Hard of hearing

Published on August 4, 2008 03:30 PM
by Michael Schrimpf

File Under: "Clean" Elections, Taxpayer Financing

Some members of the California legislature are apparently a little hard of hearing. 

The California Senate Appropriations Committee held a hearing today on A.B. 583, which seeks to establish a government-financed election program for the 2014 Secretary of State race.  A.B. 583 amends the Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure.  The portions of A.B. 583 that amends the Political Reform Act of 1974 must also be approved by the voters at the June 8, 2010 statewide primary to take effect.

But just two years ago California voters declared loudly and clearly that they did not want government-financed elections.  Nearly 75 percent of voters rejected Proposition 89 which sought to establish a government-financed election system.

Ironically, also on the 2006 ballot was Proposition 83, which asked voters whether they wanted to increase penalties for sex offenders.  Prop. 83 passed by a wide margin.  Taxpayer financing, on the other hand, lost.  Badly. 

How badly? 

More Californians supported keeping softer penalties for sex offenders than supported taxpayer financing.


Proponents of taxpayer financed political campaigns take note: when sex offenders are more popular than your political cause, it may be time to find a new cause.

Given this history, and the fact that the environment for government-financing programs has recently become shakier, it is unclear why some legislators are forging ahead with this program.

In July, the New Jersey Office of Legislative Services (OLS) offered an opinion that found so-called "rescue funds" to be unconstitutional in the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling which said that "leveling electoral opportunities" is an insufficient justification with which to impose campaign finance laws.

"Rescue funds" are supplemental money given to candidates who are participating in a government-financing program, if they are faced with non-participating opponents or spending by outside groups that exceed the initial government grant.
 
The OLS opinion recognized that certain provisions, like "rescue funds," in taxpayer-financed campaign programs undermine and penalize core political speech.
 
Rescue funds "would deter freedom of expression by a non-participating candidate or a group making an independent expenditure without sufficient justification because rescue money does not address the risk of actual or perceived corruption," the opinion declared.

It would therefore seem prudent for the California legislature to seek a legal analysis of their proposed program.