COMPARING PROPS. 131 AND 140

Following is a comparison of the two term-limit initiatives, Propositions 131 and 140. Both propositions on the Nov. 6 ballot would for the first time impose term limits on legislators, the governor, and other state elected officials. But there are differences between the two initiatives: TERM LIMITS Proposition 131

Would impose these limits on consecutive terms of office: State senators: 12 years. (Senators not running this year could serve 14 years.) Assembly members: 12 years. Governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, controller, treasurer, insurance commissioner, superintendent of public instruction: 8 years. Board of Equalization members: 12 years.

Officeholders could run again after sitting out one term. Goes into effect with this election. Proposition 140

Would impose lifetime limits on the number of terms served in any one state elected office. Limits for state senators: 8 years. (Those not on the ballot this year, 6 years.) Assembly members: 6 years. governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, controller, treasurer, superintendent of public instruction: 8 years. Insurance commissioner: no limits. Board of Equalization members: 8 years.

Would go into effect with this election, except for state senators not on the ballot this year. Would limit those senators to one more term. OTHER PROVISIONS Proposition 131

For the first time would institute public campaign financing for all state elected officials and ban non-election year fund raising. Taxpayers could divert up to $5 a year of their taxes to a special election fund for the state’s share of campaigns. The measure would limit total campaign spending for candidates who take public funds.

Would impose new overall limits on contributions from individuals, political committees and others.

Would for the first time allow appointment of a special prosecutor to handle state public corruption cases. Proposition 140

Would drastically cut funds for operating the Legislature--by almost 50% according to some estimates. Would mean large number of layoffs of legislative staff.

Would eliminate the existing legislative retirement system, although lawmakers who already have earned benefits would be entitled to collect them. Following the election, legislators would be required to join the federal Social Security system. SUPPORTERS Proposition 131

California Common Cause, Voter Revolt, Sierra Club, National Organization for Women, Ralph Nader, Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp. Proposition 140

National Tax Limitation Committee, gubernatorial candidate Pete Wilson, and a number of conservative legislators.