EDITORIAL : DUELING PROPOSITIONS TWO CAMPAIGN REFORM INITIATIVES HAVE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES.

Propositions 208 and 212 have similar aims, but the first is a scalpel and the second a rusty chain saw.

Proposition 208 is a restrained, reasonable effort to diminish the role of big money in state politics. Proposition 212, a rival measure, goes too far and contains several elements that are clearly unconstitutional.

For example, Proposition 212 saddles candidates with a mandatory campaign spending cap - an idea that the U.S. Supreme Court long ago rejected as an illegal restraint on the First Amendment right of free speech.

Also, Proposition 212 would limit contributions in most elections to $100 ($200 for statewide offices), but federal courts have said such Draconian restrictions are impermissible burdens on First Amendment rights.

The initiative also would prohibit candidates from raising more than 25 percent of their contributions outside their district. Yet, as a federal court once noted, state legislators pass laws affecting all state residents, who thus have excellent reasons for helping distant candidates.

The chief backer of Proposition 212 is the California Public Interest Research Group, an organization of do-gooders with a liberal agenda. If the initiative passes, then CalPIRG, labor unions and other large-membership organizations would enjoy far higher contribution limits than other donor groups, raising troubling questions of unfairness.

On the other hand, Proposition 208 limits campaign contributions in a much less radical way. It sets voluntary campaign spending limits, with incentives for candidates such as higher limits on individual contributions and free space in the ballot booklet. Even if the idea turns out to be a flop, the state will be no worse off than before.

Proposition 208 prohibits fund-raising during nonelection years, a change that could improve decision making in Sacramento. It bans transfers of money between candidates, which is a way for legislators to buy the allegiance of their colleagues. It prohibits lobbyists from making contributions or arranging contributions by their clients, another good-government move.

Although the measure may not be perfect, it's good enough to have earned a wide range of endorsements, from Common Cause to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

The Golden State is among a minority of states that place no limit on the size of contributions to state candidates. Doing so now, and adopting the rest of the rules in Proposition 208, is a reasonable step for better government.

PROP. 208 AT A GLANCE

Here is a summary of Proposition 208 on the Nov. 5 statewide ballot:

Campaign contributions and spending limits:

Limits campaign contributions to $500 in statewide elections, $250 in large districts and $100 in smaller districts. Provides incentives for voluntary spending limits. Prohibits lobbyist contributions.

The Daily News recommends:YES

PROP. 212 AT A GLANCE

Here is a summary of Proposition 212 on the Nov. 5 statewide ballot:

Campaign contributions and spending limits:

Repeals current restrictions on public officials receiving gifts and honoraria. Limits contributions to $200 in state campaigns and $100 in other campaigns. Imposes spending limits and prohibits lobbyist contributions.

The Daily News recommends: NO

CAPTION(S):

2 boxes

BOX: (1) Prop. 208 at a glance (see text)

(2) Prop. 212 a t a glance (see text)