Lawyers Finish Arguments on Proposition 208

Opposing lawyers in a lawsuit challenging voter-approved Proposition 208, which limits campaign fund-raising, concluded their arguments before a federal judge Wednesday on whether shutting down the flow of political money limits free speech.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton has said the court challenge raises many complex legal issues and that it could be months before he rules.

Karlton, who struck down a similar initiative in 1990, has said that in this case he is just a “way station on the way to the Supreme Court. But I want to get it right.”

The judge said the initiative is such a legal minefield that challenges might be argued in courtrooms “for as long as two to three years.”

With lawyers arguing that the constitutionality of Proposition 208 should be upheld, Karlton on Wednesday repeatedly raised questions about free speech, asking whether restricting campaign funds automatically limits a candidate’s ability to get his or her message out.

Lawyers arguing for Proposition 208 said 1st Amendment implications were carefully considered by drafters of the measure.

In one of many probing remarks, Karlton seized on a feature of the law designed to avoid the kind of constitutional challenge that resulted in his throwing out Proposition 73 in the middle of the 1990 election campaign.

Proposition 208 limits single contributions in legislative races to $250, and to $500 in contests for statewide office such as governor and attorney general.

Those amounts double if candidates agree to limit campaign spending--but Karlton said therein lies another possible constitutional problem: One candidate is allowed to spend as necessary to finance an effective campaign while the other --the one who agrees to spending limits--is not, the judge said.

That’s “troubling,” Karlton said, because it is akin to saying, “Thou shalt not speak above a certain level.”

Promoted as a measure that would erase the alleged corruptive influence of big money on state and local elected officials, Proposition 208 was approved by 57% of voters in November.

In addition to limiting contributions to candidates, it would ban fund-raising in nonelection years, prohibit lobbyists from making or arranging political donations, outlaw money transfers between candidates, and encourage voluntary spending limitations.

Arguing Wednesday on behalf of the initiative, Larry Woodlock, attorney for the state Fair Political Practices Commission, said corruption and the appearance of corruption have cast a pall over the national political landscape, a condition that the courts have acknowledged.

The public, he said, is aware of the “opportunity for abuse” and the “attempt by those with money to influence” laws and policy.

The cost of campaigns, particularly in California, has skyrocketed, putting more emphasis on fund-raising, Woodlock said, and the public’s response was Proposition 208.

But to the measure’s opponents, the initiative’s main flaw is their contention that it violates free speech.

“The critical thing in this case is there is such a dramatic change in what candidates can raise and therefore spend” that they cannot get their message out, said attorney Joseph Remcho, who is representing the state Democratic Party.

Remcho also asserted that the contribution limits of Proposition 208 are so low that candidates cannot afford to wage effective campaigns because television and radio time and mass mailings are so expensive.

Opponents also note that rich candidates are not hurt by Proposition 208’s restrictions. For example, Democrat Al Checchi, a wealthy candidate for governor, plans to fund his own campaign.

Also, independent groups not affiliated with candidates are not bound by the restrictions, opponents said.

Proposition 208 was challenged by the state Democratic and Republican parties, organized labor, abortion opponents and others. It was defended by the state Fair Political Practices Commission and Common Cause.