Exactly What Prop. 73 Will Do to Politics Still Uncertain

Since the days of Assembly Speaker Jesse M. Unruh, the power of the Speakership has depended heavily on the ability to raise and distribute large amounts of campaign money.

Unruh’s system of centralizing control over campaign contributions has long been the model for other legislative leaders--and the target of criticism from opposition politicians.

Now, however, Proposition 73 will change the rules for collecting and doling out political money in legislative, local and statewide elections. Beginning Jan. 1, the initiative will prohibit one candidate from giving campaign money to another and limit the size of campaign contributions.

Voters approved the initiative June 7 amid widespread concern that the huge amounts of campaign money contributed to lawmakers each year by special interest groups were having a corrupting influence on the Legislature.

Legislators agree that Proposition 73 will change the way they do business. But it remains to be seen whether the initiative undermines the power of legislative leaders or just temporarily disrupts their fund-raising efforts.

“It will modify our behavior,” said Senate Republican Leader Ken Maddy of Fresno. “Whether or not it satisfies the reformers is another question. It’s positive to have the Legislature recognize the public is not happy with it. Perhaps that will give us the incentive to do more of the things that will appear to be in the public interest.”

Proposition 73 was sponsored by three maverick legislators--Assemblyman Ross Johnson (R-La Habra) Sen. Joseph B. Montoya (D-Whittier) and Sen. Quentin L. Kopp (I-San Francisco)--and won 58% of the vote even though its backers mounted almost no campaign at all.

In addition to banning the transfer of campaign money between candidates, Proposition 73 will limit the size of contributions to $1,000 from individuals and businesses each fiscal year; $2,500 from political action committees made up of two or more members, and $5,000 from broad-based political committees that have been in existence for more than six months and have 100 or more members.

The measure will also ban the use of taxpayer dollars to subsidize candidates and, for all practical purposes, will eliminate the use of loans to finance campaigns.

In addition, it will require candidates to declare the office for which they are raising money and will place some restrictions on the speaking fees and gifts that officeholders can receive.

One provision that has already taken effect prohibits politicians from sending out at the taxpayers’ expense newsletters or other self-promoting mass mailings.

Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), who has held the powerful post longer than anyone else in the state’s history, contends that the real target of Proposition 73 was the power of the Speaker--not contributions from special interest groups.

“There is a desire by somebody to reduce what they believe to be the basis of influence by legislative leaders,” Brown told reporters. “They really want special interests to have greater influence than legislative leaders.”

Brown points out that Proposition 73 places no restrictions on the ability of special-interest groups to spend money independently in support of or in opposition to individual candidates.

And, despite the initiative’s contribution limits, contributors can funnel donations to candidates by forming a multiplicity of political action committees, he said.

“There’s no ban on special interests transferring money around,” Brown complained.

At the same time, he said Proposition 73 will not greatly affect his power as Speaker.

Even under the initiative, he said, it will be easy enough for legislative leaders to raise campaign funds by finding new techniques that are permitted under the law.

For example, instead of raising money himself and then transferring the funds to his allies, Brown said he will simply ask donors to make contributions to individual members.

“It’s going to change our life somewhat, but from an incumbent’s standpoint, it’s an annoyance, not a problem,” he said. “All my life I’ve been involved in trying to over-achieve, and no matter what the rules are I’m going to play by the rules and win under those rules.

“And I guarantee you, as soon as we do perfect a technique for winning with those rules, somebody’s going to come up with the idea that they ought to change them because they don’t want us to win.”

Foes See It Differently

Brown’s rivals, however, take a different view of what Proposition 73 will do. Republican leaders, as well as dissident Democrats in the Assembly who are part of the “Gang of Five,” said they expect that in the long run the initiative will seriously weaken the power of the speakership and other leadership posts.

“I think it undermines the power of all legislative leaders, myself included,” said Assembly Republican Leader Pat Nolan, who has made no secret of his own ambition to become Speaker. “What it basically says is legislators now can only raise money in their own name for their own reelection. That will have a very healthy impact on the election process because it will stop . . . legislators in safe districts from amassing large amounts of money to dole out to other candidates.”

The Glendale Republican, one of the few legislators to endorse Proposition 73, continued: “The office of the Speaker will diminish. The whole present structure of concentrating power with the Speaker started with Unruh as a way for him to raise money and control the Democratic caucus. It (Proposition 73) will change the role of the Speaker in a very good way.”

Assemblyman Steve Peace (D-San Diego), a member of the “Gang of Five,” said that by banning the transfer of campaign money, Proposition 73 enacts the central part of the group’s own “reform” package. “The key element of our reform is in place,” Peace said. “There’s no question about it, it will reduce the coercive effect the office of the Speaker can have.”

Fines, Criminal Penalty

The penalties for violating Proposition 73 include a fine of up to $2,000 that can be levied by the Fair Political Practices Commission; a civil fine of up to three times the amount of an illegal contribution, gift or expenditure, and a criminal penalty of up to $10,000 or three times the amount in question, whichever is greater.

The proposition has been criticized by some legislators because, while it limits campaign contributions, it contains no limit on spending. Under a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, governments cannot restrict campaign spending unless they also provide public financing to candidates who abide by such limits. Proposition 73, however, bans the use of taxpayers’ dollars to finance candidates in any state or local campaign, thereby eliminating the possibility of election spending limits.

“The ban on transfers and the limitations on contributions are tantamount to a temporary inconvenience,” said Senate Majority Leader Barry Keene (D-Benicia). “Proposition 73 has no limit on campaign expenditures and only theoretically limits contributions. In fact, contributors will simply find new channels for their contributions to reach politicians. It’s simply an accounting problem, a monkey wrench in the machine, not an overhaul of the political machine.”

One section of the initiative that has come under close scrutiny is the ban on mailings of more than 200 pieces of mail by elected officials at public expense. Some lawyers and politicians initially believed that the ban was worded in such a way that it could prohibit any mass mailing by state and local agencies--such as voter pamphlets, health care information or even public employee paychecks.

Panel Sees Ambiguity

The Fair Political Practices Commission, however, in a quick legal opinion, said that the provision was ambiguous but that the voters did not intend to “halt the sending of essential government information.”

The initiative will prohibit politicians, however, from mailing at public expense the kind of self-aggrandizing letters and bulletins that have often filled the mailboxes of their constituents.

Brown, while criticizing Proposition 73 at length, suggested that the changes the measure will make in campaign financing may eventually soften public criticism of the Legislature.

“Hopefully,” he said, “there will be a removal of the perception of undue influence being generated or germinating from campaign contributions.”