TINCUP Proves That Reforms Are Possible

Money and politics have become, regrettably, synonymous due in large part to the recent spate of campaign fund-raising scandals and revelations. So pervasive is the association that Jesse Unruh’s famous adage that “Money is the mother’s milk of politics” now seems quaint rather than cynical. By the time the Nov. 3 election has come and gone, the amount of money raised and spent in campaigns will have hit new record highs. In spite of public support, efforts at reducing the influence of money in the political process, especially the inordinate amount of special interest money, generally have not been successful. Is there any cause for hope?

Politics mirror societies’ values, habits and fads. In today’s America, wealth and celebrity status have attained the currency by which all else is to be measured and made to matter less. Can there be any surprise that campaigns to elect public officials and the legislative process reflect the importance placed on wealth and status? Thus, to rid the political process of the undue influence of money necessitates nothing less than a shift of cultural values, a prospect my newborn son will hopefully witness.

This sobering thought does not demand hibernation or assure futility. The history of America is not a story of acquiescence, it is not a story of might over right, and it is not a story of complacency in the face of corruption. The face of corruption wrought by overzealous fund-raising is witnessed in the persons of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Until Monica Lewinsky introduced sex into the story line, the past 20 months had been a tale of horror of how our “leaders” traded on their public office and contorted public policy for the sole purpose of raising money to wage political war. Clinton’s and Gingrich’s ascendancy to the leadership of their respective parties appears to be reward for their willingness and ability to push the envelope of propriety in fund-raising. Such shenanigans have led much of the public to understand that the endless, shameful bustle for money demeans the high offices these men hold.

Despite the scandals and resulting voters’ dissatisfaction, reforming the current system has been elusive. Removing money from politics has the same ease and likelihood as eliminating sex from dating. The efforts in Congress to diminish special interest money have been successfully thwarted by House Speaker Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Armey. The benefits from the enactment of California’s campaign reform initiative Proposition 208 have been dashed temporarily by a lower court judge. The case is on appeal.

The lack of federal reform means that the race between Rep. Loretta Sanchez and Robert K. Dornan will generate not just hyperbole and sound bites, but hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign spending. Without Proposition 208 in effect, California just set a record for the most money spent in a gubernatorial primary. This is consistent with trends that show double-digit growth in campaign spending each election cycle. This translates into excessive spending for open legislative races (Democrat Mike Matsuda vs. Republican Ken Maddox in the 68th Assembly District) and for competitive legislative races (Republican Jim Morrissey vs. Democrat Lou Correa in the 69th Assembly District). Last time around, Morrissey and Correa together raised more than $1 million.

Unlike the state, Orange County does have an effective campaign contribution ordinance (TINCUP). Orange County has not seen the enormous increases in campaign fund raising and spending that has plagued the rest of the country. The supervisorial race between Cynthia P. Coad and Lou Lopez will generate less spending than the Matsuda-Maddox race, even though the 4th Supervisorial District contains more voters than the 68th Assembly District. The difference is that contributors to the supervisorial race have a $1,000 limit, while there is no limit of what a contributor can give to Matsuda or Maddox.

Orange County’s distinction of being ahead of the campaign finance curve did not result from enlightenment. At the time of TINCUP’s enactment, Orange County was, not unlike Washington today, rife with political scandal; several politicians had been indicted and imprisoned. Shirley Grindle and others effectively channeled public dismay into the reform. Importantly, the leaders of TINCUP had the wisdom to solve only the undue influence of special interests, and not try to eliminate money from politics. The result is a workable, credible and effective solution. It’s a shame more Orange County cities have not adopted a TINCUP-based ordinance.

Orange County thus has something to offer California and the rest of America other than beaches and bio-tech: a viable solution to reduce the undue influence of special interests. The more important lesson to be learned from Orange County’s campaign finance reform is that reform alone is not a panacea. It neither ensures competitive, informative races nor quality candidates. A lack of both will be in full display in October.