• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

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.