Judge Upholds Limits on Mail by Politicians : Courts: Federal jurist allows Prop. 73 rule to stand. Elected officials are restricted to 200 letters per taxpayer-financed mailing.

A federal district judge in Los Angeles on Monday upheld Proposition 73’s severe limits on taxpayer-financed mass mailings by elected state officials.

U.S. District Judge Richard Gadbois rebuffed a challenge to the 1988 campaign-reform measure filed this year by state Sen. Charles M. Calderon (D-Whittier) and three other state senators.

Gadbois said that although he had “doubts as a private citizen” about the wisdom of the law, he was bound by a 1990 state appeals court decision that held that the statute was legal.

Proposition 73 placed strict limits on campaign contributions for candidates in state elections. But much of the statute was ruled unconstitutional last year by a federal district judge in Sacramento. His decision has been appealed.

The legislators who filed the challenge contended that the rule restricting taxpayer-financed mailings to 200 pieces per mailing violated their right to free speech. The politicians also contended that the law interfered with their constituents’ right to redress grievances and even constituents’ right to vote--by restricting the flow of information from their representatives.

But Gadbois agreed with lawyers for the Fair Political Practices Commission, who contended that the legislators were precluded from suing because there already was a valid state court judgment on the issue.

Last year, the state 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that “the statute neither interferes with the Legislature’s authority to govern its internal affair nor burdens the exercise of any fundamental right.” That case had been filed by state Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles) and several other state senators who were not involved in the case before Gadbois.

FPPC lawyer Jonathan Rothman asserted that public officials in California had many ways of communicating with their constituents besides taxpayer-paid mass mailings. He said they could conduct press conferences, hold meetings with constituents in their districts, and send out mailings using funds they had raised in their campaigns.

Gadbois’ decision will be appealed, said Allan Browne and Robert Broadbelt, the Beverly Hills attorneys representing the state senators who challenged the rule.

Rothman, although saying he was delighted by Gadbois’ ruling, acknowledged that “we’re not done by a long shot on this.”

Browne and Broadbelt said that the mass mailing rule was a severe curb on politicians’ ability to communicate with constituents, particularly because each of the 40 state senators now represents 750,000 people. They cited several instances where they thought the rule had been applied inequitably.

They said that after Calderon won a special election, he was prevented from telling voters of his victory when he sent out a mailing to inform residents of his district that there was a new site for the state senator’s office.

Additionally, Broadbelt said that the other three state senators who were plaintiffs in this case had been denied public funds for the following mailings:

Sen. Alfred E. Alquist (D-San Jose) wanted to use the mailings to notify voters that the Legislature had enacted a special flood-control plan; Sen. Lucy Killea (D-San Diego) wanted to inform female constituents about getting appointed to state commissions, and Sen. Gary K. Hart (D-Santa Barbara) wanted to mail a questionnaire to recycling centers in California.