THE QUESTIONShould additional campaign finance disclosure requirements, limits on political contributions, and partial public financing of campaign advertising for state candidates and ballot initiative committees that limit spending, be instituted for California elections? THE SITUATIONIn 1996, California voters passed Proposition 208 which would have limited campaign contributions and expenditures. However, the initiative was challenged and is awaiting a final court decision. As a result, there are currently no California laws limiting campaign contributions, although the federal government and some local jurisdictions have established some limits on contributions. Additionally, neither the state nor the federal government has mandatory limits on candidate spending as a result of U.S. Supreme Court actions. Constitutional Constraints Any laws regulating the conduct of campaigns are subject to the constraints imposed by Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 and other cases. Buckley held that campaign contributions may be limited to avoid corruption or its appearance, but that any other-than-voluntary limits on candidate spending are disallowed in the interest of free speech. Limits on expenditures are permissible only if a candidate agrees to them in exchange for meaningful incentives. Also on free speech grounds, expenditures on behalf of a candidate made independently of his or her campaign, or the right of a candidate to spend unlimited amounts of his or her own money to get elected, cannot be abridged. THE PROPOSALProposition 25 would: · expand requirements for disclosures on advertisements and of contributors that support or oppose candidates and ballot measures · establish limits on contributions to candidates, independent expenditure committees, political action committees, and political parties · limit time periods when campaign money can be raised for state candidates · provide public funding for broadcast advertising and voter information packets for certain state candidates and ballot initiative committees that voluntarily agree to limit spending and that demonstrate public support. FISCAL EFFECTThe Legislative Analyst estimates costs to the state of more than $55 million annually for publicly funded campaign assistance and added administrative costs. Costs to local governments could potentially be several million dollars annually. SUPPORTERS SAY· We must stop the increasing corruption of our government which happens because California has no restrictions on the size or source of political contributions. · It's worth paying $1 a year per taxpayer for broadcast time and voter information packets to take back our government from the special interests that control it. OPPONENTS SAY· Self-funded wealthy candidates will have a huge advantage over challengers because they can ignore contribution limits and spend as much as they want. · Californians should not have to pay $55 million in annual tax increases to foot the bill for political advertising with which they may disagree. For more information: Supporters: (916) 447-7418, www.VotersRights2000.org (Analysis prepared by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund  
On Propositions:
About our Analysis -
List of Props -
Election '00 -
Smart Voter
LWVC Home -
Voting Q&As -
State Props -
About Us
Last updated: January 18, 2000 Send comments and suggestions concerning the content of this page to lwvcprocon@hotmail.com. Send comments concerning the format or usability of this page to cmwatts@ibm.net Copyright 2000 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund. This page may be linked to or printed in its entirety. |
