Campaign Reform on Ballots of 6 States

When conscientious California voters wade through the lengthy list of state initiatives facing them in Tuesday’s election, they will hardly be alone--voters in dozens of other states and the District of Columbia will be deciding scores of other measures on issues ranging from gambling to the environment.

One of the year’s hottest topics is campaign-finance reform, an issue of growing interest in the wake of the unfolding controversy over the Democratic National Committee’s acceptance of questionable contributions linked to foreign interests.

In addition to two such initiatives in California, there are measures in five other states--Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Montana and Nevada--to reform campaign-finance laws. For the most part, they would accomplish this by limiting the amount of contributions to and the spending allowed for political campaigns.

The two measures in California--Propositions 208 and 212--are among the most sweeping of the proposals, with both aiming to dramatically reduce the cost of seeking office in the Golden State.

Under Proposition 212, contributions would be limited to $200 for statewide offices and $100 for other races. Also, mandatory campaign spending caps would be set.

Under Proposition 208, the limits would be $500 for statewide races and $250 for other campaigns, though those contributions could be doubled if candidates accept the voluntary spending limits the measure proposes.

By contrast, a ballot measure in Nevada would limit total contributions by a person to any state or local candidate to $5,000 for primaries and $5,000 for general elections.

On other fronts, a particularly fierce contest is occurring in Florida, where voters will decide whether to impose a 1-cent-per-pound tax on sugar growers to help restore the Everglades. About $27 million has been spent by both sides, making it the costliest campaign in state history.

“Initiatives are big business now,” said Jim Shultz, founder of the Democracy Center, a San Francisco-based nonprofit organization that seeks to promote civic participation around the world. “The money is extraordinary.”

Indeed, observers estimate a combined $200 million may be spent by the proponents and opponents of the various measures this year--up from $140 million two years ago.

Initiatives to legalize gambling helped fuel that spending spree in 1994, and such is the case this year. Two especially expensive campaigns are taking place in Michigan, where voters will be asked whether to allow casinos in Detroit, and in Ohio, where voters will decide whether to authorize gambling on riverboats on Lake Erie and the Ohio River.

*

In Missouri, a 1994 measure similar to the one now on the ballot in Ohio passed after pro-gambling interests spent more than $10 million to promote it, outspending their opposition by nearly 100 to 1.

This year, anti-gambling forces hope for greater success, said Bernie Horn, political director of the Washington-based National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling.

“Prior to 1994, we got clobbered,” Horn said. But now, armed with recent academic studies that found gambling to have detrimental effects on society and local communities, Horn’s side is waging better-financed, more aggressive efforts. Moreover, improving economic conditions have eased the pressure on many state and local governments to find new revenue sources short of raising taxes.

Still, Horn said, “polls are very close in every state that has a gambling referendum.”

Those other states are Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana and Washington.

Sixteen initiatives in 11 states deal with environmental and wildlife issues.

Measures in Idaho, Michigan and Washington would limit bear hunting, particularly involving the use of dogs and bait. An initiative in Alaska would ban hunters from tracking wolves and other predators by airplane and then landing and shooting them the same day. A measure in Oregon would repeal a 1994 initiative that placed limits on bear and cougar hunting.

In Idaho, an initiative would nullify an agreement between that state and the federal government to store radioactive waste; it also would limit the authority of state officials to enter into similar pacts in the future.

In Colorado, voters are being asked to end property tax exemptions for churches and nonprofit organizations.