THE PROPOSITIONS : 131 Would Fund Campaigns, Limit Officials’ Terms

Charging that escalating campaign costs have made politicians increasingly beholden to well-heeled special interests, backers of one of two term-limit initiatives on the November ballot are calling for a dramatic change in the way elections are financed.

Propositions 131 and 140 seek to overhaul state politics by forcing more turnover of elected representatives. But the public financing of campaigns, called for in Proposition 131, could bring a more immediate change in the political behavior of candidates for state office and the financial contributors on whom they depend.

In place of overwhelming reliance on special-interest money, Proposition 131 would set up a taxpayer-supported fund to pay up to half the costs of a candidate’s campaign. The new rules would apply in every race for elected state office, including governor, attorney general and all members of the Legislature.

Supporters of Proposition 131 contend that public funding would work hand in hand with the measure’s other provisions--term limits, a ban on non-election-year fund raising, and new restrictions on campaign spending and contributions. Backers say this combination of reforms seeks to loosen the grip that special interests--corporations, causes and institutions--have had on legislators.

“It would be the most comprehensive package of campaign reforms ever adopted in this country,” said Robert M. Stern, the former general counsel for the Fair Political Practices Commission and a backer of Proposition 131.

Said Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, who drew up the initiative as part of his unsuccessful campaign for governor: “It’s really going to open up the possibility for new faces (in elected office).”

But opponents of Proposition 131 argue that the campaign-funding provisions would increase the influence of special-interest money. They say that when limits on political committees are reached, individual corporate executives could respond by making sizable personal contributions--up to $40,000 spread over 40 campaigns. Less affluent people would not be able to give as generously, according to this argument.

Opponents also argue the initiative would give tax money to the campaigns of extremist candidates, and that by limiting campaign spending it would restrict free speech.

“It is riddled with ambiguous rules, Orwellian regulations . . . and clearly unconstitutional provisions,” contends a lengthy dissection of the initiative prepared by Berman and D’Agostino Campaigns, consultants for the opposition campaign, which is backed by legislative leaders and a wide range of special-interest groups, such as labor unions, race tracks, trial lawyers and oil companies.

The plan is designed to encourage candidates to look to smaller contributions, especially from within their own districts, for the money needed to run a campaign.

“The campaign finance reform will turn Sacramento on its head,” said Fred Woocher, a deputy attorney general, who worked with Van de Kamp in drafting Proposition 131.

“Those who raise large amounts from large contributors will no longer be favored,” Woocher said. “Instead, those skilled in shaking down moneyed interests will be at a disadvantage.”

The measure would allow taxpayers to voluntarily direct $5 of their state income-tax returns to the fund for public campaign financing. That is similar to the federal checkoff system, which has provided funding for presidential races since 1976. Over the past two years, 21% of federal taxpayers have directed $1 of their taxes toward the presidential fund. A similar response rate on state returns would mean $20 million a year for California races.

Each individual contribution to a candidate of up to $250 would be matched by the state fund in varying amounts--providing $3 for every $1 donated by a person living within the candidate’s district and a dollar-for-dollar match for donors living outside the district.

No public funds would be made available to match contributions from corporations, unions, political action committees and political parties.

The measure would require candidates who accept state money to abide by spending limits, which would be lifted only if a non-participating opponent exceeds the limit. A candidate for the Assembly who accepted public funds could spend no more than $400,000 for the general election. A candidate who chose not to accept public financing would be exempt from the spending ceiling.

All candidates, whether they accept public funds or not, would have to limit the total amount they accept from all corporations, unions and PACs. A candidate for the Assembly could accept no more than $133,333 from these sources. Any additional money would have to come from individuals, at contributions of no more than $1,000 each.

In addition to all these changes, the initiative would create a special prosecutor’s office to pursue political corruption cases and impose criminal penalties on legislators who try to influence government decisions that might be of personal financial benefit.

The measure would also tighten existing law to prohibit state elected officials from taking any gift of $100 or more, and it would extend a recently enacted ban on honorariums, as well as the gift limitation, to local elected officials.

The rival to Van de Kamp’s initiative--Proposition 140, sponsored by Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum--would put even more stringent limits on the terms of state elected officials but contains no provision for public financing of campaigns.

Proposition 131 would limit Assembly members and state senators to 12 consecutive years in office. Proposition 140 would create a six-year lifetime limit on service in the Assembly and an eight-year limit in the state Senate. If both measures pass, term limits would be set by the one getting more votes, but all the other provisions of the initiatives would be enacted, including public funding of campaigns.

Supporters of the Schabarum initiative say they simply do not like the use of public money to pay for campaigns under Proposition 131.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Pete Wilson, who supports Proposition 140, said recently that he could not endorse Proposition 131 “because it in addition proposes that you pay for my election campaigns, not as individuals but as taxpayers. I don’t think that’s right. It would make life a whole lot simpler and easier for me as a candidate, but I don’t think my inconvenience as a candidate is an urgent public priority.”

Lewis K. Uhler, president of the National Tax Limitation Committee and a co-sponsor of Proposition 140, argued that taxpayers “should not be asked to fund campaigns of candidates--especially those whose opinions they detest.”

When backers of Proposition 131 set out to limit the influence of special interests, they had to include public financing because of a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Under that landmark decision, the court said that states can only limit campaign spending if the candidates themselves agree voluntarily to do so in exchange for public funding of their campaigns.

Under the Van de Kamp initiative, a candidate for governor who chooses to take public money could spend a combined $11.7 million in the primary and general election campaigns. Up to half of that amount could come from the taxpayer-supported fund.

By comparison, in the present gubernatorial campaign, Republican Pete Wilson had spent $14.4 million by the end of September. Democrat Dianne Feinstein had spent $11.5 million. Both will have spent millions more by Election Day.

Proponents of the Van de Kamp initiative point out that no candidate for governor--whether they accept public funds or not--could take contributions from corporations and other “non-individual” supporters totaling more than $1.5 million in the primary and $2.4 million in the general election.

Stern predicted that the various limits on contributions would give serious candidates for office little choice but to apply for state funds and agree to the spending limits. Not to do so, he said, would leave these candidates trailing badly in campaign funds.

In their analysis of Proposition 131 drawn up for opponents, political consultants Michael Berman and Carl D’Agostino argue that the measure would mean paying out “taxpayers’ monies to the political campaigns of Lyndon LaRouche followers or members of the Ku Klux Klan if such individuals meet the qualifications.”

Woocher and other backers argue that the measure contains a number of safeguards to discourage extremist groups, such as requiring candidates to raise a significant amount on their own before becoming eligible for matching money.

The Berman-D’Agostino analysis also argues that various cults and radical groups would be able to take money from individual members, draw on the public fund for a 3-for-1 match, then kick back the original contribution disguising it, for example, as salary or consulting fees.

The measure specifically bars a campaign taking public funds from paying money to a donor, unless that individual has provided “full and adequate consideration” for the payment.

Opponents predict that public funding will prove the downfall of the Van de Kamp initiative. That idea has been “rejected by the people several times,” said Assemblyman Richard L. Mountjoy (R-Monrovia), who is supporting the rival term-limit measure.

Supporters point out that voters in 1988, by 53% to 47%, approved Proposition 68, which contained public financing for legislative races. But the electorate gave an even larger mandate to Proposition 73, which specifically prohibited the use of public funds in election campaigns. That vote invalidated the public financing scheme. Public financing of local campaigns was approved by Los Angeles voters last June--to take effect in 1993--but the measure faces court challenges.

Proposition 140 is silent on the subject of public financing of campaigns. If both initiatives pass, the campaign rules contained in the Van de Kamp measure would become law.