A 'Clean' Sweep for Elections

It's no surprise that the problem of money in politics has emerged as a key theme in the California recall. After all, it was Gov. Gray Davis' rapacious appetite for campaign funds -- and the astounding deals he struck with many big donors -- that helped fuel public sentiment for his removal. Now, with all the top contenders to replace Davis under immense pressure to get their messages out before the polls close Oct. 7, they've been dialing, e-mailing and schmoozing for dollars with an intensity that only Davis could admire.

Given the voters' disgust with the whole system of money-drenched elections, it's also not surprising that the major candidates are accusing their opponents of following in Davis' footsteps. Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, whose fund-raising strategies drew a sharp rebuke last week from a Sacramento judge, was accused by Arianna Huffington in one debate of having exploited a form of "legalized bribery." In turn, the lieutenant governor attacked Arnold Schwarzenegger for taking more than "$6 million from corporate entities." State Sen. Tom McClintock has called his fellow Republican "a vacuum cleaner throughout corporate California" who "has received millions of dollars from special-interest groups after pledging he would not." Schwarzenegger has shot back with a TV ad deriding McClintock and Bustamante for pandering to Indian gambling interests who are spending millions on their behalf.

Voters may be confused by the charges and countercharges, but the recall could be an opportunity for California to throw off the golden rule of politics: He who has the gold rules. The candidates are all paying lip service to the need for reform, and some of them are actually making concrete proposals.

The last time Californians had a chance to vote on campaign reform was on Proposition 34, which was backed by Davis and Bustamante and passed by the voters in 2000. But it was sham reform. The measure, placed on the ballot by the state Legislature, could safely be called the "Incumbent Protection Act." Its limits on individual contributions -- $3,000 to state legislators, $20,000 to gubernatorial candidates -- do nothing to shift an election out of the hands of wealthy donors. Its voluntary spending limits have had zero effect on limiting spending. And its prohibition on lobbyists giving money to officials they lobby has been easily circumvented.

So are the candidates' proposals any better?