It’s not often that state business and labor interests agree to oppose something, but both are against Proposition 25, the latest campaign-finance reform initiative.
If it passes March 7, the proposition would impose contribution limits of no more than $5,000 to any candidate or initiative, and ban direct corporate giving altogether. It would also provide up to $1 million worth of free broadcast advertising to any candidate or initiative campaign that agrees to abide by certain spending limits.
The measure was put on the ballot by Ron Unz, the high-tech millionaire who championed the successful Proposition 227 campaign to end bilingual education after running unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for governor against Pete Wilson in 1994.
“California is one of only six states that has no limits on campaign contributions. It’s high time that we limit contributions and cut off the current practice of large corporations and unions writing huge checks of $100,000 or more,” said Prop. 25 co-author Tony Miller, former acting California Secretary of State and now a campaign and election law attorney.
Attack From Both Sides
The initiative is under attack from both business and labor, each saying it gives an unfair advantage to the other camp. And both believe the public financing of broadcast advertising would allow more people who are against their agendas to put measures on the ballot.
“This creates a very unlevel playing field,” said Fred Main, senior vice president of the California Chamber of Commerce. “Unions, which are already among the most significant contributors, can continue to contribute to the political process, while corporations are completely banned from contributing.”
Labor makes virtually the same argument.
“It takes an already unlevel playing field and makes it worse,” said Sharon Cornu, director of communications for the California Labor Federation. “You can have 15 executives from one corporation giving $5,000 each. There’s no way union members can match that individually.”
Previous Attempts
There have been several previous attempts at statewide campaign-finance reform, all of which ended up either failing at the polls or being overturned in the courts. The most recent was Proposition 208,also co-authored by Miller. Voters approved the measure in 1996, but its implementation was halted by a federal court in a ruling that is still on appeal.
Miller and Unz believe Prop. 25 will avoid the court traps encountered by earlier initiatives because its limits are high enough to pass legal muster. They point to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding contribution limits recently approved by voters in Missouri.
They also are hoping to ride the wave of support for Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who has made campaign-finance reform a cornerstone of his campaign. McCain has endorsed the initiative.
But if the most recent statewide Field Poll is any indication, Prop. 25 is far from a sure thing. That poll, taken earlier this month, shows only 38% of voters supporting the initiative, 38% opposed and 24% undecided. The level of support has slipped from 41% in early January.
Among the chief concerns voiced by Field Poll respondents was the free broadcast media advertising provision, which Chief Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill estimated will cost state government about $17 million a year. (The total cost to the state is estimated at $55 million, with the other $38 million going for frequent mailers the initiative would require to be sent to voters to detail campaign contributions.)
Under the initiative, if a candidate or initiative campaign agrees to abide by certain proscribed spending limits, that camp could receive up to $1 million in free broadcast media advertising.
“This would be the first time anywhere in the U.S. that taxpayers could end up paying for initiatives they don’t agree with,” said Al Lundeen, a spokesman for the No on 25 campaign. Opponents also contend this will allow virtually anyone to spend a minimal amount of money to qualify an initiative and then get $1 million in free advertising for it.
But proponents say public financing of broadcast media ads would not impose that much of a burden on taxpayers.
“It’s essentially about $1 a year for every taxpayer to buy back the government from the special interests,” Miller said. “Voters are telling us that they are so fed up with the system that they would be willing to spend that $1 a year.”
Opponents point to two other aspects of the initiative: there are no mandatory limits on what a candidate or initiative campaign can spend during an election, and it doesn’t place limits on contributions to political parties.
“Once money goes into a political party, there is no longer any requirement to track it, even under this initiative,” Lundeen said. “That means there will be less disclosure.” n
Fine is a staff reporter at the Los Angeles Business Journal.
PROPOSITION 25
What it would do: Ban corporate campaign contributions. Restrict individuals’ contributions to $3,000 each for legislative and local races, $5,000 each for statewide contests. Suggests campaign spending limits for candidates and initiatives and those campaigns that agree to comply would get up to $1 million in free broadcast media advertising time.
Supporters: Millionaire and conservative activist Ron Unz, former acting state secretary of state Tony Miller; Common Cause
Opponents: California Chamber of Commerce; California Labor Federation; California Teachers Association; League of Women Voters; California Taxpayers Association; state Democratic and Republican parties.
