CAMPAIGN REFORMS TO VIE FOR VOTES : GROUP SAYS PLANS SEEKING TO LIMIT CONTRIBUTIONS WILL POSE CONFUSION.Byline: Rick Orlov Orlov (Орлóв) is the name of a Russian noble family which produced several distinguished statesmen, diplomatists and soldiers. The family first gained distinction in the person of four Orlov brothers, of whom the senior was Catherine the Great's Daily News Staff Writer The one thing campaign reformers agree upon is there is too much money in California California (kăl'ĭfôr`nyə), most populous state in the United States, located in the Far West; bordered by Oregon (N), Nevada and, across the Colorado River, Arizona (E), Mexico (S), and the Pacific Ocean (W). politics. What they don't don't 1. Contraction of do not. 2. Nonstandard Contraction of does not. n. A statement of what should not be done: a list of the dos and don'ts. agree on is how to limit it, a disagreement that has led to a feud feud, formalized private warfare, especially between family groups. The blood feud (see vendetta) is characteristic of those societies in which central government either has not arisen or has decayed. between two of the top reform groups in the state with competing campaign reform measures on the Nov. 5 ballot. To further complicate com·pli·cate tr. & intr.v. com·pli·cat·ed, com·pli·cat·ing, com·pli·cates 1. To make or become complex or perplexing. 2. To twist or become twisted together. adj. 1. matters, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is the five member governing board of Los Angeles County, California. Members of the board of supervisors are elected by district, the current members as of April 2006 are:
``This has made it extraordinarily difficult,'' said Ruth Holton
Holton is the name of several places in the United States of America:
On the state level, the competing measures are Proposition 208, which is backed by Common Cause and the League of Women Voters League of Women Voters, voluntary public service organization of U.S. citizens. Organized in 1920 in Chicago as an outgrowth of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, it had as its original nucleus the leaders of the latter organization. , and Proposition 212, which is supported by the California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG CALPIRG California Public Interest Research Group ). Both measures would place limits on campaign contributions and on the amount of time candidates have to raise money. But they vary on how they would regulate the use of officeholder of·fice·hold·er n. One who holds public office. Noun 1. officeholder - someone who is appointed or elected to an office and who holds a position of trust; "he is an officer of the court"; "the club elected its officers for accounts, gifts and honorariums, and contributions from corporations and political action committees. If both pass, the one with the most votes takes effect. If the county measure passes also, it would be pre-empted if Prop. 212 wins, but allowed under Prop. 208. ``Reform sounds great, so people may vote for both or for one and not the other,'' said Holton. ``What they don't realize is that the one with the higher votes gets approved and the other loses.'' California has been in the forefront of campaign reform, dating back to the 1978 creation of the Fair Political Practices Commission. Bob Stern, who was the first general counsel to the FPPC FPPC Fair Political Practices Commission (California) FPPC Fédération du Personnel Professionnel des Collèges FPPC Fieldpoint Petroleum Corporation (stock symbol) FPPC Farm Pilot Project Coordination, Inc. and was involved in the drafting of Proposition 208, said he is concerned that this election could turn out to be like that in 1988 when voters approved two campaign reform measures, Propositions 68 and 73. Because Proposition 73 received more votes, it was ruled to have won in the election and even noncompeting provisions of Proposition 68 were outlawed. ``Later, the courts ruled that Proposition 73 was unconstitutional unconstitutional adj. referring to a statute, governmental conduct, court decision or private contract (such as a covenant which purports to limit transfer of real property only to Caucasians) which violate one or more provisions of the U. S. Constitution. , so we ended up with nothing,'' Stern said. ``I just hope the same situation doesn't does·n't Contraction of does not. result here.'' That is the great fear of the Prop. 208 backers, Holton said, because they feel Prop. 212 will be overturned by the courts. ``So, if Proposition 212 passes and ends up being overturned, which we think it will, there will be no change, and it will be business as usual,'' she said. ``Their proposal is designed to send a message and not really accomplish anything. I think the voters are tired of that.'' The main concern over a court challenge is the provision in Proposition 212 that attempts to limit how much an individual can contribute to his own campaign. Similar provisions have been struck down several times by both the California and U.S. Supreme Courts in other cases, with the justices saying they violate an individual's right to free speech. Doug Phelps of the national organization overseeing CALPIRG, argued that even that provision in Prop. 212 is struck down in the courts, the rest of the measure would stand and result in real reform. ``There is only one part of this that directly challenges court rulings, and that involves private expenditures,'' Phelps said. ``Even if that is struck down, the rest of it will remain in effect. It is really misleading to say that our entire measure will be thrown out.'' It was Phelps and CALPIRG that brought different reformers - including Common Cause - together last year to try to hammer out a campaign reform measure they could all agree on. Last-minute differences, particularly over how to limit rich individuals from using their own money to gain an advantage in a campaign, resulted in Common Cause and the League of Women Voters drafting Proposition 208. Both measures are designed to limit contributions. Proposition 208 would limit contributions to $500 for statewide elections and $250 to legislative candidates. Candidates could collect double those amounts from donors if they agreed to a spending cap on their entire campaign. But the measure would place no limits on spending personal funds. The measure also does nothing to limit contributions from corporations - which are banned under at the federal level - and will continue to allow contributions from outside legislative districts. Proposition 212 has lower donation limits of $200 for statewide offices and $100 for legislative offices. It would require that 75 percent of all money raised come from people living within a district. It also would establish spending caps of $2 million for the primary election and $5 million for the general election for governor and $1.25 million for primaries and $1.75 million for the general election of other statewide offices. In addition, it would end corporate contributions and remove the tax deduction Tax deduction An expense that a taxpayer is allowed to deduct from taxable income. tax deduction See deduction. given companies for hiring lobbyists. However, it would also repeal The Annulment or abrogation of a previously existing statute by the enactment of a later law that revokes the former law. The revocation of the law can either be done through an express repeal a current ban on gifts and honorariums to elected officials, which opponents said is a serious flaw. ``If you have strict contribution limits, but no limits on gifts or honoraria, you can see how easy it will be to get around,'' Holton said. ``Also, there are no restrictions on how they can use the gifts, unlike contributions that must go into a campaign.'' CAMPAIGN REFORM Here is a look at the difference in three campaign reform measures that will appear on the Nov. 5 ballot. Issue County Prop. B State Prop. State Prop. 208 212 Basic Contribution $200 $250 $100 Limit Higher contribution $1,000 $500 None with canidate spending cap Personal funds Three levels none none but limit that gradually extra reduce caps onreporting opponents required Fundraising
period limits 6 months after, 3 months after 1 month after except supervisors, 15 months before /6 months after Officeholder $75,000 annual $10,000 total none accounts spending limit; contributions $1,000 personal annually; $250 contribution personal contrib. limit; no spending limit 6 months before election Gifts/honoraria no change no change repeals current ban Contributions no change no change banned from businesses, unions, banks Source: State and county ballot pamphlets. CAPTION(S): Chart Chart: CAMPAIGN REFORM (see text) |
|
||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion