Another Stab at Campaign Finance Limits

The late Hubert H. Humphrey once described campaign fund-raising as “the most disgusting, demeaning, disenchanting, debilitating experience of a politician’s life.”

“He really found it distasteful,” recalls Joe Cerrell, a veteran Los Angeles-based political consultant who was a Humphrey confidant. “He was not the kind of guy you could give 10 names to and say, ‘You’re going to call these people today for money.’ He’d always find some excuse, like, ‘Today I’ve got to clean the sock drawer.’ ”

In truth, very few politicians enjoy dialing for dollars or looking people in the eye with their hands out. But one of the side effects of legislative term limits, combined with a fairer redistricting, has been more competitive elections and, thus, an escalation of the money arms race.

“Members of the Legislature have to spend an inordinate amount of time raising money,” complains Assemblyman James E. Rogan (R-Glendale). “The problem for the public is that they’re paying for full-time legislators and getting part-time legislative work.”

That’s not the biggest problem, of course.

“Everybody has a right to expect that their representatives are going to be responsive to them, not to whoever can shuffle the most cash into their campaigns,” says Sen. Ross Johnson (R-Irvine), a longtime advocate of contribution limits. “Today, people have a right to wonder who their representatives are responsive to. . . . The amount of money in campaigns is obscene.”

*

Politicians all say they want to de-escalate the arms race. Negotiating campaign finance reform, however, is like any disarmament talks. Both sides will accept smaller arsenals, but they want to wind up with the advantage--or, at least, not be outgunned.

It comes down to this: Republicans want to limit the size of contributions because the GOP has a large base of affluent donors who each can write checks for, say, $1,000. Democrats don’t; their base is the working class. So they depend on a few contributions of humongous size from, for example, entertainers or “political action committees” (PACs) or party caucuses. Democrats want some public financing. Republicans oppose that--for philosophical reasons, they assert, but strategically they can raise ample private money.

As for special interests, they mostly toady up to the party that wields the gavel, with a few exceptions such as the California Teachers Assn., which bankrolls Democrats.

Several “reform” proposals are floating around the Capitol. The one about to get the most attention is “Proposition 73 Jr.” Voters approved the original Proposition 73 in 1988. It limited contributions in legislative elections to $1,000 per person and $5,000 per PAC and also banned “transfers” from other candidates and caucuses. Democrats sued, and a federal judge ruled the measure unconstitutional for a couple of reasons, including its ban on transfers.

Now, 73 advocates are back with a new version, cleaned up to meet the court’s approval. Transfers are allowed, but limited to $1,000 like any other donation. The revised proposal is in a Rogan bill tentatively slated for Assembly floor debate on Thursday. The aim is to place it on the November ballot.

Also pushing the measure is GOP Secretary of State Bill Jones and Sens. Johnson and Quentin L. Kopp (I-San Francisco).

“It reduces the debilitating effect of enormous money influencing [lawmakers’] votes,” says Kopp. “And it reduces the annoying experience of legislators trying to curry favor with [big] contributors. You don’t have to wear yourself out kissing everybody’s rear end.”

*

The sales pitch for “son of 73” is that it’s bulletproof; it can survive court tests. “The public is tired of voting for things that just get overturned,” Jones notes.

Also, during the brief period 73 was in effect, it worked; campaign spending dramatically dropped--from $79 million in the 1988 legislative elections to $55 million in 1990. By 1994, spending was back up to $86 million.

But the Rogan bill cannot pass the Senate, says Democratic house leader Bill Lockyer of Hayward, because it’s “unfair” to his party. “It wouldn’t even get out of committee.”

Sen. Lockyer is sponsoring his own proposal that includes spending limits and public financing. Gov. Pete Wilson, however, vetoed a similar bill two years ago.

The best bet is that no bill passes this divided Legislature, where the parties share power. Then the voters approve two rival ballot initiatives sponsored by reform groups, and the props get tied up in court for years.

It’s likely there won’t be any major change until one party controls both the Legislature and the governor’s office--or until legislators become so disgusted with demeaning themselves that they seriously negotiate.