Committee OKs Campaign Bill

Backers of a bill to provide public financing of election campaigns scored a rare victory Tuesday when the controversial legislation passed its first test before an Assembly committee.

Supporters said passage of the bill on a 4-2 vote in the elections committee marked the first time in more than two decades that a proposal for full public financing of elections had advanced in the Legislature. It still faces major hurdles.

If it clears both houses and is signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the law -- dubbed the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act -- will require voter approval in November to take effect.

The bill’s author, Assemblywoman Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley), said using public money to pay for state elections would eliminate “the growing perception that interest groups dominate the political process, and ordinary people don’t matter.”

Hancock said her bill, supported by Common Cause and numerous other good-government groups, would allow lawmakers “to spend time solving the state’s pressing problems rather than endlessly raising money.”

Modeled after public financing systems in Arizona and Maine, the legislation would permit the expenditure of up to $80 million a year for candidates who agree to forgo private donations and accept spending limits. That amount, backers said, represented about a penny a day for every Californian over 18.

Major-party candidates would receive more money than minor-party candidates, and no public dollars would go to those from parties receiving less than 3% of the vote in the last gubernatorial race.

To qualify, candidates would have to demonstrate a minimum level of public support by gathering a specified number of signatures and $5 contributions from registered voters in their districts. After that test was met, the candidate would receive public funds on a sliding scale -- from $100,000 for an Assembly candidate in a primary race, for example, to $10 million for a gubernatorial contender in a general election.

The program would be administered by the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state’s political watchdog agency. No funding source has been identified, but Hancock said several options were possible. One is a tax on oil pumped from the ground, known as an oil severance tax, which she said would raise $600 million a year. Also under consideration is a surcharge on administrative fines paid to courts, an approach used in Arizona, she said.

The proposal comes in the wake of two of the most costly gubernatorial elections in California history: last year’s recall campaign, in which more than $89 million was spent by all sides, and the 2002 race that featured $111 million in spending by then-Gov. Gray Davis and his opponents.

Seventeen states have some form of public financing. Though the laws in Arizona and Maine are new, advocates there say public financing has increased competition and voter participation.

Opponents have criticized the proposal as wasteful -- especially during a budget crisis -- because it would allocate public money to candidates with little chance of winning.

Critics also note that public financing essentially would force taxpayers to contribute to some candidates whose views they oppose.