Suits Against Prop. 208 Could Cloud Campaign ’98

When last we checked, back around Christmastime, the pols in Sacramento were getting the goods while the getting was good. It was jingle all the way to the bank with the last of the unlimited election campaign contributions that could be raked in before Proposition 208 went into effect Jan. 1. Statewide, public officials and prospective candidates collected more than $3 million between Nov. 5 and Jan. 1, with some individual contributions running as high as $200,000.

Now, blessedly, the campaign cash registers are silent. There is a blackout on fund-raising until June. The Sacramento restaurants that are popular settings for fund-raising events are hurting but will be bustling again by summer.

Even so, fund-raising in Sacramento will never be the same so long as the constitutionality of Proposition 208 is upheld. The new law, approved by 61% of the voters, prohibits registered lobbyists from making campaign contributions. And individual gifts are limited to $250 to $1,000, depending on the office and the ground rules for each election (the limit is $1,000 in statewide races in which candidates have agreed to voluntary spending limits).

But Proposition 208 is under court challenge in a bevy of suits brought by big fund-raising committees and the California Republican and Democratic parties. The parties are questioning the constitutionality of one provision that prevents them from giving a candidate more than 25% of the voluntary spending limit for that race. Because sponsors of 208, including Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, had expected the initiative to be tested in court, they attempted to make the detailed measure as legally foolproof as possible. But former acting California Secretary of State Tony Miller, one of the leaders of the 208 campaign, says the suit brought by the political parties may prevail because of a precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court decision issued after the November election. That should not jeopardize the other provisions of the measure, however.

The reform coalition has been forced to go into court itself in an attempt to nullify a ruling by the state Fair Political Practices Commission allowing political action committees to exceed their $500-per-contributor limit if the excess money was spent for administrative purposes. That’s the sort of loophole that Proposition 208 sought to close.

It will take months to settle these and any other legal issues that may arise. And two other major political reforms of recent years, officeholder term limits and the open primary, are also being tested in the courts. A ruling on the term limits law, approved by the voters in 1990, could come at any time.

The uncertainty created by these court cases casts a shadow over the 1998 state elections. The judiciary must work at its own pace, but it is also in the public interest to have firm campaign rules in place at the start of the election cycle. Expeditious resolution of these issues would help to keep the next campaign from being any more chaotic than usual.