Thursday, October 31, 1996
By Hannah Miller
Daily Bruin Contributor
What do Howard Leach, Peter Preuss, and John Davies all have in
common? They are Pete Wilson appointees to the Board of Regents.
And they also donated a total of $182,318 to his campaign.
These eerie coincidences are typical of the reasons that
Proposition 212, the "California Contributions and Spending Limits"
statute, is on the November ballot.
Prop. 212 would limit contributions to campaigns to $100 for
local offices and $200 for statewide offices, ban direct corporate
contributions, and mandate that 75 percent of campaign funds must
come from sources within the district. According to the California
Public Interest Research Group-L.A. (CALPIRG-LA) Campaign Staffer
Mark Ferrulo, this will be "tough on special interests and
politicians for sale."
CALPIRG, the organization sponsoring the bill, has gained
endorsements from Jesse Jackson and former California Governor
Jerry Brown in the dual effort of promoting campaign reform and
defeating Prop. 212’s similar but less drastic twin, Prop. 208.
Ferrulo attests that Prop. 208 is actually less stringent than
current federal campaign laws. Direct corporate giving to campaigns
has been banned for federal elections since 1907, but California is
one of only seven states that still permit business money to flow
into campaign coffers.
On the flip side, according to Steve Hayward, Vice President of
Research for the Pacific Research Institute, is the impossibility
of such change. "Campaign finance reform is like the proverbial
toothpaste tube. You squeeze one place, it comes out the
other."
The Supreme Court ruled that one cannot control independent
expenditures, and "those who want to contribute are not going to be
stopped by this or any other measure," says Hayward.
CALPIRG is planning on proving this false. As Ferrulo says, "The
people who drafted 212 have worked within the system and have been
fighting it for years."
The Yes on 212 campaign has also been working hard to publicize
the corporate funding of the Prop. 208 campaign, including a
Hewlett-Packard donation of $10,000. "It’s a well-intentioned but
weaker reform measure that doesn’t even prohibit business
donations," Ferrulo says.
The League of Women Voters, despite a stated commitment to
campaign reform, has come out against 212 because it includes "some
unconstitutional provisions that will probably be held up in the
courts," says League representative Chris Greely.
Another "giant loophole" in 212, explains Greely, allows for the
formation of so-called Citizen Contribution Committees. These CCC’s
are basically a front for corporations to donate $10,000 to $20,000
in the names of individuals.
The official 212 opposition group, Citizens Against Flawed
Reform, is funded by such corporate giants as Philip Morris,
PepsiCo., and PG&E. In a press release, Yes on 212 Campaign
Coordinator Wendy Wendlandt stated that these companies "will spend
millions on their sinister attempt to terrorize California
voters."
The issue of campaign finance reform has surfaced in the local
elections, as well. State Senator Tom Hayden, in a Tuesday night
debate at Ackerman Grand Ballroom, called for the end of the
"special interest state" and stressed increasing popular access to
politics. Hayden described the modern political climate as a
perfect fit to Machiavelli’s definition of politics as "not about
justice, but interest." According to Steve Hayward, there is no
other way to run the system.
"You’re never going to reform campaign finance unless you repeal
the First Amendment, or else shrink the size and scope of
government," he said.
The First Amendment protects campaign contributions under the
domain of free speech. What should be eradicated, Hayward argues,
is the reasoning behind contributions, "the favors you can get from
government." Hayward cites the donations made to the Dole
presidential campaign from Archer-Daniels Midlands, in return for
his support for ethanol subsidies.