The Price of ‘Access’

The only thing more scandalous than the lack of adequate federal controls over campaign fund-raising is California’s almost total absence of restrictions on political giving. Federal law at least limits individual contributions to a candidate to $1,000 per election. California has no limit. And federal law bars contributions by labor unions and corporations, except through political action committees. Again, California has no such restriction.

Thus it was possible for 333 wealthy individuals, corporations and political action committees to donate at least $100,000 each during the 1998 state election campaign, The Times’ Dan Morain reported recently. Forty-eight gave $1 million or more. At the top of the list was a band of Mission Indians that contributed $29 million to candidates and a gambling industry ballot initiative. The Philip Morris Cos. gave $22 million and the California Teachers Assn. $21 million.

Contributions by individuals ranged up to $3.35 million. They included $2.58 million by the entertainment industry’s Reiner families to support Proposition 10, Rob Reiner’s ballot initiative that raised tobacco taxes to pay for a statewide program to aid children. Gov. Gray Davis subsequently appointed Reiner chairman of the statewide commission. Some argue that as long as we know who gave, we know who bought access, which is better than trying to limit what people should do with their money.

Contributions totaled a record $500 million during the 1998 election seasons, including $118 million in the race for governor. Astoundingly, the big givers still insist they receive no favors for their contributions. All they get is “access” to the elected officials, they say. Or as one labor union official put it, “What we wanted was to be invited to the table.”

But being assured access or being at the table certainly is a favor that is not afforded to everyone. Some big donors undoubtedly give solely because they share the political philosophy of the recipient. But most clearly wish to wield power in the state capital, and money is at minimum the door-opener.

The lack of limits does not mean Californians are content with the situation. Twice in recent years they have passed ballot initiatives putting tough limits on fund-raising. Both initiatives were ruled unconstitutional by federal courts. The case against Proposition 208, passed in 1996, is awaiting a decision from the federal appeals court.

If the courts refuse to revive the proposition, civic action groups are likely to try to pass a new reform measure through the initiative process--not the best way to make laws. Sen. Debra Bowen (D-Marina del Rey) is sponsoring a comprehensive reform measure (SB 1169), which has passed its first committee test. But as in Congress, legislators in Sacramento are reluctant to curb their own ability to raise campaign cash. Alas, political survival seems to be a higher priority than good government.