SACRAMENTO — As the 1994 election season gets under way, reformers are renewing their uphill fight to limit legislative campaign donations and award taxpayer funds to candidates who restrict their spending.
They want the California Supreme Court to resurrect and implement Proposition 68, a campaign reform initiative approved by the voters in 1988 that never took effect because a competing measure on the same ballot got more votes.
The contribution limits of that measure, Proposition 73, were struck down by federal courts in 1992, after which fund raising shot up by the tens of millions of dollars.
With no limits on the flow of huge special-interest contributions to Assembly and Senate candidates, supporters of political reform want to revive Proposition 68 in time for next year's elections.
Sponsored by California Common Cause, Proposition 68 was designed to limit contributions to candidates for the Legislature. Those who voluntarily held down expenditures would be eligible for a first-ever taxpayer subsidy.
If the court agrees to revive Proposition 68, the measure's restrictions would radically change the rules just as incumbents fine-tune their fund-raising machinery and challengers start their solicitations for money to run for office next year.
The court, which heard arguments on the issue in Sacramento last week, did not indicate how it will rule. But by their questions, three of the seven justices appeared to support the notion that some features of the initiative should be activated.
The case pits Common Cause, a citizens political watchdog organization, against the state and the California political Establishment, including the Democratic leaders of the Legislature and the Republican and Democratic parties.
The legal fight is being played out against a history of refusal by the Legislature and governors to enact substantial campaign financing reforms in spite of long-running Capitol corruption scandals and demands for change.
Opponents contend that Proposition 68 is a nullity because it lost to Proposition 73, which established different limitations on contributions and specifically outlawed public financing of political campaigns.
In a 1990 ruling, the state court ruled that although both passed, Proposition 73 must prevail as law because voters preferred it 58% to 53% over Proposition 68. In the fall of 1990 came the federal court decision striking down major chunks of Proposition 73 as unconstitutionally favorable to incumbents.
