CA Proposition 4: Changing The Rules On Public Campaign Donations

CALIFORNIA — In 1977, authorities began investigating a San Pedro telephone operator's account of how she came to give a San Francisco supervisor's campaign thousands of dollars.

Louise Drob told investigators she happened to walk past Robert Mendelsohn's campaign office and decided on the spot to donate $15,000.

Subscribe

Campaign records showed she lent his 1974 campaign $15,000 and contributed another $1,500

The investigation was one of the abundant cases to test California's campaign disclosure rules half a century ago and helped to prompt new ones.

Now, 52 years later, a measure on the Nov. 3 ballot would change another part of California's campaign finance framework: the prohibition on using public money to fund candidates' campaigns in most statewide and local government elections.

Proposition 4 would lift that ban, allowing state and local governments to create public financing programs.

Prop. 4 would leave officials to design campaign finance programs within broad restrictions—and confront the question of whether public funding can reduce candidates' reliance on large private donors.

But the proposition would leave the design—and much of the potential impact—to future decisions.

Big Donor Influence

Proposition 4 would repeal California's prohibition on public campaign funding and allow governments to create their own programs within broad rules.

However, the measure would not establish a California-wide system or require governments to adopt one.

That distinction raises a central question of whether public financing can reduce the influence of large private donors or change who can run for office.

Thad Kousser, a UC San Diego political science professor who studies California politics, voting reforms, and direct democracy, described a major obstacle. He said private spending can overwhelm public funding.

Kousser pointed to spending by corporations, unions, and other groups on behalf of candidates as a challenge for public financing programs.

Publicly funded candidates would still compete in elections that attract private money.

Kousser described campaign finance laws as balancing acts. No single design resolves all the competing goals, he said.

Allowing governments to try different approaches could help them find systems that fit their voters, Kousser said, explaining the argument for experimentation.

Prop. 4 would give state and local officials that opportunity while setting limits on eligibility, spending, and funding sources.

Candidates would have to demonstrate broad support in their districts and agree to spending limits and other program rules.

Governments could not divert money intended for education, transportation, or public safety to campaigns. Candidates could not use public funds to pay legal defense fees or fines, or to repay their personal campaign loans.

California already has exceptions to its ban. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Long Beach, Oakland, and Berkeley are among the charter cities that provide public funding to certain campaigns, according to the supplied ballot analysis.

Fair Political Practices

The Fair Political Practices Commission suspected the money donated to Robert Mendelsohn's campaign originated with Transcentury Properties, the developer of Sonoma County's Bodega Harbour project, and passed through businessman William Grader and Bodega Bay restaurant owner Wanda Zankich, Drob's sister.

Mendelsohn, who also served on California coastal commissions, denied knowing about any laundering scheme or allowing contributions to influence his votes.

Daniel Lowenstein, remembered California politics at the time, and before campaign finance because he was the principal drafter of California's Political Reform Act.

Voters approved the act in 1974, and then-Gov. Jerry Brown appointed Lowenstein the first chairman of the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Passing the law, however, left regulators with a stream of practical questions about how to apply it. Even a detailed statute could not anticipate every situation, Lowenstein said.

He described disclosure as the reform's most significant component and said it has worked fairly well, while acknowledging the difficulty of informing the public without burdening campaigns.

Lowenstein also warned that public financing can produce unintended bureaucracy.

His experience more than half a century ago underscores the importance of the rules governments would write after Proposition 4's passage.

"Details, details, details," Lowenstein said, recalling the enforcement and policy questions that followed California's campaign finance reform.

What Prop 4 Would And Would Not Do

The measure would allow officials to seek guidance from the FPPC on creating programs consistent with its requirements. Prop. 4 would not require the commission to administer or enforce local public financing programs.

The supplied legislative analysis estimates that answering those questions would cost the state a few hundred thousand dollars annually, likely including additional legal staff.

The costs of financing campaigns could be significant for governments that adopt programs, but the cost would depend on their decisions.

A yes vote would allow state and local governments to create public campaign financing programs subject to the measure's restrictions.

A no vote would preserve the prohibition for the state and most local governments.

Voters would decide whether to permit public financing. Future state and local decisions would determine how the programs operate, which candidates qualify, and how much governments spend.

Lowenstein said they will have to balance disclosure against stifling campaigns. "Political parties don't corrupt campaigns by giving money, he said. "That's what they do — get candidates elected."

When they don't help raise money for candidates, he said, the candidates start looking for it on their own.