Before rushing to enact public spending for (and more controls on) political campaigns, consider the experience of other states.

Proposition 89 on the Nov. 7 ballot claims that a "crisis of corruption" assails California and that public funding will make election campaigns cleaner, fairer, and more competitive. That claim can be tested by the experience in other states where taxpayer funding already exists, such as Arizona, which passed the Clean Elections Act in 1998.

A study of six years under Arizona's law reveals little evidence that the statute has helped minor or third-party candidates. The actual number of candidates has fallen, and the data reveal no trend of greater political participation.

In Arizona, the Green Party no longer fields candidates and is no longer officially recognized. Recall that in 1999 Audie Bock, a Green Party candidate, gained election to the California Assembly under the supposedly tainted conditions of privately funded campaigns.

In Arizona's 2002 election, 50 percent of legislative candidates and all but six major party candidates campaigned with public funds. The public funding had no significant impact on voter turnout or the level of campaign discourse. The publicly funded candidates elected in 2000 voted no differently than their privately funded colleagues in the same party.

In 1996, Maine passed the Maine Clean Election Act expecting to enhance electoral competition. Ten years after, the results imply the opposite.

"Maine's lesson for other states and for national politicians," write scholars Patrick Basham and Martin Zelder, "is that a government trying to foster more competitive elections through taxpayer financing will be disappointed with the results, and taxpayers will be discomforted by the costs."

Prop. 89, The California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act of 2006, calls for "public" funding of candidates, who must gather a number of $5 contributions known as "qualifying contributions." These contributions must be handed over to the state, along with signatures. A candidate for the Assembly would need 750 $5 contributions, with a $10,000 maximum, and may receive public financing of $250,000 for a primary and $400,000 for a general election. Prop. 89 allots a full $15 million for a candidate for governor in a general election, with $10 million for the primary.

The measure also covers races for the Senate, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, controller, insurance commissioner, superintendent of public instruction, and members of the Board of Equalization.

When privately funded candidates spend more than the public funds Prop. 89 makes available, their publicly funded opponents would receive more money on a dollar-for-dollar basis. The measure is generous with one side, punitive with the other. Prop. 89 limits not only large players but restricts corporations large and small. In California, election contributions are already limited by Prop. 34.

Vermont imposed limits on elections contributions and expenditures in 1997. Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down those limits as restricting free-speech rights. On their face, the limits imposed by Prop. 89 are less draconian than those in Vermont but, as Peter Schrag of the Sacramento Bee observes, they are far smaller relative to the number of voters that California candidates have to reach. The constitutionality of Prop. 89 is dubious, and it bears other problems and costs.

Under Prop. 89, attack ads and political junk mail will still abound, but with a difference. These will now be funded by taxpayers, who in some cases will be subsidizing material with which they not only disagree but also find offensive.

The measure advances a "modest" increase in corporate taxes but fails to inform voters that such taxes are already high. California's corporate tax rate of 8.84 percent is the highest in the West and 12th-highest in the nation. Prop. 89 also hikes taxes on financial institutions, already in double figures, from 10.84 percent to 11.04 percent. The ultimate burden of corporate taxes is borne by workers, shareholders and consumers.

Prop. 89 has one good feature: limiting total public campaign spending so as not to exceed the money from revenue. Such a rule for all California government, without this welfare for politicians, might be a worthy ballot measure.

 

K. Lloyd Billingsley is editorial director at the California-based Pacific Research Institute. he can be reached at klbillingsley@pacificresearch.org.

*Title of article in publication may be different.