Prop. 25: Flawed Campaign Reform

California is one of only six states with no limits on election campaign fund-raising and spending. Single donations of $1 million are possible in state races. Contributions of $100,000 or more are not unusual. It’s a deplorable situation that at best invites suspicion of the political system and at worst provides fertile ground for corruption. Unfortunately, Proposition 25, a complex campaign finance reform initiative on the March 7 ballot, is not the answer at this time. The Times recommends a no vote.

Proposition 25 was written and qualified for the ballot by Ron Unz, the Silicon Valley entrepreneur who sponsored a 1998 initiative striking down bilingual education. He was joined by Democrat Tony Miller, the former acting secretary of state and author of Proposition 208, a reform measure approved by voters in 1996 but subsequently struck down on preliminary review by a federal district judge.

Proposition 25 has some good features. These include limits on individual contributions, a ban on corporate giving and requirements for timely disclosure of contributions on the Internet. But it also has some flawed provisions, particularly an untested method of public financing of campaigns with the use of media credits to pay for radio and television commercials. And there is considerable controversy over the size of allowable contributions and the role of “soft money,” raised and spent by political parties.

Perhaps the overriding problem is that the legal foundation for reform is changing in unpredictable ways. In fact, the liberal contribution limits in Proposition 25--$5,000 a person to candidates for statewide office and $3,000 for legislative and local contests--were set so high to avoid court nullification on free speech grounds. But to the surprise of many, the U.S. Supreme Court this winter upheld a $1,000 spending limit in Missouri and said that even smaller caps might be acceptable.

The court’s ruling breathed new life into Proposition 208, with its $500 contribution limit. Proposition 208 now will undergo a full trial later this year. And the Supreme Court hinted that it might abandon its 1976 prohibition on spending limits, the lack of which allows wealthy candidates to spend as much of their own money as they want on their own campaigns. In another recent development, several states including Arizona and Maine have begun experiments with public financing, along with spending limits. They should be studied.

Another strike against Proposition 25 is that it fails to unite major California reform groups. Common Cause is for it and the League of Women Voters against. Twice before, separate groups sponsored competing reform plans. Ultimately, reformers need to come together behind a fully debated, workable plan to be put to the voters.

For now, Proposition 25 is not necessarily better than nothing. Its passage would only add confusion to what already is a muddled situation.