CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS BALLOT MEASURES : Brown Bash Raises Cash to Fight Term-Limit Initiatives

Assembly Speaker Willie Brown threw a posh, $1,000-a-plate party Thursday night to raise money to defeat a pair of ballot measures aimed at sweeping Brown and other long-time incumbent lawmakers out of office.

Backers of the initiatives have been quick to say that the lavish party, which was expected to raise $1 million, is proof in itself that the current political system in California is beholden to moneyed interests and in need of change.

Brown’s guests, adorned in formal attire for an evening’s entertainment at the Beverly Wilshire hotel, were there to pay tribute to the San Francisco Democrat, who is celebrating his 10th anniversary as Speaker.

As they arrived the contributors were jeered at by several dozen demonstrators with picket signs urging a ban on career politicians and support for a clean sweep in government.

The pickets were a visible sign of why Brown and other legislative leaders are scrambling to raise as much as $5 million to defeat two term-limiting initiatives, Proposition 131 and its even harsher companion, Proposition 140.

Both November ballot measures would for the first time limit the number of terms California legislators and other state elected officials could serve.

Proposition 131 would also restrict campaign spending and launch a system of public financing for state election campaigns that would encourage small contributions.

In addition to limiting terms, Proposition 140 would curtail legislators’ pensions and cut funds for operating the Legislature by 38%.

But it is the term limits in the two measures that have the Assembly Speaker hopping mad and that have forced him to devote the proceeds of his annual fund-raiser this year to defeating the two initiatives.

Brown argued that “term limits are anti-Democratic. . . . If you are pleased with your representatives, you ought to keep voting for them; if not, you ought to throw them out.”

His allies have pointed out that even under the more severe of the two measures, Proposition 140, which is backed by Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, Brown, in theory, could hold onto the speakership for another six years.

Brown wants to preserve the Legislature as an effective institution, an aide said. But proponents of the two ballot measures have pointed to political corruption in the Capitol and inaction on important issues as signs that faster turnover is needed.

Recent polls show strong public support for term limits--with supporters outnumbering opponents more than 2 to 1, according to a California Poll released earlier this month.

A number of states now limit the number of successive terms in office for their governors. Both initiatives on the ballot here would limit the governor and other statewide officers to two terms.

But no states currently limit the number of terms that a legislator may serve, said Brian Weberg, a program manager for the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver.

That could change next Tuesday, when Oklahoma voters will consider an initiative that would limit their lawmakers to 12 years cumulatively in that state’s Legislature.

In California, Proposition 131 would limit legislators to 12 consecutive years in either house of the Legislature. Proposition 140 is more drastic, limiting state senators to two four-year terms in their lifetime, and Assembly members to three two-year terms.

Supporters of both initiatives have argued that the present system puts incumbent legislators in a position to raise the large amounts of money needed to hold onto their offices almost indefinitely.

Proposition 131’s campaign director, Jim Wheaton, said his measure will force politicians to look to smaller contributors for election funds. He argued that the term limits will “force politicians up there (in Sacramento) who are doing nothing except collecting money from special interests out of office.”

Said one of Proposition 140’s campaign co-chairmen, Lewis Uhler: “It is precisely because terms are unlimited that incumbents can beat up people (for contributions) like they do.”

But Brown has argued that it is foolish to throw out experienced leaders. “This is the only time that anyone is suggesting that experience is a liability,” he has said.