LWVC HOME - ELECTION '96 - VOTING Q&As - OUR ISSUES - ABOUT US -/- BALLOT MEASURES

League of Women Voters of California

LWV California Education Fund Nonpartisan Analysis of

Proposition 208

Campaign Contributions and Spending Limits. Restricts Lobbyists.

Initiative Statute

The Question

Should contributions to candidates' campaigns be limited and should there be a limit on what candidates can spend to get elected?

The Situation

In 1976 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down mandatory spending limits as an unconstitutional restriction on political speech. However, federal law limits the amount of money individuals and groups can contribute to a candidate and to the candidate's campaign committee for federal elective office. State law does not impose similar limits on state and local campaigns. California voters have enacted several campaign finance regulatory measures, starting with (1) the Political Reform Act of 1974, which created the Political Practices Commission (FPPC); and (2) Proposition 112, the Ethics in Goverment Act, which created a constitutional ban on honoraria to legislators and requires the Legislature to enact laws that "ban or strictly limit" acceptance of gifts by legislators. Both state and federal laws require candidates to report contributions they spend and receive for their campaign.

The Proposal

Proposition 208 will:
  • limit a single contributor's campaign contributions per candidate to $100 for districts of less than 100,000 population, $250 for larger districts, and $500 for statewide elections.
  • impose voluntary spending limits that allow contribution limits to double.
  • limit total contributions from political parties, corporations, unions, political action committees (PACs) and others to the same limits that apply to individuals.
  • allow for Small Contributor Committees that could give twice as much per candidate as an individual.
  • establish voluntary spending limits that vary on the basis of the office sought.
  • prohibit lobbyists from arranging and making contributions.
  • ban the transfer of funds between candidates.
Fiscal effect: the Legislative Analyst estimates that the costs for implementation and enforcement would be up to $4 million annually. Additional state and local election costs to provide additional information on candidates in voter pamphlets would be incurred, but are probably not significant.

Supporters Say

  • Proposition 208 is a practical, effective check on rampant special-interest influence.
  • top ten's special interest contributions will be cut by 90%.
  • Proposition 208 meets constitutional tests and will be upheld by the courts.
  • a level playing field will be created because contributions to candidates from corporations, banks and unions will be limited to the same levels as individual contributors.

Opponents Say

  • political parties are allowed to circumvent contribution limits entirely and can contribute large amounts to candidates.
  • spending limits are merely voluntary and too high, allowing candidates to double the amount they can accept from wealthy corporations and individuals.
  • contributions from corporations and unions are not banned.
  • no limits are set on out-of-district contributions, now 80% of campaign funds in California.
(Analysis prepared by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.)

On Ballot Measures: LWVC Pros & Cons - LWVC Recommendations - Other Links
LWVC Home - Election '96 - Voting Q&As - Our Issues - About Us

Last updated: October 20, 1996
Send comments and suggestions concerning this page to lwvc@thecity.sfsu.edu
Copyright 1996 League of Women Voters of California. All rights reserved.