Court Voids Ban on Mass Mailings by Elected Officials

In a decision certain to please politicians, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge on Thursday struck down a provision of the Proposition 73 campaign reform law that would have prohibited elected officials from making mass mailings at public expense.

Judge Miriam A. Vogel said that, although it was her “personal preference to uphold any initiative” passed by voters, the new statute regarding mass mailings “can’t pass constitutional muster.”

Vogel’s ruling, which is expected to be appealed, will allow all state, county and city elected officials to resume the practice of spending tax dollars to mail newsletters to their constituents.

Officeholders say that such newsletters provide a valuable service in keeping the public informed of government actions and programs. But reformers say the mailings are little more than political self-aggrandizement and should be paid for with campaign contributions or personal funds.

In a prepared statement, an “outraged” Assemblyman Ross Johnson (R-Anaheim), co-author of Proposition 73, said that the judge’s decision “spits in the face of California voters and of the initiative itself. . . . Millions upon millions of dollars are being spent by politicians patting themselves on the back.

“The people said last June on no uncertain terms they wanted to stop this practice. And now a single judge sides with the politicians against the people,” Johnson said. “I intend to fight this and see it overturned.”

Allan Browne, attorney for several politicians who challenged the law, called it “a red-letter day for government.” Among his clients were state Sens. Diane Watson, Bill Greene and Art Torres and Los Angeles City Council members Joy Picus, Michael Woo, Nate Holden, Robert Farrell and Gilbert Lindsay.

Most voters were unaware that Proposition 73 included the prohibition on mass mailings, Browne asserted. Voters were concerned with “all the abuses in campaign fund-raising and spending” and not the mass-mailing provision “tucked way in there,” the lawyer said.

Browne likened the newsletters to the need for an elected official to lease office space or hire a staff. “It’s difficult enough to keep the electorate informed,” Browne said. Outlawing such mailings “would completely destroy his ability to do his job. His job is to communicate.”

During the hearing, Jeremiah F. Hallisey, representing Johnson, argued that news media coverage makes such mailings unnecessary. He pointed out to Vogel that there has been considerable coverage of the current debate regarding congressional pay raises--”but you haven’t received any newsletter about that.”

Vogel, however, suggested it was Johnson’s approach to campaign reform that forced her decision. The amended statute, she said, is superseded by a constitutional amendment that assures the Legislature the right to make its own rules about how to spend its money.

The provision, she said, “fails because it was put before the electorate as a statutory amendment and not a constitutional amendment. I look forward to reading the Court of Appeals decision.”

Another flaw was found in the broad wording of the provision. It states: “No newsletter or other mass mailing shall be sent at public expense.” Vogel said the wording is “about as clear and unequivocal a statute as I have ever read.”

Browne argued that the provision, if taken literally, would prohibit the mailing of such items as tax bills, state college catalogues and voter pamphlets.

Hallisey acknowledged that the wording went far beyond Johnson’s intent and required policy rulings by the state Fair Political Practices Commission. The FPPC ruled that the provision pertained only to mass mailing by elected officials.

“The court is under a duty to interpret this thing to a sane result,” a frustrated Hallisey said after Vogel made her ruling.

The campaign reform law gives the FPPC “great weight” in making such policy, he said.