Most Prop. 73 Curbs on Election Spending Voided

The California Supreme Court, ending a divisive struggle over a 1988 campaign reform initiative, decided Thursday that Proposition 73’s limits on political contributions were irreparably flawed and should not be enforced, except in rare instances.

The fractured decision disappointed election reformers who had persuaded the court last year to consider salvaging the beleaguered measure so limits on state and local campaign contributions could take effect. Many called for immediate reform in the wake of the court ruling.

“I believe it is a direct affront to the people of California,” declared Secretary of State Bill Jones after the decision. “. . . The court’s action is sending the message that the people’s will does not matter. They are wrong!”

Jones said Proposition 73 worked when it was briefly implemented in 1989 and most of 1990. During that time, campaign costs dropped 30%, he said.

California Common Cause predicted that it would get an even more sweeping campaign financing initiative passed in 1996, but complained that no caps will be in place for state elections next year.

“All these years, and there is nothing,” lamented the watchdog group’s executive director, Ruth Holton.

Four of the seven justices decided to let Proposition 73 die rather than change it to remove constitutional objections. Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, who wrote the lead opinion, said the necessary revisions would have forced the court to guess what voters really wanted.

“To save the statute, we would have to rewrite it substantially,” Lucas said.

The case so divided the court that five justices felt compelled to write separate opinions. The three dissenters wanted to revive the initiative, arguing in a joint opinion that modifications could easily be made to overcome objections raised by a federal court in 1992.

“The relatively minor constitutional flaw . . . should not result in the complete invalidation of one of the most important voter-approved election reforms in recent years,” wrote Justice Marvin Baxter, joined by justices Armand Arabian and Ronald M. George.

Proposition 73 was one of two competing reform measures passed in 1988. Common Cause, a political reform organization, preferred the other measure, but the Supreme Court invalidated it because Proposition 73 received more votes.

Activists then rallied behind Proposition 73, which imposed $1,000 to $5,000 annual caps on political contributions. A federal court, however, struck down the caps as unconstitutional.

The federal court reasoned that the limits favored incumbents because they could amass war chests over time, whereas challengers start raising money only during an election year.

Baxter suggested reviving the measure by revising the initiative’s language to apply to an election cycle instead of a fiscal year. For example, a $1,000 cap for a fiscal year would become a $4,000 limit for a candidate seeking a four-year office.

Reform advocates had advised the court to keep Proposition 73’s dollar caps in place but apply them to primary and general elections instead of fiscal years. Some justices pointed to the differing suggestions as evidence that they had no clear direction from voters.

“This court, in my view, has no grounds on which to presume [voters] cared only that limits be imposed, whatever the limits might be,” wrote Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar in a concurring opinion.

After years of battering by courts, only a skeleton of Proposition 73 remains intact. Even after Thursday’s ruling, a limit on mass mailings by local and state officeholders stands, as does a $2,000 contribution cap for special elections, such as a vote to fill a vacancy in mid-term.

Cities are free to pass laws more restrictive than the state’s, but most cities do not have contribution limits, said Ravi Mehta, chairman of the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

Los Angeles, however, is an exception. “Los Angeles, in fact, has a good, comprehensive public financing system in place,” Holton said.

Mehta said the Legislature should pass urgency legislation to put campaign reform into law.

“My hope is the Legislature will do something immediately in light of this court decision,” said the commission chairman. “They know that their constituents are desperately crying out for campaign finance reform in California.”

Joining the court majority, Justice Joyce Kennard opposed revisions on the grounds that the federal court had already declared the provisions unconstitutional, and Justice Stanley Mosk said courts are not authorized to rewrite initiatives.

“It’s a pretty pathetic state that voters would vote for two things and end up with nothing,” complained Frederic D. Woocher, a Santa Monica attorney who represented Common Cause in the case.

State Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) praised the ruling. Lockyer complained that the contribution limits would have favored wealthy candidates. The U.S. Supreme Court has prohibited limitations on how much of their own money candidates may spend.

“Proposition 73 was unfair and dangerously tilted toward wealthy extremists,” Lockyer said.