Supporters Hope Campaign Finance Reform Spreads

Backers of campaign finance reform say that California voters sent “a clarion call heard around the nation” when they overwhelmingly approved Proposition 208, which imposes limits on the size of state and local campaign contributions.

The measure, which passed by a 61% to 39% margin, is a clear sign of “the very high level of public disgust with the present system,” which places no limit on individual and special interest contributions, said Ruth Holton, executive director of California Common Cause.

Meanwhile, Los Angeles County voters for the first time imposed contribution limits on those running for supervisor and other countywide offices.

Reformers hope that--like the movement for term limits for elected officials--campaign finance reform will spread across the country now that California has acted.

Holton and other reformers say that the initiative was helped by the presidential race, in which all three of the top candidates, Republican, Democrat and Reform, called for federal campaign reforms in the wake of allegations that the Democratic National Committee may have received huge contributions from foreign interests.

Voters in several other states, including Colorado, Montana, Arkansas and Maine--also approved various limitations on campaign contributions Tuesday.

But even before the final tally on Proposition 208 has been declared official, opponents of contribution limits were preparing to go to court to attempt to have it struck down as an unconstitutional infringement of free speech.

“There will be a legal challenge,” said San Francisco attorney Joseph Remcho, who represented Democratic leaders several years ago in their successful attempt to strike down a voter-approved campaign reform measure. Remcho declined to identify his clients, but said that in the next three to four weeks he expected a bipartisan attack on the legality of the measure.

Certain to be litigated, Remcho said, are the measure’s ban on campaign fund-raising more than 12 months before an election, and a $250 contribution limit in legislative races and $500 in statewide races, including governor and attorney general.

The size of permitted contributions doubles if the candidate agrees to voluntary campaign spending limits--for example, $8 million in the general election for governor.

Federal courts have rejected very low contribution limits as being unconstitutional, Remcho said. He added that it has never been shown that “a dollar received 11 months before an election is any more or less corrupting than a dollar received 13 months before an election.”

The initiative and its contribution limits are scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1. Finance reform backers are predicting a scramble for funds for the rest of this year as candidates try to build up war chests in advance of the restrictions.

Two statewide candidates--Republican Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren and Democratic Lt. Gov. Gray Davis--already have amassed sizable sums in preparation for possible runs for governor in 1998. Lungren expects to have $1.8 million by the end of the year; Davis has $3.3 million. The new contribution limits, if upheld by the courts, could make it much more difficult for their rivals to mount effective campaigns against them.

“Anyone who is looking at running in 1998 and who has not accumulated a substantial mass of resources by the end of this year could be seriously out of luck unless they can self-finance,” said Davis’ chief of staff Garry South.

While approving Proposition 208, voters narrowly rejected a rival campaign reform measure on Tuesday’s ballot. Proposition 212 would have placed even more restrictions on campaign spending and contributions than its successful rival, but it was attacked repeatedly as being unconstitutional. It was also characterized as anti-business--and favoring unions--by a coalition that ran an advertising campaign against several initiatives on the fall ballot.

Backers of Proposition 212 say they are encouraged by the success of the other campaign reform measure and will continue their efforts to seek changes throughout the country, including an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow limits on campaign spending at every political level.

“You might see us back on the ballot in 1998” with a measure calling for such a constitutional amendment, said Wendy Wendlandt, associate director of the California Public Interest Research Group, the chief sponsor of Proposition 212.

In Los Angeles County, 75% of voters approved campaign contributions limits in Measure B, which are somewhat similar to those imposed statewide by Proposition 208.

Passage of the reforms “is long overdue,” said Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, the driving force behind the measure. “I’m very pleased.”

The measure limits contributions to candidates for county offices, including supervisor, sheriff, district attorney and assessor. It sets a $200 limit on contributions--but the amount rises to $1,000 for candidates who voluntarily agree to limit the amount they will spend in their races.

The limit could rise even more if a wealthy candidate puts substantial amounts of his or her own money into a race.

Even with the exceptions, Yaroslavsky said that the reform will “limit special interest influence over county government.”

The overwhelming majority of funds raised by candidates for county office comes from special interests, including county unions, developers, law firms, subway contractors and businesses with an economic interest in the decisions of supervisors.