A System Impervious to Campaign Reform

SACRAMENTO

The body politic has a strong immune system that is stubbornly resistant to pesky, reform-minded voters.

It is a self-preservation system, preserving corruption as a way of life in Sacramento.

Corruption is a harsh word. But it fits, even if uncomfortably. I’m not referring to bribery or graft, necessarily, but rather to the subtler influences of moneyed special interests that corrupt decision-making.

Interests such as labor unions--especially teachers and prison guards--and the medical profession, tobacco companies and now Indian tribes. All greasing lawmakers’ hands with political money. Engaged in mutual back-scratching.

It’s enough to make voters even more cynical and reluctant to participate in elections. And it does.

Time and again, Californians have voted for political reforms only to have them tossed back in their faces by courts. There was post-Watergate Proposition 9 in 1974. Then Props. 68 and 73 in 1988, after an FBI sting had exposed Capitol corruption. In 1996, voters approved Prop. 208, which contained extremely low contribution limits.

The Legislature feared that Prop. 208 actually would be upheld by the courts, so it hurriedly passed Prop. 34 and placed it on the November 2000 ballot.

Prop. 34 reeked from the start: Its true purpose was to head off the tougher Prop. 208. It was rushed through without public testimony. It had sham opposition arguments in the “Official Voter Information Guide.” And it created a “soft money” scheme in California similar to the loophole-laden federal system that Congress now has voted to abolish.

But Prop. 34 did impose realistic campaign contribution limits--$3,000 for legislative candidates from individuals and $6,000 from multi-donor special interests, such as a labor union.

Right there in the proposition language, it stated that Prop. 34’s purpose was “to minimize the potentially corrupting influence ... [of] large contributions by providing reasonable contribution ... limits.”

Voters were reminded by proponents in their official ballot argument that “officials should work for the people who elect them, not for special interests.”

Nobody could dispute that. Prop. 34 was passed in a landslide, by 60% of the voters.

Then the body politic’s immune system kicked in.

The state Fair Political Practices Commission--created in the post-Watergate era to be the watchdog over campaign financing--issued a stunning interpretation of Prop. 34. It ruled that contributions to a politician’s campaign committee created prior to Prop. 34 are not restricted by the proposition. Sky’s still the limit.

Those old committees can stay in existence, the FPPC ruled, as long as a politician is serving the term the committee was created to win.

So the committee of Senate leader John Burton (D-San Francisco) will exist until he is termed-out in December 2004.

Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson (D-Culver City) will retain his old committee until after next November. There’s a caveat: He must run for reelection using a new committee restricted by Prop. 34. But he and Burton, and other legislators, can use their old committees for non-campaigning purposes, such as political party donations.

OK, this is far too complicated. But the central point is that the FPPC gave a helping hand to politicians--particularly Democratic legislative leaders--and the back of its hand to voters.

People weren’t voting about committees, after all, they were voting to control politicians. The FPPC narrowly interpreted a small section of the law and created a wide loophole, as if going out of its way to help Democratic leaders.

The ruling was handed down last September. The Times reported Tuesday that legislators--especially Wesson and Burton--have used the loophole to raise nearly $3 million above Prop. 34 limits.

“This is an outrageous decision by the FPPC that turns logic on its head,” says Sen. Ross Johnson (R-Irvine), the GOP’s political reform expert who helped draft Prop. 34. “It’s an Alice in Wonderland kind of interpretation.”

He’s just one of many critics. Political reformers also are dismayed.

Responds FPPC Chairman Karen Getman, an appointee of Gov. Gray Davis and a former political lawyer for Democrats:

“What people vote on is an idea. They hear ‘campaign finance reform.’ With that idea comes pages and pages of tiny type. We have to take those pages and somehow make a statute work. And it never works exactly the way people think ...

“You get this wonderful simplistic idea and wave a magic wand and suddenly the world changes. I wish to God it could be that nice and simple, but that’s not how it works.”

Yes, the voters know. What works is the immune system.