Court Asked to Revive Prop. 68’s Limits on Campaign Spending

As the 1994 election season gets under way, reformers are renewing their uphill fight to limit legislative campaign donations and award taxpayer funds to candidates who restrict their spending.

They want the California Supreme Court to resurrect and implement Proposition 68, a campaign reform initiative approved by the voters in 1988 that never took effect because a competing measure on the same ballot got more votes.

The contribution limits of that measure, Proposition 73, were struck down by federal courts in 1992, after which fund raising shot up by the tens of millions of dollars.

With no limits on the flow of huge special-interest contributions to Assembly and Senate candidates, supporters of political reform want to revive Proposition 68 in time for next year’s elections.

Sponsored by California Common Cause, Proposition 68 was designed to limit contributions to candidates for the Legislature. Those who voluntarily held down expenditures would be eligible for a first-ever taxpayer subsidy.

If the court agrees to revive Proposition 68, the measure’s restrictions would radically change the rules just as incumbents fine-tune their fund-raising machinery and challengers start their solicitations for money to run for office next year.

The court, which heard arguments on the issue in Sacramento last week, did not indicate how it will rule. But by their questions, three of the seven justices appeared to support the notion that some features of the initiative should be activated.

The case pits Common Cause, a citizens political watchdog organization, against the state and the California political Establishment, including the Democratic leaders of the Legislature and the Republican and Democratic parties.

The legal fight is being played out against a history of refusal by the Legislature and governors to enact substantial campaign financing reforms in spite of long-running Capitol corruption scandals and demands for change.

Opponents contend that Proposition 68 is a nullity because it lost to Proposition 73, which established different limitations on contributions and specifically outlawed public financing of political campaigns.

In a 1990 ruling, the state court ruled that although both passed, Proposition 73 must prevail as law because voters preferred it 58% to 53% over Proposition 68. In the fall of 1990 came the federal court decision striking down major chunks of Proposition 73 as unconstitutionally favorable to incumbents.

Common Cause argues that the need for contribution limits is as great now as it was five years ago.

“The voters wanted reform in June of 1988. They didn’t vote for just one but for two (money-limiting measures). Many voted for both,” says Ruth Holton, director of California Common Cause. “The message is even more important today than it was then.”

But opponents say there can be only one winner in a contest and that Proposition 68 cannot be resuscitated because it was never enacted. “A loser is still a loser,” Deputy Atty. Gen. Daniel Stone told the court.

Attorney Joe Remcho, who represents the two political parties and the legislative leaders, argued that in approving Proposition 73 by a bigger margin than Proposition 68, most voters made clear they wanted no public financing of election campaigns. He noted that the prohibition against public financing is a surviving remnant of Proposition 73.

“What matters is the one with the higher vote,” Remcho said.

But Justice Joyce Kennard told Remcho, “It seems clear that what the voters wanted was serious campaign reform.” At another point, she said, “To give effect to the voters’ intent, shouldn’t 68 be resurrected?”

Common Cause lawyer Bradley Phillips said in court that incumbent legislators and Remcho’s other clients in the political Establishment are the “major beneficiaries” of retaining the status quo.

“The voters’ intent is the most significant factor,” Phillips said. “Fifty-three percent said they wanted public funding if that is the way to get campaign reform.”

At the heart of Common Cause’s argument is the contention that powerful special interests who make big contributions to legislative candidates wield inordinate influence over the process.

Advocates of reform believe that infusing public dollars into election campaigns would help make candidates more responsive to citizens and much less dependent upon interest groups. Opponents of public financing say that taxpayer funds have no place in bankrolling politicians seeking office.

Under Proposition 68, contributions would be restricted to $1,000 to $5,000, depending on whether the donor was an individual, a political action committee, a business or some other organization. Fund raising in non-election years would be prohibited.

In order to qualify for public financing from a voluntary taxpayer check off, Assembly candidates would have to restrict their spending to $150,000 in the primary and to $225,000 in the general election.

Senate candidates would be required to limit spending to $250,000 and $350,000 in the primary and general elections, respectively. The contribution restrictions of Proposition 73 applied to all state and local candidates and did not restrict campaign spending.

Common Cause has reported that contributions to legislative campaigns dipped from $79.3 million in the 1988 election fund-raising cycle to $51.9 million in the two-year cycle ending in 1990, when Proposition 73’s limits were in place. Contributions soared to $71.8 million during the 1992 elections.

Holton, the organization’s director, estimates that if Proposition 68 spending limits had been applied to legislative candidates in 1992, contributions would have fallen to about $45 million.

The court is expected to rule by February.

On-Again, Off-Again Campaign Limits

Fund-raising totals for California legislative candidates had shown progressive increases in recent election years, then dropped sharply in 1990.

That was the first election cycle in which fund-raising limits were imposed under Proposition 73, passed by voters in late 1988.

By 1992, when the measure had been severely watered down by the courts, the totals were on the rise again. YEAR: CAMPAIGN FUND-RAISING TOTALS ‘83-84: $49.6 million ‘85-86: $60.1 million ‘87-88: $79.3 million ‘89-90: $51.9 million* ‘91-92: $71.8 million** * Fund raising shows effect of limits.

** Fund raising rebounds after limits were largely eliminated.