Campaign finance reforms proposed
Environmental group joins in fight to stop ‘dirty money’ from
controlling politics
By Michael Angell
Daily Bruin Contributor
At a recent rally to drum up support for campaign finance
reform, the California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) did
what monks of old did to dramatize sin: They staged a morality
play.
It went as follows: On the road to Capital, Ambitious Politician
met Sincere Environmentalist and Evil Executive. Sincere offered
Ambitious the support of volunteers and voters if he would vote to
stop river pollution. But Evil wanted to keep polluting the river,
so he offered $1 million to Ambitious’ campaign.
Whose support did Ambitious choose: Sincere Environmentalist or
Evil Executive?
Two campaign finance reform initiatives could make Ambitious
choose the former. The Anti-Corruption Act of 1996 and the
California Political Reform Act of 1996 both hope to make the
ancient dream of honest politics a modern reality.
Although both initiatives limit donations from individuals,
parties and political action committees, the measures are more
different than they are similar.
The Anti-Corruption Act of 1996, sponsored by CALPIRG, would
limit contributions from outside a candidate’s district, ban
donations from corporations, unions and banks, and impose mandatory
spending limits on total campaign expenditures.
While CALPIRG is better known for its environmental work than
political reform, supporters said the Anti-Corruption Act attempts
to get to the root of environmental pollution which begins with
dirty money flowing into politics.
Rebecca Benassini, CALPIRG’s campus coordinator, said repeatedly
that clean-up efforts conceived the bill.
"We’d go out to a river every single Saturday and it would be
dirty again," Benassini said. "We started asking ‘why aren’t there
any laws in place to prevent this?’"
The California Political Reform Act is a less-stringent rival
initiative that does not limit out-of-district contributions, does
not ban contributions from companies, unions and banks, nor does it
impose voluntary rather than mandatory spending limits on
campaigns.
But Common Cause, the nationwide government watchdog group that
drafted the reform act, argued that their initiative will be more
effective because it is more likely to withstand court
challenges.
Ruth Holton, California Common Cause’s executive director, said
her own organization’s initiative will mean immediate reform, while
the Anti-Corruption Act may face numerous challenges to its
provisions in the Supreme Court.
Provisions contained in the CALPIRG measure, including the
banning of corporate donations and imposing mandatory limits, have
already been ruled unconstitutional. According to Holton, any legal
challenge will delay campaign finance reform.
If the Anti-Corruption Act passes, "unquestionably it will be
challenged," Holton said. As for Common Cause’s measure, Holton
reminded that, "every major provision has been held up by the
Supreme Court."
"We want reform now in 1997," Holton said.
But CALPIRG welcomed a Supreme Court challenge. Benassini said
the Anti-Corruption Act will be a test case for campaign finance
reform in other states.
"California is the kind of state that everyone looks toward,"
Benassini said. "We expect it to be challenged (in the Supreme
Court) and to set a trend across the country."
CALPIRG staffers felt that the Common Cause initiative is too
conservative to spark real change. But this more moderate approach
may explain the initiative’s broad-based support.
The measure already has enough signatures to qualify for the
ballot, and the American Association of Retired People and Ross
Perot’s United We Stand America have each endorsed the
initiative.
Meanwhile, CALPIRG is still working to gather enough signatures
for the November ballot. Benassini said that supporters on six UC
campuses promised 10,000 signatures to get the initiative on the
ballot.
Notwithstanding the initiatives’ differences, many Bruins
familiar with the issue said that campaign finance reform is an
important first step toward restoring the political system.
Jeremy Shabo, a third-year undeclared student, voiced the common
complaint that politics is inherently corrupt. He hoped reform can
change that.
"Our political system favors large corporations who are able to
finance campaigns," he said. "(Campaign finance reform) will
restore politicians’ responsibility to the voters."Comments to
webmaster@db.asucla.ucla.edu