Proposition 34 gives campaign finance reform another chance

By Michael Falcone
Daily Bruin Senior Staff

Though an injunction rendered a 1996 California campaign finance
reform initiative unconstitutional, the state’s voters have
another chance to approve a proposition limiting campaign
contributions in November.

Four years ago, Proposition 208, an initiative which imposed
strict spending limits on candidates running for political office
in California, passed with 61 percent of the vote.

Supporters of Proposition 34, this year’s campaign finance
reform initiative, say they hope the measure enjoys the same
support.

“Proposition 34 sets enforceable, constitutional limits on
campaign financing where none exist today,” according to the
ballot argument in favor of the initiative.

The initiative would establish a $5,000 limit on donations to
statewide office candidates except governor, and a $3,000 limit on
contributions to state legislative candidates. It also imposes
voluntary spending limits of $700,000, $900,000 and $10 million for
candidates running for assembly, senate and governor,
respectively.

But in an unlikely political flip-flop, the groups who were the
loudest advocates of campaign spending limits four years ago are
now among the strongest opponents of Proposition 34. Similarly, the
sponsors of this year’s proposition have led the move to
repeal 208 in court.

Supporters of Proposition 34 say the $250 individual
contribution limit for assembly and senate candidates and the $500
limit for statewide offices and governor are too strict.

The five major groups who continue to challenge 208 in court are
the California Democratic Party, the California Republican Party,
the California Pro-Life Council Political Action Committee, a
campaign mailing organization and a group of public employee
unions, according to a statement of the California Fair Political
Practices Commission.

Trudy Schafer, program director for the California League of
Women Voters, one of the groups leading the campaign against
Proposition 34, said the initiative “looks like reform but
it’s really not.”

The contribution limits set out in the proposition are too high,
Schafer said. Individuals could contribute up to $20,000 to a
candidate for governor, while the limit for a presidential campaign
is $1,000.

She also said the proposition contained loopholes since there
are “virtually no limits” on the amount of money
unions, corporations and other large entities can give to political
parties.

But supporters of Proposition 34 say it is better to have some
campaign finance laws in California than none at all.

“We think it’s a sensible an excellent first
step,” said Tom Knox a spokesman for the “Yes on
34″ campaign.

“We’re not claiming that it’s the end all be
all of campaign finance reform but it does give workable
limits,” he added.

Supporters of Proposition 34’s higher spending limits say
that in a state the size of California, politicians have a more
difficult time raising money in single districts which are
sometimes larger than other U.S. states.

Knox said Proposition 34 provides campaign finance reform which
is neither too stringent nor too lax.

Michael Dukakis, a three-term governor of Massachusetts and the
1988 democratic presidential nominee, testified in court in support
of reinstating Proposition 208.

“I argued that you not only could raise sufficient money,
but it was precisely the kind of thing that would make the system
much more open and democratic.” Dukakis said. “I always
raised my money from large numbers of small donors which forces you
to go out and connect with people.”

By the language of Proposition 34, passing it would supercede
Proposition 208, and Schafer said that was the 34 sponsors’
real aim in crafting their initiative.

Schafer said if 34 does not pass on Nov. 7, there is a strong
likelihood Proposition 208 will be reinstated based on the opinion
of legal observers and the decisions of courts in other states.

But Knox disagrees. He said even if the judge removes the
injunction against Proposition 208, it is likely to be
“gutted” by the court and will not retain many of its
original provisions due to uncertainties about the
constitutionality of its restrictions.

If Knox’s predictions are correct and 34 is not passed in
November, California will continue to operate without campaign
spending limits.

“Our opponents are trying to guarantee that we won’t
have campaign spending for two, maybe four years,” Knox said.
“You can’t kill the good in search of the
perfect.”