Battle Over Campaign Reform Goes to Court

Once, they were partners in a mission to overhaul California’s campaign finance laws and curb the influence of special interest contributions at the state Capitol.

Now, the two groups are increasingly bitter rivals, fighting for competing election finance reform initiatives on the Nov. 5, ballot.

In one corner is Common Cause and other groups that make up Californians for Political Reform, a coalition supporting Proposition 208, an initiative that sets a $250 contribution limit in legislative elections.

In the other is Californians Against Political Corruption, formed by the California Public Interest Research Group to push for Proposition 212, an initiative that imposes a $100 contribution limit for legislative contests.

On Friday, they will square off before Sacramento County Superior Court Judge James Ford, when backers of Proposition 208 will ask the court to take the competing political reform proposal off the fall ballot.

Advocates of Proposition 208 maintain that such a bold step is needed because Proposition 212 won a spot on the ballot under false pretenses. They say supporters of Proposition 212 failed to alert voters to provisions buried within the measure to repeal ethics laws enacted in the wake of an FBI undercover sting operation at the Capitol.

Tony Miller, treasurer of the Proposition 208 campaign and California’s former acting secretary of state, described the lawsuit as “an effort to save California’s ethics laws,” which in 1990 banned speaking fees and limited gifts and travel expenses for lawmakers.

In an interview, Miller blasted Proposition 212 as “the biggest attempted con job in the history of the initiative process.”

“How can gutting California’s tough ethics law end corruption or the perception of corruption?”

In response, CalPIRG’s lawyers describe the legal challenge to Proposition 212 as “a preemptive strike” by Proposition 208 advocates, who are seeking “to win in court what they apparently feel they cannot win at the ballot box.”

In a legal brief, CalPIRG’s attorneys play down the repeal of ethics restrictions as just one small part of their initiative. They say it did not need to be singled out in the petition’s title and summary prepared by Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren’s office.

Moreover, Wendy Wendlandt, Proposition 212’s campaign coordinator, said the ethics regulations have been ineffective in curbing the influence of special interests in Sacramento.

Now, the state has no restrictions on election spending and raising money--though there are strict rules for reporting campaign finances.

The two ballot measures attempt to reduce the role of big contributors but take different tacks to overhaul the system.

Proposition 212 bans candidates from receiving more than 25% of their donations from outside their legislative districts and, in a direct challenge to court rulings, establishes mandatory spending limits--ranging from $75,000 for Assembly candidates in primary contests to $5 million for gubernatorial hopefuls.

Proposition 208 caps contributions in statewide races at $500. But committees of small contributors can donate twice the limit. Plus, the limits are doubled for candidates who agree to limit spending.

Backers of both measures say this isn’t what they had in mind when they began after the 1994 elections to hammer out a single compromise reform initiative. They had hoped to avoid the kind of divisive struggle that occurred in 1988 when two competing campaign reform measures were approved by voters.

In that year, Common Cause, a political reform organization, preferred Proposition 68, but it was invalidated by the California Supreme Court because rival Proposition 73 received more votes.

The Supreme Court last year ruled that Proposition 73’s limits on political contributions were irreparably flawed and should not be enforced except in a few instances. After the ruling, calls for reform were issued.

Even before the ruling, reformers were mapping strategy for the 1996 election. Common Cause and CalPIRG were joined by the League of Women Voters, American Assn. of Retired Persons and United We Stand.

Miller said the negotiations fell apart over CalPIRG’s insistence on very low contribution limits and mandatory spending limits.

He said CalPIRG, a Ralph Nader-initiated consumer group, wanted to “push the envelope” to directly challenge a 20-year-old U.S. Supreme Court decision that invalidated mandatory spending caps in campaigns.

Wendlandt of the Proposition 212 campaign acknowledged that the spending limits are a clear challenge to the court, but said they are not a core part of the initiative, which, she noted, is backed by the California Teachers Assn., a major contributor to campaigns.

She said the split was prompted by the insistence of Common Cause and the League of Women Voters to allow variable contribution limits for candidates who agree on voluntary spending curbs.

The latest round in the flap began last month after both measures qualified for the ballot.

Miller said Common Cause received a call from a state Fair Political Practices Commission official who told them that Proposition 212 would nullify parts of the state’s political ethics law.

Under Proposition 212, local officials could again receive speaking fees but state lawmakers would be barred from honorariums, though there would be no penalty for taking them, according to Common Cause. Restrictions on gifts and travel expenses would also be lifted for elected officials.

Wendlandt described these ethics provisions in current law as “window dressing,” saying that a ban on speaking fees and limits on gifts and travel have failed to diminish the grip special interests hold over elected officials.

“The gifts continue to flow,” she said, adding that her group plans to promote a tougher ethics initiative for the 1998 ballot.

But a study by Proposition 208 supporters showed that gifts to lawmakers have dropped 77% from $373,600 in 1989 to $86,000 in 1995. Speaking fees went from $285,000 in 1989 to nothing.

Ruth Holton, executive director of California Common Cause, said this drop “‘demonstrates how effective the ethics law is [in] minimizing the impact of special interests.