Action Guide November 7, 2000

DESCRIPTION

Proposition 34 is a phony campaign reform measure put on the ballot by the legislature in order to allow for essentially unlimited campaign contributions to benefit candidates. It repeals the campaign contribution and voluntary spending limits for state and local candidates of Proposition 208, passed by the voters in 1996. It replaces them with higher dollar limits for state offices and includes no limits at all for local offices. The measure also raises or eliminates contribution limits to political parties or Political Action Committees (PACs) and raises the voluntary spending limits, as shown in the following charts.

Under Proposition 34, amounts spent directly on behalf of a candidate by a political party are not counted against the voluntary spending limit, and additional sums over the $25,000 limit on direct spending could be contributed to support other election-related party activities (soft money). The measure limits contributions to small contributor committees, but does not restrict the number of such committees that could be established. It repeals Proposition 208's aggregate limits on the total amount a candidate can receive from non-individuals (corporations, unions, and most PACs).

Proposition 34's limits would apply to legislative candidates in the 2002 election, but would not go into effect for candidates for statewide office until 2004.

Proposition 34 would repeal Proposition 208's bans on: non-election year fundraising; appointees to boards and commissions making contributions to or soliciting contributions for those appointing them; carry-over of funds (campaign war chests) from one campaign to another campaign for the same office. It repeals Proposition 208's ban on transfers from one candidate or officeholder to another candidate but limits those transfers. Such funds, however, may be contributed to parties without limits. Proposition 34 bans direct contributions by lobbyists, but repeals the Proposition 208 ban on arranging of contributions by lobbyists.

Proposition 34 includes some expanded on-line campaign disclosure requirements.

Since 1994, the Secretary of State has included the statements of all statewide candidates in the California ballot pamphlet at no cost. Proposition 208 allows statements at no cost for candidates who accept spending limits and allows others to pay for their statements. Under Proposition 34, candidates accepting spending limits could pay to have their statements printed, and others would not be allowed. Proposition 208 designates those candidates who accept spending limits on the ballot and in the ballot pamphlet and county sample ballot; Proposition 34 designates them only in the ballot pamphlet.

BACKGROUND

The Political Reform Act (PRA), approved by the voters in 1974, established campaign finance disclosure requirements. In 1996, the League of Women Voters helped write, qualify for the ballot, and pass Proposition 208, a tough but reasonable initiative which amended the PRA to establish limits on campaign contributions, voluntary limits on spending and other provisions regulating campaigns. After Proposition 208 passed with a 61.3% vote, it was in effect for more than a year. However, it was challenged in court by the major political parties and others, and its provisions are blocked from enforcement at present. That lawsuit has been heard, but will not be decided until after the November election.

Last January, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case involving a Missouri law, upheld a measure with contribution limits similar to those in Proposition 208 (Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC). Many legal experts believe that, based on that decision, Proposition 208 will eventually be upheld by the courts.

However, if Proposition 34 is passed by the voters, the provisions of Proposition 208 that it repeals will never be implemented.

Proposition 34 was placed on the ballot in an attempt to prevent reinstatement of Proposition 208. Its text was released just hours before it was voted on, with no public testimony or input, by a conference committee that sent it to both houses. After hurried floor votes in the two houses, it was sent to the governor and signed on the last possible day to place a measure on the November ballot. The ballot title and summary do not indicate that Proposition 34 repeals a voter-approved measure, and the ballot arguments in opposition were written by legislators hand-picked by the legislative leaders who sponsored the bill, rather than by the sponsors of Proposition 208.

IMPORTANT POINTS

• This is not real reform, but a measure crafted by politicians in Sacramento to assure that they can continue to operate with essentially the same flow of campaign money they now have.

• Many legal experts believe that Proposition 208, the reasonable campaign finance reform the voters enacted in 1996, is likely to be upheld in the appellate courts soon, and Proposition 34 is a desperate attempt by the political establishment to keep it from going into effect. Proposition 34 repeals nearly all of the provisions of Proposition 208.

• Proposition 34 was passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor in a process even the Governor admitted was "devised largely in secret, without input from the public or knowledgeable sources," and the politicians have manipulated the system to keep the real opponents of the measure ( the League, Common Cause and AARP) from having their opposition represented in the state's voter pamphlet.

• Proposition 34 has no limits on local contributions, and its contribution limits for state office are among the highest in the country.

• Proposition 34 has no limits on contributions of "soft money" to PACs or political parties, and no limits on contributions to committees that make independent expenditures.

• Proposition 34 has no limits on contributions from political parties to candidates, and virtually no limits on contributions to political parties. Contributors can simply avoid the contribution limits in the measure by routing funds to candidates through the parties, and there is no means of tracking the contributions from donor to intended recipient.

• Proposition 34 has no limits on contributions to political parties for mailings to party members and their families supporting or opposing a candidate, even if the mailing is coordinated with a candidate.

• Proposition 34 would not even go into effect for statewide offices, including Governor and Insurance Commissioner, until after the 2002 election.

• Proposition 34 is a step backward. It will let politicians claim they have "reformed" the system, but in fact it makes a bad situation worse by turning the political parties into money laundering machines that make it impossible to "follow the money." It will only cause citizens to become more cynical about the political process.

SUPPORTERS Signing the ballot argument for:	OPPONENTS Signing the ballot argument against:
Dan Stanford, Former Chair Fair Political Practices Commission Eileen Padberg, Member Bipartisan Commission on the Political Reform Act Howard L. Owens, Director of Region IX National Council of Senior Citizens	Brett Granlund Assemblymember, 65th Assembly District Bill Morrow Senator, 38th Senate District

Other organizations and individuals opposing the measure include American Association of Retired Persons -California (AARP); Americans for Democratic Action; California Common Cause; California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG); former Secretary of State March Fong Eu; Green Party of Sacramento County; League of Women Voters of California; former Acting Secretary of State Tony Miller; and People's Advocate.

RESOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION

Anne Henderson, LWVC Legislative Director, annehenderson@worldnet.att.net
Trudy Schafer, LWVC Program Director/Advocate, tschafer@jps.net
Eric Wooten, LWVC Advocacy Aide, eric_lwvc@altavista.com
Doris Fine, LWVC Government Director, doris_fine@hotmail.com
Paulene Goddard, LWVC Program Director for Campaign Financing, using2468@aol.com

Californians Against Phony "Reform"--NO on 34, a Committee Sponsored by The League of Women Voters of California, American Association of Retired Persons-California (AARP), and Common Cause, 926 J Street, Suite 910, Sacramento 95814, 916-443-1792, NoPhonyReform@VoteNOon34.org, www.voteNoOn34.org

SAMPLE LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Editor:

The need to control the influence of big campaign donors on the political process is clear. The politicians in Sacramento would have you believe that Proposition 34, the phony "campaign reform" measure they have put on the ballot, will do that. In fact, Proposition 34 will make a bad situation even worse.

It was written by politicians, for politicians. It allows virtually unlimited contributions to be sent to candidates through the political parties, transforming them into money laundering machines that will make it impossible to connect the big interests trying to buy influence with the candidates who receive the money.

Proposition 34 is full of loopholes and is designed to fool the voters into thinking they are getting reform, when they are only getting the same old system in a new disguise. That is why I will vote NO on Proposition 34.