Revamped finance reform passes despite criticism

"It's great that the voters in California have recognized the need for campaign finance reform," said Tom Knoxx, spokesperson for the Yes on Prop 34 campaign. "Prop 34 is a good place to start, and we look forward to working with reformers to strengthen and broaden the reforms contained in Prop 34," Knoxx added.

Barbara Rucker, president of the North San Mateo County League of Women Voters, and opponent to Prop 34 said, "We have not voted in campaign finance reform, we've got much higher limits under Prop 34 then we would have under Prop 208 - we'll have to go back to the drawing board."

Rucker says that the legislature that created Prop 34 "Pushed it through the House at the last minute, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause and the American Association of Retired Persons were unable to get their statement on the voter pamphlet - if you look there is no opposition."

Prop 34 establishes contribution and voluntary spending limits for state elective offices, as well as rescinding Prop 208, which sets tighter spending and contribution limits on all 17 of Prop 34's provisions.

Under Prop 208, campaign contributions would have been limited to $500 in statewide elections, there would be incentives for voluntary spending limits, and lobbyists would be prohibited from making contributions. Under Prop 34 Gubernatorial contributions would be limited to $20,000 per election and would repeal the $500 limit under Prop 208 - Prop 34 would limit no soft money.

In February of 1997, Federal District Judge Lawrence Karlton placed an injunction on Prop 208, ruling that its spending limits were so low that a candidate's ability to wage an effective campaign would be restricted - later a State appeals court ordered Judge Karlton to conduct a new trial on Prop 208 - the trial began July of this year, and was suspended in lieu of election results which, if Prop 34 had failed, would have resumed the trial.

Rucker contends that Prop 208 could have made it out of courts, she notes that in states like Montana and Vermont, campaign finance reform measures, similar to Prop 208 have been upheld by the courts, and therefore reflects Prop 208's ability to make it through the courts.

Knoxx disagrees, he says Kirkland would have turned Prop 208 into "Swiss cheese." Kirkland would so radically alter the content and spending limits of Prop 208, according to Knoxx, that its original 1996 supporters wouldn't recognize the measure.

"Proposition 34 is campaign finance reforms only hope because it has been carefully tailored to fit within all Supreme Court rulings in the country that have been instituted, we've got a base to build on," Knoxx added.