LWVC HOME - VOTING Q&As - STATE PROPS - ABOUT LWV ON BALLOT MEASURES:   ABOUT OUR ANALYSIS - LIST of PROPS - IN DEPTH - SMART VOTER

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION FUND	Nonpartisan Pros & Cons of PROPOSITION 34 CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND SPENDING. LIMITS. DISCLOSURE.
	Legislative Initiative Amendment

THE QUESTION

Should campaign finance reform provisions, approved by California voters in 1996 in Proposition 208, be replaced with increases in campaign contribution and spending limits enacted by the legislature?

THE SITUATION

Three times during the past quarter century, California voters have attempted to impose limits on how much candidates for state offices may collect and spend on their campaigns. Each time, successful court challenges to the propositions have rendered the measures unenforceable. As a result, California remains one of six states that have no ceilings on campaign contributions and expenditures.

The latest voter attempt at campaign contribution and spending limits was Proposition 208, which passed by 61% in 1996, but has been help up in the courts. In response to the possibility that Proposition 208 might be implemented, the legislature has placed this substitute measure on the ballot.

THE PROPOSAL

Proposition 34 would repeal a majority of the provisions established by Proposition 208. It would substitute increased limits of up to 20 times the amount that state candidates can receive from contributors and up to 4 times the amount they can spend if they accept spending limits. Unlike Proposition 208, it allows unlimited spending by political parties on campaigns -- i.e., soft money spending.

The measure adds provisions to require additional disclosures in slate mailers and other voter communications. It also expands electronic filing requirements regarding certain contributions and independent expenditures.

FISCAL EFFECT

Costs of enforcement would be offset to an unknown extent by payment of violators' fines. Net costs to the state could be several million dollars annually, according to the Legislative Analyst.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• The campaign contribution and spending limits established by this proposition are realistic for a state the size of California.

• Increased disclosure requirements, including those for immediate reporting of certain contributions and expenditures, will provide voters with the information they need in a timely fashion.
  

OPPONENTS SAY

• Proposition 34 was placed on the ballot with record speed, completely bypassing the normal legislative process, in order to forestall reinstatement of a campaign finance reform measure already approved by the voters.

• The excessively high contribution and expenditure limits, along with a provision for a massive soft money loophole and no limits on political party contributions to candidates, will not bring about genuine reform.

Analysis prepared by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
for the November 7, 2000 Election.