|
Spring, 1998. Vol. 85 No. 2 |
Proposition 208 Decision Now on Appeal
By Margo Reeg, LWVC Government Director
League of Women Voters of California members expressed marked disappointment with the January 6th decision by federal district Judge Lawrence Karlton to place an injunction against Proposition 208, the campaign finance reform measure promoted by the League and passed by 61% of the voters in 1996.
"The voters understood that we desperately need to change a system of financing elections that is fundamentally flawed," declared LWVC President Karyn Gill. "The decision gave too much weight to the current practices of politicians. This reform of campaign finance law should be given a chance."
Judge Karlton reasoned that the campaign contribution limits are so low that they preclude a candidate from waging a viable campaign in California's expensive market, thereby infringing on the candidates' right of free speech. He issued a list of findings which supported his contention that the contribution limits are too low. He also had some difficulty with the variable contribution limits connected to voluntary expenditure limits.
In an unusual action Judge Karlton ordered the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to submit the case to the California Supreme Court to determine whether some provisions of the measure are severable from the contribution limits and can be upheld. Judge Karlton noted that slate mailer disclosure provisions, sponsor disclosure on TV and other ads, the dispersal of post-campaign surplus funds, and officeholder account restrictions appear to be unrelated to contribution limits and may be constitutional. Another purpose in submitting the suit to the Supreme Court is to ask if the court can reform or rewrite portions of the law to make them meet federal constitutional muster.
At its January 15 meeting, the FPPC considered how to respond to Judge Karlton's decision. Proponents and sponsors of Proposition 208, including LWVC, urged the Commission to appeal the entire decision and seek a stay of injunction, believing that this would have the best chance of preserving the proposition in its entirety. The commissioners voted unanimously to file an expedited appeal to the 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeal rather than to proceed with the referral to the California Supreme Court at this time. However, they declined to seek a stay of the court order, believing that it was unlikely to be granted and would cause confusion in the current election cycle.
The proponents and sponsors of 208 will support the appeal to the federal Court of Appeal. They explained that this would be the most direct course to take in trying to have the measure upheld. Ultimately the case will probably go all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court. Submitting a request for the California Supreme Court's opinion on severability and "reformation" could result in very little of the measure being implemented.
Norma Brecher, Co-Chair of the League's campaign for Proposition 208, lamented that during the 1998 election cycle, "It's back to business as usual with special interests pouring huge amounts of money into campaigns."
Return to Voter Table of Contents
© Copyright 1998 by the League of Women Voters of California
|
