bergeson-R 259,840 29,850 11.5 54,700 Craven-R 216,519 10,757 4.9 31,000 Deddeh-D 387,302 35,157 9.1 76,000 Ellis-R 52,100 1,000 1.9 29,500 TOTALS 2,480,902 294,093 11.9 354,708 4 Democrats 1,306,666 228,398 17.5 190,175 7 Republicans 1,174,236 65,695 5.6 164,533

Member Cash On Hand as of 5/21/88 ASSEMBLY Bradley-R $43,570 Chacon-D 9,749 Frazee-R 15,585 Killea-D 46,376 Mojonnier-R 9,959 Peace-D 89,191 Stirling-R 83,662 STATE SENATE Bergeson-R 321,078 Craven-R 302,487 Deddeh-D 155,321 Ellis-R 42,651 TOTALS 1,119,629 4 Democrats 300,637 7 Republicans 818,992

NOTE: Amount over Proposition 73 limits was determined by examining the amount and timing of each contribution and comparing it to the limits of $1,000 for individuals and corporations, $2,500 for political action committees, and $5,000 for broad-based political action committees of more than 100 contributors. Proposition 73 also bans transfers of money from one campaign to another and forbids the use of cash already collected for campaigning after Jan. 1, 1989.

Source: Fair Political Practices Commission reports and Legitech, a private data tracking service.