Be ready to watch what happened to much of former reforms be repeated in courts
By
Dwayne Hunn
California’s Fair
Political Practices Commission exists
today thanks to People’s Lobby’s Political Reform Initiative of 1974, Prop 9,
one of the nation’s first and toughest
campaign reform initiatives which
garnered about 70% of the vote.
Common Cause and Gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown wanted
to launch their own campaign reform but grudgingly joined because People’s
Lobby had experienced volunteer signature gatherers who had put measures on the
ballot, while neither of them had done such.
Prop 9’s campaign spending limits were .07 and .09 cents per voter in
the primary and general elections. Had
those limits been applied to the 1970 Gubernatorial General Election race
between Democrat Jesse Unruh and Republic Ronald Reagan, Unruh would have had
to cut out $368,448 and Reagan $1,590,026 of spending.
Be ready to watch what
happened to much of the guts of the Political Reform Act of 1974 be repeated
and reargued with new faces over the next few years with Proposition 208.
In 1977 Senator Holden repealed campaign spending limits with his Senate
Bill 883. By 1979 the California
Supreme Court, ruling on the Fair Political Practices Commission v. Institute
of Governmental Advocates, held that “the prohibition against lobbyist
contributions to political campaigns.... is a substantial limitation on
associational freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment and is invalid.” The California Court felt ‘compelled’ by the
US Supreme Court’s 1976 Buckley v. Valeo in which the validity of the provisions of the Federal Election
Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 were debated. The FECA limited political contributions
by individuals to $1,000 for any candidate and $25,000 total. The court held that the contribution
limitations restrict the contributor’s freedom of association, “a basic
constitutional freedom.” This
substantial limitation on a lobbyist’s
freedom of association may be upheld only if the “State demonstrates a
sufficiently important interest and employs means closely drawn to avoid
unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms.”
The campaign limitations
embodied in 208 will rise or fall based on
how:
¨
“sufficiently important” proponents’
attorneys make the courts feel the need
for campaign reform is, and
¨
“closely drawn” campaign spending limits are
determined to be in the law, so as not
to infringe on Constitutional rights of free speech and association.
Proposition 208 with its
“voluntary campaign spending limit” agreement that entices candidates by
“doubling contribution limits” probably
has a higher probability of passing the courts “closely drawn” strictures than
212 would have.
The narrow defeat of Prop 212 at least relieves us of reliving
the history of court arguments over
which sections of two similar 1988
campaign contribution limitation bills should prevail. Common
Cause’s Prop 68, which called
for taxpayer paid elections, and Senator Kopp and Assemblyman Johnson’s Prop
73, which banned taxpayer paid elections,
both won, with 53% and 57% respectively. With Prop 73 in effect California campaign spending fell from
$79.4 in 1988 to $52 million in 1990.
In 1992 the Federal court struck down the limits and 1992’s spending
rebounded to $71.9 million, and the
courts held that Prop 68 campaign limits could not then replace Prop 73’s.
These will be interesting
court times for more than just the Chicago Bulls and LA Lakers.