Ruling Could Help Reinstate Campaign Finance Curbs

As politicians busy themselves raising millions for this year’s election, advocates of campaign funding limits said Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding such caps virtually ensures that California’s voter-approved limits will be reinstated.

The high court endorsed stringent campaign donation restrictions, a decision that is expected to play a central role in a trial this year on the constitutionality of Proposition 208. A federal judge two years ago blocked that 1996 ballot initiative, which would impose strict caps on future campaign financing.

Attorneys attacking Proposition 208 maintained that they can still prevail despite the Monday ruling, but proponents of contribution limits were gleeful.

“The court was right on,” said former acting Secretary of State Tony Miller, one of the leading proponents of Proposition 208, as well as Proposition 25, a measure on the March ballot that also would impose restrictions. “It is a good day for reform.”

Added Richard L. Hasen, associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, “I read it as very good news for those who support campaign finance reform.”

Approved by more than 60% of the electorate, Proposition 208 would limit donations to $250 for legislative candidates and $500 for candidates for statewide office. If the candidates agree to spending limits, the size of the donations could double to $500 for state Senate or Assembly races, and $1,000 for statewide campaigns.

In its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a $1,000 limit in Missouri for state candidates, and ruled that the government has broad power to limit how much money rich donors give to political candidates.

A lawsuit challenging Proposition 208 had been on hold pending the high court’s decision. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton is expected to hold a trial on the measure later this year.

Karlton has repeatedly struck down campaign finance limits, believing that they limit the free speech of donors and candidates.

Given Karlton’s past rulings, Miller and others who want to rein in campaign spending said they doubt they will succeed in the trial court. However, they said they are optimistic that they can succeed before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“It’s almost a slam-dunk that Proposition 208 will be reinstated,” said Craig Holman, of the Center for Governmental Studies and one of the authors of the 1996 initiative. “This is everything I had hoped for. I’m surprised they came out this strongly.”

The attack on Proposition 208 is being waged by such divergent groups as organized labor and a conservative Christian organization. They contend that the strict limits it would impose would restrict their free speech rights, while politicians say that the limits would make it impossible for them to wage campaigns.

Attorneys challenging the initiative must convince Karlton--and later the appellate court--that Proposition 208’s terms would so restrict fund-raising that candidates could not run effective campaigns in a state as large and costly as California.

The high court “made it clear that contribution limits that prevent candidates from running effective campaigns can and will be struck down,” said Indiana attorney James Bopp Jr., one of the attorneys trying to have Proposition 208 overturned, “and that is precisely the situation we have in California.”

One side effect of the high court’s ruling is that it could muddy the arguments in favor of Proposition 25, the measure on the March 7 ballot pushed by Miller and wealthy Silicon Valley activist Ron Unz.

Among its many provisions, Proposition 25 would limit donations to $5,000 or less.

Proposition 25’s advocates had contended that the $5,000 cap was generous enough to survive court attack. However, they may have been unduly pessimistic. As it turned out, the high court Monday affirmed a far lower cap of $1,000.

In the complicated world of California initiatives, the state could end up with the lower contribution limits envisioned by Proposition 208 of 1996, even if voters approve Proposition 25.

The reason: Proposition 25 contains a provision stating that if courts uphold Proposition 208, the lower donation limits contained in the 1996 initiative would take effect.

As it is, California is one of only six states that places no limits on campaign donations. Contributions of $100,000 or more from wealthy individuals, corporations and labor unions to state candidates are common.

In the 1998 election campaign, Gov. Gray Davis received more than $1 million from several backers, while candidates seeking state legislative offices raised and spent about $100 million.

For the 2000 election, candidates and donors will be free to raise and give money without limits. The court fight over the limits imposed by Proposition 208 probably will go on past the November election.

“Unfortunately,” said Miller, “it is highly unlikely that there will be something in place for November. But for the next election, chances are very good that California will be joining the 44 states that do limit contributions.”