Prop. 34 made campaigning more expensive

When voters approved Proposition 34 in 2000, they were told that it would limit the influence of money in political campaigns. The measure capped contributions to legislative races at $3,000, and it put a $5,000 limit on donations in most statewide elections, with a $20,000 ceiling in campaigns for governor. But the ballot measure had consequences most voters probably never imagined.

Instead of costing less, campaigns now cost more. Instead of candidates raising money and controlling how it is spent, independent groups raise and spend unlimited amounts and control much of the political battlefield.

This is typical of campaign finance reform. Almost every attempt to limit the role of money in politics has failed. Most, including Proposition 34, have made things worse.

A recent tally by the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state's political watchdog agency, found that independent groups have spent $88 million on races for state office since Proposition 34 took effect. In 2000, the last election before limits were applied, independent committees spent $376,000 on legislative campaigns. In 2006, they spent $23 million. In 2002, the last year before the limits applied in statewide races, independent committees spent $526,000. In 2006, it was $29 million.

These committees are called "independent" because they cannot coordinate efforts with the candidates they support. They are free from limits on their activity because they have a First Amendment right to express their opinions.

The U.S. Supreme Court long has held that states can regulate direct donations to politicians because those contributions can corrupt their recipients. Independent committees, however, don't give to candidates. They spend their money on ads and other activities to communicate with voters. So, says the court, there are not official limits on what they do.

As long as that remains the law, any limits on direct contributions will spawn more independent spending.

It's amazing how few groups are responsible for most of the new spending. The FPPC study showed that the 10 most active independent committees accounted for nearly half the spending, or $42 million. The biggest was Californians for a Better Government, which spent nearly $10 million to help Democrat Phil Angelides in his run for governor. Almost all the money came from developer Angelo Tsakopoulos and his daughter, Eleni. The elder Tsakopoulos is a close friend, mentor and business partner of Angelides.

No. 2 was the Alliance for a Better California, a coalition of labor unions, which spent $5.2 million. Other top spenders were First Americans for a Better California, a group of Indian gaming tribes; JOBS PAC, a pro-business group; and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the prison guards union.

The biggest donors to these committees included the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, which spent $6.2 million; the California Teachers Association, which spent $3.9 million; and the Morango Band of Mission Indians, which spent $3.4 million. Three committees controlled by the service employees union spent a combined $6 million.

Money in politics is not necessarily evil. Candidates must communicate with voters; mailers and commercials are expensive.

Limits on contributions tend to help incumbents, who, once in office, have a built-in advantage because they build name identification. Challengers can find it difficult to get traction without accepting large donations.

California has created a system in which a candidate can face millions of dollars in attacks from independent groups without the ability to respond.

It's time for a top-to-bottom reassessment of the way this system works. It might be best to remove limits on contributions to candidates while requiring full and immediate disclosure of all donations and spending. Let the candidates take the money, then let voters judge whether someone has been unduly influenced.

E-mail: dweintraub@sacbee.com.

THE SACRAMENTO BEE