Campaign Reform Law Challenged : Politics: A lawsuit filed by the wife of attorney-activist Dana W. Reed seeks to overturn Measure T’s contribution limit.

A political campaign reform measure that was overwhelmingly approved by Orange County voters in 1992 is being challenged in federal court because it prohibits spouses from making separate contributions beyond the $1,000 cap.

The lawsuit challenging the campaign finance law known as Measure T was filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on April 26 by Debra L. Reed, wife of attorney and political activist Dana W. Reed, against Orange County and Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi.

The lawsuit alleges that Measure T is unconstitutional because it violates Debra Reed’s rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association by preventing her from making a campaign contribution to a candidate who already has received the $1,000 limit from Dana Reed.

Political activists who supported the campaign reform law said Monday that they believe it will be upheld in court.

In what was considered a huge victory at the ballot box for political reformists, Orange County voters in November, 1992, approved Measure T, which placed a first-ever cap on contributions to candidates for the Board of Supervisors and other county offices, such as sheriff and district attorney.

Under the ordinance, candidates are banned from taking more than $1,000 from any single source during an election cycle, generally four years.

While the lawsuit does not dispute the $1,000 limit, it takes issue with the provision requiring that contributions by a husband and wife “be aggregated unless the contribution comes exclusively from a spouse’s separate property.”

The question over separate contributions from spouses has clouded the ordinance since its approval, and both sides consider the lawsuit a test case designed to clear up the issue once and for all.

“There has been the continuing question as to the validity of that section, so (the filing of the lawsuit) didn’t surprise me,” Capizzi said Monday.

Reed, who has criticized the ordinance since its inception, sent a letter to Capizzi several months ago asking him not to enforce the section of the law pertaining to spouses. But since the request was rejected, Reed and his wife decided to challenge its validity, their attorney, Bradley W. Hertz, said Monday.

Bill Mitchell, chairman of Orange County Common Cause, said of Dana Reed’s pursuit of the issue: “God bless him. Let him have at it . . . Dana Reed and his wife and his law firm have every right to test this provision in the courts.”

Shirley L. Grindle, a longtime advocate of campaign finance reform in Orange County, said the law is fair because husbands and wives generally draw their money from the same commingled source.

“The state aggregates other contributions that come from the same pots of money--for instance a man and his business, or a business and its subsidiaries,” Grindle said, adding that if that provision of the law is struck down, “husbands and wives are going to be leaned on (by politicians) twice, and ($2,000) is a hefty sum.”

According to the lawsuit, Dana Reed, through a business partnership, contributed $1,000 to Supervisor William G. Steiner, who is running for reelection in the June 7 primary. Then, last month, Debra Reed attempted to contribute $100, but her donation was returned by Steiner’s treasurer because it violated the county ordinance.

The law “goes beyond simply restricting (Debra Reed’s) First Amendment rights of free speech and free association,” the lawsuit states. “The ordinance acts as a complete ban on her . . . rights in that she has been deprived of the opportunity to make contributions to the candidate of her choice.”

Hertz said the law effectively creates two “half people instead of two individual people. It limits the husband and wife to having only the contribution rights of one person.”

The lawsuit seeks a temporary injunction that would allow Debra Reed to make a campaign contribution prior to the June 7 election, Hertz said.