California Elections : Both Sides Seek Funds to Carry Message on Campaign Financing

SACRAMENTO —  Common Cause lobbyist Walter Zelman has made his career promoting restrictions on the amount of money that legislators can raise and spend for their election campaigns.

It is one of the ironies of politics that Zelman is now doing what he has long wanted to curtail: soliciting money for a political campaign.

This election season, Zelman is the campaign manager for Proposition 68, a June 7 ballot measure that would limit contributions and spending in legislative races and provide some public financing. In his new role, he acknowledges the reality of modern political campaigns in California, but he is not happy about it:

“If you can’t get people to bankroll you in a major way, you don’t win,” he said. “That’s fundamentally wrong, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. What this campaign is all about is trying to change that.”

Source of Money

In searching for financial backing, Zelman and the Proposition 68 organization have turned primarily to the business community, the major source of money for most campaigns in California.

While some corporate officials have donated large amounts of company and personal funds to the campaign, business leaders are divided on the issue, reflecting differing views on whether the initiative will benefit or harm their interests.

Proposition 68 is designed to change the way legislative campaigns are conducted in California, thereby reducing the influence of special-interest contributors and the power of top leaders of the Assembly and the Senate.

Specifically, Proposition 68 would provide matching tax dollars to candidates who agree to abide by limits on the amount of money they spend. It also would limit the size of contributions to legislative candidates and ban contributions during non-election years. And it would prohibit the transfer of campaign money from one candidate to another, a device that legislative leaders use to reward political allies and remain in power.

Also on the ballot is Proposition 73, a rival measure to Proposition 68. Proposition 73 would limit the size of campaign contributions and prohibit the transfer of money among candidates. It would not impose any limits on campaign spending and would ban the use of tax dollars to help finance candidates for statewide, legislative or local office.

With less than two weeks left before the election, none of the sides supporting or opposing the measures has yet reported raising enough money to promote their viewpoints extensively on television or in mass mailings. Detailed reports of their money-raising and spending are due in the coming week.

But the lack of money contributed to the campaigns so far seems to indicate that many major interest groups are either ambivalent about the propositions or unconcerned about the effect of campaign contribution limits.

A sampling of Capitol lobbyists suggests that many of them also are sitting on the sidelines during the contest between Proposition 68, Proposition 73 and opponents of the two measures. Although lobbyists often steer campaign contributions from their clients to legislators, some lobbyists say privately that they are not disturbed by the proposed contribution limits and can live with whatever is enacted by the voters.

Legislative leaders in both parties have been the most outspoken in opposing Proposition 68. But even they have been reluctant to donate money from their own political treasuries to the anti-Proposition 68 campaign because they are not sure there will be enough money to defeat the measure.

“Everybody is trying to analyze these things as to how they affect their interests,” said Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles), an outspoken opponent of both initiatives. “There’s been discussion about (contributing) money, but no one’s anxious to do it because no one wants to be the first to ante up.”

Official Sponsor

Proposition 68 is officially sponsored by Newport Beach businessman Walter Gerken and has the backing of Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and a broad coalition of consumer, environmentalist and senior citizen groups.

So far, the campaign has raised about $400,000 in cash and in-kind contributions, according to spokesman Fredric Woocher. Much of it has come from corporate supporters and in small contributions from members of groups like the League of Women Voters.

Proposition 73 is sponsored by Assemblyman Ross Johnson (R--La Habra), Sen. Joseph B. Montoya (D--Whittier) and Sen. Quentin Kopp (I--San Francisco). Supporters of Proposition 73 say they do not expect to raise more than $100,000 for their campaign.

Among those opposing both initiatives are Republican Gov. George Deukmejian, Democratic Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, and the California Medical Assn., a major contributor to legislative races that could very well see its influence in Sacramento diminished with the passage of either measure.

Al Pross, CMA political action committee finance director who is heading fund-raising efforts for the opposition organization, would not say how much the campaign has raised towards its goal of about $2 million.

Because opponents of the two measures have yet to launch a major campaign, supporters of Proposition 68 say they fear that the opponents will attempt to win the election with a last-minute blitz of negative television commercials and mailers.

“There’s no question it’s a closet campaign,” Zelman said. “I wouldn’t be surprised in the last two weeks to see them come out with a substantial campaign and try to buy it with television advertising.”

Division Among Business

The stands taken by some major business groups reflect the division in the business community over the two propositions.

The state Chamber of Commerce, for example, has taken no position on Proposition 68 and supports Proposition 73. The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce has endorsed Proposition 68 and opposes Proposition 73. And the California Business Roundtable, a group consisting of representatives from large corporations, has endorsed Proposition 68, while taking no position on Proposition 73. Businessmen like Gerken, former chairman of Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co., and Neil E. Harlan, chairman of McKesson Corp., have taken a leading role in helping to finance Proposition 68. Each company has contributed about $30,000 to the campaign and the two men have donated their own money as well.

“I’ve put in $5,000, as have other businessmen who were involved,” Gerken said. “We believe that in order to express our own personal commitment to this it was important to do that.”

Both Gerken and Harlan were members of the California Commission on Campaign Financing, a group of businessmen, legal experts and former politicians whose work led to the drafting of Proposition 68.

“The fact that we have significant business support for this kind of initiative is unique,” Zelman said. “The corporate people who are supporting us in a major way are individuals who are interested in the health of the political process.”

Harlan said he is seeking to change the current system of financing legislative campaigns in part because of “the annoyance of incessant requests” from legislators seeking money.

Seeming Unconcern

Among Capitol lobbyists, the prospect of either Proposition 68 or 73 taking effect has barely caused a ripple.

“Just tell me what the rules are and I’ll operate,” one lobbyist said. “I don’t care what the rules are. The day after (either initiative passes), you just sit down and come up with a new way business is conducted.”

Some lobbyists say they would welcome changes in the system of campaign financing and suggest that disruption of the present system would be a good thing.

“If you put limits on what candidates can receive and what corporations can give, it helps guys like us who argue the bills on the merits . . . ,” said another lobbyist, who represents interests that generally do not make large contributions.

For Zelman, the effort to win approval of Proposition 68 is the culmination of 11 years of lobbying for a change in the way campaigns are financed in California.

“This is the moment of truth,” he said. “It’s the moment of truth for me and it’s the moment of truth for this issue. If we lose here, we’re going to have a hard time resurrecting this issue for a long time.”