Prop. 208 Bars Good Candidates, Expert Says

SACRAMENTO —  A veteran Democratic campaign strategist testified Thursday that campaign finance restrictions imposed by Proposition 208 will eliminate qualified people from serving in the Legislature.

The limits on campaign contributions and other restrictions are so unreasonable that good candidates will be unable to mount effective campaigns, testified Richie Ross, a longtime veteran of Senate and Assembly campaigns.

“We are going to eliminate very, very good people if the past is any road map to the future,” he said.

Ross testified in federal court as a witness in opposition to the political reform law enacted by the voters in 1996. The statute is under challenge by both major political parties, organized labor and other interests as an unconstitutional attack on their rights to free speech and association.

But sponsors of the initiative, including Common Cause, have argued that the new law clamps reasonable restraints on a political system that is corroded by the unlimited election spending of special interests.

During the second day of the trial before U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton, Ross captivated the courtroom with insider accounts of campaign intrigues and tactics. Often, his humor-laced testimony wandered far from the questions asked by plaintiff’s attorney, Kathleen Purcell.

But as Ross was preparing to undergo cross-examination from defenders of the new law, Karlton directed him to stick to the questions. “Your job is not to tell wonderful stories, but to answer [the attorney’s] questions,” Karlton said.

Ross asserted that the combination of higher campaign costs and Proposition 208’s contribution limits will shackle a candidate’s ability to raise important “seed” money to start a campaign.

In this regard he also cited the prohibition against transfer of funds from legislative leaders to candidates. He said this would impact especially women and minority candidates. Under the law, labor and business organizations and political action committees are limited to $250 contributions to office seekers.

“You get it rolling by getting chunks of money,” he said of a fledgling campaign. He said that by eliminating major transfers and contributions “it takes away the ability to see if they are viable [candidates] at the beginning. It makes it very, very difficult for people to get it going.”

He also charged that Proposition 208’s voluntary spending limits would give voters a false impression that a candidate’s campaign spending had been curtailed. This would not be true, he said, because a candidate who agreed to limits could still receive unlimited party funds and double the size of contributions from other donors from $250 to $500.

Assembly candidates who accept spending limits would be restricted to $150,000 in the primary and $200,000 in the general election. State Senate candidates would be restricted to $300,000 in the primary and $400,000 in the general.

Currently, a typical Assembly campaign can cost in excess of $700,000 while Senate campaigns can surpass $1 million.

Additionally, under Proposition 208, candidates who limit their campaign spending will be identified as doing so on the ballot and in the voters pamphlet, which Ross labeled as misleading.

Under cross-examination, Ross was asked if he believed that clever campaign operators could devise new ways under Proposition 208 to communicate with voters. “No,” he said.

Asked if he believed such operatives could invent new schemes to legally raise political funds, Ross replied, “Sure.”