An Important Job Falls to the Voters

Sometimes you want to holler back at the initiative sponsors: Just get out of my face. And you want to yell at the Legislature and governor: Do your job so we won’t have all this stuff.

Attorney fees, health care, securities fraud. . . . Who has a clue? Few voters have the background, the time or the desire to delve into these complexities.

That’s why we send people to Sacramento, to make those decisions. But once here, the politicians can’t focus full-time on public policy because they’re too busy hitting up special interests for money to get reelected. For legislative leaders, it’s all about reclaiming or perpetuating power.

So again this fall we have initiatives on the ballot to reform campaign financing and reduce money’s influence on politics.

Propositions 208 and 212, sponsored by rival reform groups, are about as confusing as ballot measures can get. How’s an ordinary citizen supposed to know what’s a fair contribution limit for an Assembly candidate? The politicians are the experts. Let them decide.

But they won’t because they’re too worried a rival will gain some advantage. It’s the survival instinct.

“It’s not just in California, it’s all across the country,” notes Robert Stern, a Los Angeles-based political reformer. “It’s almost impossible for legislators to pass campaign finance reform. They’ve won under the present system and they don’t want to change it. That’s the way people are.”

*

You would hope that the private groups pushing for reform could agree on a single proposal to offer voters. As with politicians, however, they often have conflicting agendas.

Thus Proposition 208 is sponsored by Common Cause, joined by a diverse coalition ranging from the League of Women Voters to the American Assn. of Retired Persons. Proposition 212 is a product of the California Public Interest Research Group (CalPIRG) and is supported by, among others, the California Teachers Assn. and the California Labor Federation.

Basically, 208 is the more modest--also realistic--of the two and was drafted to be court friendly. It contains low contribution limits ($250 in a legislative race) that double if the candidate voluntarily accepts low spending limits ($200,000 in an Assembly general election).

The more radical proposal is 212. It would shake the Capitol like a 6.6 quake if it survived court tests. But that’s a big “if.”

212’s mandatory spending limits ($150,000 Assembly) are considered blatantly unconstitutional by experts. Many also question whether its very low, $100 contribution limit can survive a court challenge. Unions like 212, however, because “citizen committees” could bundle their members’ pocket change into $10,000 contributions.

Also under 212, legislative candidates would be required to raise at least 75% of their money from district residents. If upheld by courts, this could significantly weaken the clout of Sacramento lobbyists.

Common Cause and CalPIRG negotiated for a year in an effort to unite behind one proposal. Each accuses the other of walking away. Common Cause says it wanted instant reform rather than years of court stays and skirmishes. CalPIRG acknowledges that it would like the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider a 1976 decision that forbade mandatory spending limits. The court ruled that limits must be voluntary and include an incentive, such as partial public financing of campaigns.

Neither initiative contains public financing because both groups agreed that would give opponents too easy a target.

*

Voters have three options, it seems.

They can reject both these measures, giving the Legislature and governor yet another opportunity to act. This also might inspire the reformers to unite behind a single plan, making it easier next time for voters.

Or, voters simply could approve both initiatives and leave the sorting of details to judges. But we’ve been through this “pass ‘em both” bit before and have little to show for it. In 1988, voters approved two reform measures. Courts killed the one with the fewer votes and gutted the other on basically a technicality.

I agree with a major lobbyist who told me: “I’m to the point where I just think something has to be done. Government is becoming more corrupted day after day by [politicians] raising more and more money. It scares me where we’re going to be in five years.”

So the best option seems to be for voters to choose between the two proposals available. Vote for one, as we do candidates. The new law can be improved later.

If the governor and legislators don’t like the outcome, well, they’ve had their chance many times and have failed to perform. Now we can stick an initiative in their face.