High Court to Settle Campaign Funding Conflict

The California Supreme Court, entering a dispute with broad political impact, agreed Thursday to decide whether strict limits on legislative campaign fund-raising and a sweeping ban on off-year contributions to legislative candidates may be implemented under Proposition 68.

The justices set aside an August ruling by a state Court of Appeal that upheld the measure’s restrictions. The appeal court rejected contentions that the limitations could not be enforced because they conflicted with Proposition 73--a competing initiative that drew more votes in an election last year.

The limits at issue under Proposition 68 have never taken effect--and will not unless approved by the high court. If they are upheld, they could prove highly costly to incumbent legislators who traditionally have built large war chests with contributions in non-election years for use in future campaigns.

In other action Thursday, the justices agreed to decide two other important issues that have produced conflicting rulings in the lower courts:

- The high court, in a key test of the constitutional separation of church and state, will decide whether religious benedictions and invocations may be performed at public high school graduation ceremonies.

A state Court of Appeal upheld prayers rendered by clergymen at four high schools in San Bernardino County, finding the traditional practice did not represent official establishment of religion. A contrary conclusion was reached by a different appellate court in 1987 in a review of a student-written prayer presented at graduation ceremonies in Livermore.

- The justices also will consider whether restaurant patrons injured from bone fragments in food they order may sue the establishment for damages.

Last September, a Court of Appeal barred such a suit against an Alameda County restaurant by a diner who said he was hospitalized after choking on an inch-long bone in a chicken enchilada. The panel, citing a 1936 state Supreme Court ruling, said such suits are prohibited when the bone is “natural” to the food. A month before, another appellate court had upheld a suit by a Los Angeles woman who said she suffered a broken tooth from a bone particle in a hamburger.

The campaign fund-raising issue goes back to June, 1988, when voters approved Propositions 68 and 73, both of which sought to impose wide-ranging changes in political fund-raising. But Proposition 73 passed with 58% voter approval--compared to 53% for its rival--and under state law, the measure with the greatest number of votes is to take precedence if there are conflicts with another measure.

The state Fair Political Practices Commission issued an opinion in November, 1988, that the vast majority of Proposition 68’s provisions were not consistent with those in Proposition 73 and thus could not be enforced.

But last August, a three-member appeal court panel in Los Angeles reached a different conclusion, finding that key parts of Proposition 68 were consistent with 73 and could be implemented.

The appellate court, ruling in a suit brought by a group called Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending, upheld Proposition 68’s ban on contributions to candidates for the state Assembly and Senate in calendar years where they were not on the ballot.

The court approved the initiative’s limits on the aggregate amounts legislative candidates could accept from organizations--such as political action committees, unions and corporations--and the aggregate amounts individuals and groups could contribute in all such races.

Under Proposition 68, candidates for the Assembly may accept up to $50,000 per election and candidates for the Senate up to $75,000. Individuals may contribute no more than $25,000 in an election and organizations are limited to $200,000 in aggregate donations.

The court also permitted enforcement of Proposition 68’s strengthened civil and criminal penalties for campaign funding violations.

Proposition 73, applying to all state and local elective offices, permitted candidates to receive contributions during any year and imposed no limit on the aggregate contributions a candidate may receive. Individuals may contribute no more than $1,000 per candidate and groups are limited to $5,000 per candidate. The initiative carried no provision for enhanced penalties for violations of campaign laws.

A spokesman for the FPPC, Sandra Michioku, welcomed Thursday’s action, saying the high court’s eventual decision would resolve important issues “so that we can get on with implementing reforms the voters approved.”

The justices did not say when they would hear oral arguments in the case but attorneys in the case said they expected a ruling by mid-to-late 1990. Meanwhile, the provisions of Proposition 68 approved by the appeal court will not take effect, Michioku said.

Charles H. Bell of Sacramento, a lawyer for the California Political Attorneys Assn., said he is pleased the justices have agreed to review the issue. “There is a First Amendment issue of free expression the lower court paid insufficient attention to,” he said.

The Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Appellate Justice H. Walter Croskey, said it had a duty to uphold any provision of Proposition 68 unless it was “clearly repugnant” to a similar section of Proposition 73.

Croskey said it was reasonable to conclude the voters wanted both initiatives to take effect “to the greatest extent possible,” and that they did not intend for one measure to “effect a near wholesale repeal” of the other.

The FPPC appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court, contending there were “irreconcilable conflicts” in the two initiatives and pointing out that where there were such conflicts, the measure commanding the most support from the electorate should take effect. The more restrictive Proposition 68, the commission said, would effectively reduce the amount of constitutionally protected free expression permitted under Proposition 73.