Proposition 54 ““ a poorly conceived initiative which would
curtail the state’s collection of racial data ““ is now
at the center of a campaign finance controversy which may affect
Lt. Gov. Bustamante’s credibility, at least for some voters.
But those who would criticize Bustamante should remember that
political spending laws are not always clear cut, or even fair. Nor
is Bustamante the only one caught up in controversy surrounding
spending practices and Proposition 54.
According to a California judge, Bustamante’s group cannot
spend any of a $3.8 million war chest on anti-Proposition 54
advertisements ““ the money must now be returned because it
was collected in units larger than the $21,200 currently permitted.
Yet Bustamante says the money is already spent and irrevocably
gone. However, in Bustamante’s defense, the state Fair
Political Practices Commission had previously advised him that the
money was cleared for use.
Indeed, the money might not be a big issue at all, except
Bustamante is also a candidate in the gubernatorial recall election
““ and he had promised not to use the money for his own
self-promotion. Yet, the Proposition 54 ads strongly mirror his
self-promotional ads. In both spots, he appears wearing the same
clothing and speaks from the same podium.
This similarity has caused people to question his true
motivation for spending the money; did he simply make a mistake and
accidentally spend extra money fighting Proposition 54, or did he
find a loophole designed to boost his personal campaign?
The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
He certainly could have avoided appearing in the ads personally.
But he probably believed that he had the right to spend the money
as he saw fit ““ after all, the money was collected by a
political action committee formed before the current law was in
place.
Moreover, Bustamante is not the only prominent California figure
to be hit with controversy regarding Proposition 54 spending. UC
Regent Ward Connerly, the author and top supporter of the
proposition, has used his public position to push the measure into
the public spotlight. And now his American Civil Rights Coalition
has refused to reveal its own sources of funding, saying that it
wants to protect the privacy of its contributors. A judge supported
privacy for the contributors, but it seems unfair that Californians
should not know who is supporting such a controversial
initiative.
Even college students have been dragged into the confusing fray,
with the UC Berkeley student senate facing charges of impropriety
for allocating $35,000 of student money for an anti-Proposition 54
group. Some have said that this action appears to violate UC rules
preventing official university organs from becoming involved in
political campaigns. Yet at the same time, a UC regulation also
demands that funding be granted on a
“viewpoint-neutral” basis. In other words, the rule
against political contributions may have been violated, but at the
same time, the senate appeared to have no choice but to allocate
the money or risk charges of viewpoint bias.
These cases all illustrate the conflicted nature of campaign
finance laws. And obviously, in any politically charged situation,
everyone tries to outmaneuver and outplay their opponents. It seems
unfair to accuse Bustamante or the UC students of cheating while
ignoring the secrecy of Connerly. Although Bustamante is right to
oppose Proposition 54, he should have found a away to avoid charges
of self-promotion or improper spending.