Yes on Proposition 208, No on the Flawed 212

Few voters have to be reminded of the dominating and distorting role that money has come to play in the nation’s elections. As the apt title of an illuminating essay by Prof. Ronald Dworkin in the New York Review of Books puts it, money has become “The Curse of American Politics.”

Presidential campaigns are the most visibly affected--this year’s contest for the White House is expected to consume well over half a billion dollars--but virtually no electoral race at any level is free from the curse. Campaign finance reform has become one of the great unmentioned issues of the 1996 national election. But two measures on the Nov. 5 ballot, Propositions 208 and 212, at least offer Californians the chance to impose limits on campaign contributions to candidates for local, legislative and statewide offices.

Proposition 208 is clearly the preferred choice. It puts a ceiling of $250 on individual, business, labor and political action group contributions to candidates for legislative and local office, with a $500 ceiling for candidates for statewide office. Proposition 212 sets a ceiling on individuals’ contributions at $100 for local candidates and at $200 for state office seekers, while banning contributions by businesses, labor organizations and nonprofit corporations. But Proposition 212 allows a “citizen contribution committee” of 25 or more members to give $10,000 to legislative and local candidates and $20,000 to statewide office seekers. This sanction for bundling contributions clearly assures that the donating group--and the special interest it represents--would get far more sympathetic attention from a candidate than would individuals permitted to contribute no more than a fraction of that total.

Both propositions would prohibit campaign contributions by lobbyists and transfers of campaign funds from one candidate to another. Proposition 212, however, imposes mandatory spending limits on candidates. Proposition 208 sets out incentives; if the candidate accepts voluntary limits on his or her campaign spending, individual contribution to the campaign may be doubled.

Twenty years ago the U.S. Supreme Court, in Buckley vs. Valeo, ruled that mandatory spending caps are a violation of the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. Other provisions of 212 similarly run up against recent federal court rulings that have held certain spending and contribution restrictions to be unconstitutional. There is a very good chance that much of 212 would be thrown out by the courts on these grounds.

One significant provision by itself is enough, we believe, to convince voters to reject this measure. Proposition 212 repeals the ban on speaking fees for elected officials and candidates for office, and it lifts the limits on cash gifts, free travel and the like for officials, candidates and key public employees. What this means is that public officials and candidates, including members of boards and commissions, would be legally allowed to accept gifts of any value.

All officeholders and candidates except elected state officials, covered by a different section of law, could accept speaking fees in any amount from any source. The elimination of restrictions on honorariums, gifts and travel would gut the 1990 Ethics in Government Act, which was written in the wake of political scandals in Sacramento. It would again effectively legalize favor-buying and favor-selling. There is simply no justification for this repeal. There is no defensible argument to support the notion that public officials have a right to solicit and accept money and presents from people who expect, and usually get, something of value in return. The word for that is corruption.

Proposition 208 keeps the ban on gifts and honorariums. It sets reasonable limits on individual campaign contributions. It is far more likely than 212 to pass the test of constitutionality.

It’s important for 208 to pass, and for the fatally flawed 212 to be defeated. We urge a yes vote on Proposition 208, a no vote on 212.