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

League of Women Voters of California

Proposition 212 -- No

Spending Limits and Campaign Contributions. Repeals Gift and Honoraria Limits. Restricts Lobbyists. Repeals limits on gifts and honoraria to public officials. Allows committees of small contributors to give 100 times the limit for individual contributors. Prohibits more than 25% of contributions from outside district. Imposes spending limits. Bans non-election year fundraising. Prohibits lobbyists from making or arranging contributions. Prohibits tax deduction for lobbying expenses.
LWVC Nonpartisan Analysis of Proposition 212

WHY THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDS NO ON PROPOSITION 212

The LWVC position on Campaign Financing supports full public disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures, effective monitoring and enforcement, measures which will broaden the base of campaign financing, realistic limits on contributions to campaigns, and realistic limits on the amount each candidate can spend.

This initiative is in direct conflict with the League-sponsored Proposition 208.

It guts, without replacing, the Ethics in Government Law, the cornerstone of California's anti-corruption laws, allowing special interests to once again legally shower our elected officials with unlimited cash payments (honoraria or "speaking fees"), unlimited personal gifts and unlimited free travel.

Many of its provisions have already been ruled unconstitutional. For example:

  • $100 contribution limits have been ruled unconstitutional for large jurisdictions by federal courts in Missouri and the District of Columbia.
  • Limits on out-of-district contributions were ruled unconstitutional in Oregon Federal court.
  • Mandatory spending limits have been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 1976.

Many others of its provisions are likely to be found unconstitutional:

  • Discrepancy between contribution limits from individuals ($100) and from small donor committees ($10,000).
  • $2000 aggregate limit per year from individuals to all candidates is too low.

Proposition 212 contains a large loophole which allows Citizen Contribution Committees (small donor committees) to give 10 times more than Proposition 208 and 100 times more than other contributors in Proposition 212 are allowed, with no overall cap on total contributions. That's a hundred fold advantage for special interests over regular people.

It invalidates or seriously weakens local campaign finance ordinances.

It contains a "poison pill" provision which would declare Proposition 208 "null and void" should it pass, and Proposition 212 passes by a larger margin. Thus, if (when) Proposition 212 is found to be unconstitutional, Proposition 208 would be barred from taking effect.

Even if none of the above were factors we would still oppose this measure because we feel that $100 limits are too low to be realistic or to attract good candidates to run for office. It's an invitation for wealthy candidates to buy elections.


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