Time Is Now, Enact Contribution Cap : $1,000-Per-Election Limit Would Dilute PAC Power

Campaign reforms proposed last week are the next logical step to control big-money influence on county politics. They would, among other things, place a $1,000-per-election limit on contributions to candidates for Orange County offices. Several members of the Board of Supervisors already have indicated that, barring unforeseen legal problems, they would have no qualms about putting the reforms on next June’s ballot. That would give voters a welcome opportunity to tighten and simplify current law.

A reform package was presented to the board by community activist Shirley Grindle, the person most responsible for the campaign law now in effect. Amendments would bring the law up to date in several important ways, and since the supervisors have in the past shown themselves unwilling to take initiative, this may be the best the county can hope to get for now.

The present law--dubbed TINCUP, an acronym for “Time Is Now, Clean Up Politics”--affects only county supervisors, who are prohibited from voting on projects that concern donors who have contributed more than $1,944 during a four-year period. (The limit increases yearly with inflation.) Since most donors want board members to be free to vote on their projects, TINCUP over the last 13 years has successfully reduced the amount of money flowing to supervisors’ campaign coffers. That has helped restore public confidence in the board, which had been racked by political scandals in the 1970s.

But, over time, TINCUP has shown itself to have some shortcomings. For one thing, it is an administrative nightmare, because reporting is tied to four-year time periods and not to specific election dates. Also, supervisors have a reasonable complaint that current law unfairly forces them to abstain from voting when they raise money over the TINCUP limit while seeking a state or federal office.

But the primary difficulty with TINCUP is that it fails to place limits on political action committees, which have proliferated in the past decade. What’s more, any donor who wants to get around TINCUP can simply form a PAC. That has thwarted the original intent of the law, which was to minimize the impact of developers, lobbyists or other contributors who want to influence the political process.

After consulting with the California Commission on Campaign Financing and other experts on campaign law, Grindle and a citizens’ committee devised amendments that would limit contributions of both individuals and PACs to $1,000 per election. An additional $1,000 donation would be allowed in the case of a runoff. After every election, the slate would be swept clean. The law would also be expanded to apply to all candidates for county offices, including the sheriff, county clerk and district attorney.

In addition, reporting procedures would be tightened. For example, candidates could not accept contributions until the name, address, occupation and employer of the donor were disclosed. Too often it is difficult to trace the source of a contribution because too little is known about the donor. Transfers of campaign funds from one candidate to another would be prohibited.

There are some things the reform package would not address. For example, it won’t help level the playing field between incumbents, who have much greater access to contributors, and their challengers.

Still, many other problem areas would be eased by the reforms. The supervisors should support them and insure a full discussion before the public votes.