Issue Summary

Campaigns in California are among the most costly in the nation. This barrier to participation in our state spurs heated debate over how state campaigns are funded and whether different methods of financing produce different effects with regard to the comparative influence of special interests, who chooses to run for office, and who participates in elections and in what numbers. Some experts believe campaign contributions should be regulated; others believe that the cost of political campaigns should be distributed equally among the public as a shared cost of a democratic society; and others believe that improved disclosure is the only workable remedy, or at least would be a good place to start.

Although campaign contribution limits were enacted in California in 2000 there is still a widespread sense that something more needs to be done to increase the quality of campaigns while reducing the cost of running for office and the negative consequences of big dollar fundraising that for most candidates is currently an unavoidable necessity.

Supporters of campaign finance reform are generally motivated by an interest in limiting the disproportionate and potentially distorting impact of well financed interests on the political process, and increasing access to candidacy for a more representative sample of the state’s population.

Current Status

In the '05-'06 legislative session, Assemblywoman Loni Hancock (D-14) introduced AB 583 to establish a statewide system for public campaign financing. Other campaign finance-related legislation has been introduced would have required corporations to report political campaign contributions and publicly finance the campaign for Insurance Commissioner on a pilot basis. None of these passed the legislature.

The California Nurses Association and a number of other groups are supporting Prop 89 (on the November ballot), an initiative to enact public financing of campaigns, mandate corporate reporting of political contributions, and other items. Supporters of Prop 89 say public financing will level the playing field at election time, and reign in undue influence over campaigns by special interests. Opponents of the measure say that by further limiting who can contribute to candidates and campaigns, the measure would actually restrict participation in the political process. Opponents also object to the funding mechanism for the proposed policy, which would be a .2% increase in the corporation tax rate from 8.84% to 9.04%. Supporters assert that the tax increase is negligible, amounting to less than 20 cents for every $100 of taxable income, and would restore the corporate tax rate to 1996 levels.

UPCOMING EVENTS

None scheduled on this topic at this time

BACKGROUND

Past VoR Programs

VoR Post Election Series: "Campaign Finance Reform: Finding Bipartisan Common Ground" (01/17/07, Sacramento) | DOWNLOAD MP3 | California Channel Video

Election Issues Forum: A Discussion of Proposition 89 (10/24/06, San Francisco) | DOWNLOAD MP3

Panel Discussion: "Campaign Finance Reform: California Cities Take the Lead
Two Part Panel Discussion, Part II: Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica" (9/20/06, Los Angeles) | DOWNLOAD MP3

Panel Discussion: "Campaign Finance Reform: California Cities Take the Lead
Two Part Panel Discussion, Part I: Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose" (8/2/06, San Francisco) | DOWNLOAD MP3

Editorial Board Roundtable: Campaign Finance Reform (hosted by La Opinion, 7/27/05) | PDF TRANSCRIPT

Panel Discussion: Should California's Campaign Finance Laws Be Changed? (Spring Conference: "If It’s Broke, Fix It: Making California Government Work for Californians" 6/10/05) | DOWNLOAD MP3

Panel Discussion: “Can Public Campaign Financing Work in California?” (1/27/05, Los Angeles) | DOWNLOAD MP3

Legislation ('05-'06 legislative session)

AB 16. (Huff R-60) This bill would prohibit the governor and members of the legislature from fundraising from mid-May until a budget is passed.

AB 40. (Wolk D-8) This bill would place restrictions on lobbyists who are also political consultants.

AB 583. (Hancock D-14) See above.

AB 709. (Wolk D-8) This bill would limit contributions to initiative campaigns run by state candidates.

AB 739. (Nation D-6) This bill would lower the amount of expenditure required for disclosure in advocacy campaigns from the current $50,000 to $10,000.

AB 938. (Umberg D-69) This bill relates to the timely reporting of contributions to initiative campaigns.

SB 398. (Simitian D-11) This bill would provide public financing for the election of the Insurance Commissioner.

Websites

The California Secretary of State. This site provides a searchable database of campaign contributions and expenditures.

California Clean Money Campaign. This organization seeks to inform Californians about the Clean Money Model of campaign finance.

Californians for Political Reform This is a coalition of California organizations and individuals formed to develop a campaign finance reform initiative for California. Their website includes the text of this initiative as well as background on campaign finance reform and their campaign.

California Common Cause. This site includes California Common Cause’s position on money in politics.

California Nurses Association This site provides information and background material on the California Nurses Association's clean money initiative.

The Federal Election Commission. Congress created The Federal Election Commission (FEC) in 1975 to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.

Public Agenda/Campaign Finance. Public Agenda conducts research of public opinion on key issues and produces citizen education materials on those topics.

The CLC Media Policy Program (formerly the Alliance for Better Campaigns). This organization provides an array of political campaign-related information with a focus on the role of the media on the availability of campaign information, and supports making the airwaves accessible to more candidates.

The Institute on Money in State Politics. This organization provides a searchable database of campaign finance information at the state level. It also publishes studies and provides technical assistance to reporters, researchers groups working on campaign-finance issues.

The Hoover Institution’s Public Policy Inquiry: Campaign Finance. This site is supported by Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and provides information on the history, current structure, and reform proposals associated with Campaign Finance.

The Campaign Finance Institute. The Campaign Finance Institute conducts research and education and makes recommendations for policy change in the field of campaign finance.

The Campaign Disclosure Project. This Project is a collaboration of the UCLA School of Law, the Center for Governmental Studies, and the California Voter Foundation, and seeks to classify and evaluate the campaign disclosure laws of the 50 states, design and promote uniform standards and model laws for state reporting and disclosure practices, and grade states on their performance.

Center for Responsive Politics. This organization tracks money in politics, and its effect on elections and public policy.

California Forward. California Forward is a nonprofit organization charting a new path to more effective state governance through nonpartisan policy analysis, public dialogue throughout the state on key issues, and pursuit of sensible reforms.

Reports and Papers

‘Clean Elections: Arizona 2004 ’ (pdf) (Report by the Institute on Money in State Politics, May 2006)

‘Campaign Promises: A Six-year Review of Arizona's Experiment with Taxpayer-financed campaigns ’ (pdf) (Report by the Goldwater Institute, March 2006)

‘Do Public Funding Programs Enhance Electoral Competition? ’ (pdf) (Report by the Wisconsin Campaign Finance Project, University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Political Science, March 2005)

‘Keeping It Clean: Public Financing in American Election’ (pdf) (Report by the Center for Governmental Studies, May 2006)

‘Campaign Finance Disclosure Model Law’ (pdf) (Report by the Center for Governmental Studies, the California Voter Foundation, and the UCLA School of Law, June 2004)

‘Investing in Democracy: Creating Public Financing of Elections in Your Community’ (Report by the Center for Governmental Studies, 2003)

‘Overly Complex and Unduly Burdensome: the Critical Need to Simplify the Political Reform Act’ (pdf) (Report by the Bipartisan Commission to Review the Political Reform Act of 1974, 2001)

‘On the Brink of Clean: Launching San Francisco’s New Campaign Finance Reforms’ (pdf) (Report by the Center for Governmental Studies, 2002)

‘Second Annual Recommendations Report: Leveling the Playing Field and making Every Vote Count – Linking Campaign Finance Reform and Electoral Reform to Advance Civil Rights’ (pdf) (Greenlining Institute, February 2003)

‘A Statute of Liberty: How New York’s Campaign Finance Law is Changing the Face of Local Elections’ (pdf) (Center for Governmental Studies Report by Paul Ryan, 2003)

‘Public Financing of Elections: Where to Get the Money?’ (pdf) (Report by The Center for Governmental Studies Report, 2003)

‘Eleven Years of Reform: Many Successes, More to be Done’ (pdf) (Report by the Center for Governmental Studies on campaign financing in the City of Los Angeles, 2001)