California Proposition 15, Biennial Lobbyist Fee and Public Campaign Funding Measure (June 2010)

California Proposition 15
Election date June 8, 2010
Topic Elections and campaigns
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin State legislature

California Proposition 15 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred state statute in California on June 8, 2010. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported repealing the state ban on public funding of campaigns, creating a program to publicly fund Secretary of State campaigns for the 2014 and 2018 elections, and creating a biennial fee of $700 on lobbyists, lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers.

A "no" vote opposed creating a program to publicly fund Secretary of State campaigns for the 2014 and 2018 elections and opposed creating a biennial fee of $700 on lobbyists. A "no" vote supported maintaining the state ban on public funding of campaigns.

Election results

California Proposition 15
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		2,218,273	42.71%
No		2,975,731	57.29%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Measure design

Proposition 15 would have:

• repealed the state ban on public funding of campaigns;
• created a program to publicly fund Secretary of State campaigns for the 2014 and 2018 elections; and
• created a biennial fee of $700 on lobbyists, lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers.

Proposition 15 would have created a voluntary public funding program for Secretary of State candidates in the 2014 and 2018 elections. Candidates for California Secretary of State would have qualified for public campaign funds under the measure if they agreed to limitations on spending and private contributions and if they were able to raise $5 contributions from at least 7,500 registered voters. Under the measure, candidates could have received a base level of funding of $1 million for the primary and an additional $1.3 million for the general election.

If the measure was approved, if the opposing candidate financed his or her campaign from private donations and accepted no government money, or if independent expenditure groups funded advertising campaigns during the election that highlight or assert negative information about the publicly funded candidate, the publicly-funded candidate would be eligible for up to three times the original amount in additional matching funds, but no more than the total spent by the opposing candidate and independent expenditure groups.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 15 was as follows:

“

CALIFORNIA FAIR ELECTIONS ACT.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

This act repeals the ban on public funding of political campaigns. Creates a voluntary system for candidates for Secretary of State to qualify for a public campaign grant if they agree to limitations on spending and private contributions. Candidates would have to qualify before receiving the grant. Candidates who demonstrate sufficient public support would receive the same amount. Participating candidates would be prohibited from raising or spending money beyond the grant. There would be strict enforcement and accountability with published reports open to the public. Funded by voluntary contributions and a biennial fee on lobbyists, lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

New State Revenues. We estimate that this measure would raise more than $6 million every four years. This includes funds from the lobbyist charge, as well as qualifying contributions. This amount would grow with inflation in future years. It is possible that other revenues would be generated from voluntary tax check-off donations and other sources. New State Costs. The new funds would pay for costs associated with the measure. The costs paid from the new Fair Elections Fund to administer this measure could not exceed 10 percent of moneys deposited into the fund— about $600,000 every four years. The remaining funds would be available for candidates for Secretary of State who choose to receive public funds for their political campaigns. The amount of spending on the public funding of Secretary of State election campaigns would depend on a number of factors and vary from election to election. Among the factors affecting this spending would be: The number of candidates accepting public funds. The amount of money spent by candidates not receiving public funds (which would be a factor in determining the level of any additional matching funds payments). Based on the amount of campaign spending for Secretary of State candidates in recent elections, total costs would most likely be between $5 million and $8 million per campaign. If there are not sufficient funds available to provide all candidates with the amounts envisioned under the measure, public funding provided to the candidates would have to be reduced so that overall expenses do not exceed the funds available to the program..

”

Support

"Yes on 15" website banner

"Californians for Fair Elections" led the "Yes on 15" campaign. Trent Lange was its chair.

Supporters

• AARP
• AFSCME
• California Church IMPACT
• California Clean Money Campaign
• California Common Cause
• The California Democratic Party
• California Labor Federation
• California NAACP
• California National Organization for Women
• California Nurses Association
• Corporate Accountability International
• Dolores Huerta, co-founder, United Farm Workers
• Food and Water Watch
• Healthcare for All - California
• League of Women Voters of California
• Planning and Conservation League
• Sierra Club California
• Southern California Federation of Scientists
• Congressman Alan Grayson
• Congresswoman Barbara Lee
• Congresswoman Maxine Waters
• Assemblymember Tom Ammiano
• Assemblymember Warren Furutani
• State senator Loni Hancock
• State senator Mark Leno

Arguments

• George Skelton of the LA Times said, "No matter, the most important element of Prop. 15 would remain. And that’s the elimination of the constitutional ban on public financing of state candidates. The ban also covers counties and most cities. The Legislature then could enact public financing on its own without voter permission. And so could county boards of supervisors and all city councils. This is what Prop. 15 really is about. And that’s what worries the politicians and special interests. It’s a small, awkward step in a good direction."

• Derek Cressman, western states regional director for Common Cause said, "This would make it possible for candidates to reject big money from special interests and still run a competitive campaign," according to Derek Cressman, Western states regional director for Common Cause.

• San Rafael City Councilman Greg Brockbank, former chair of the Marin Working Group of the California Clean Money Campaign, said, "Nearly 400 candidates from different backgrounds have been elected with this system in eight states and two cities - new people with new ideas from all walks of life, including more women and candidates from diverse backgrounds."

• Wayne Williams, Secretary/Treasurer of the California Clean Money Action Fund, said, "Proposition 15 on the June ballot will change the way we finance election campaigns so politicians stay focused on the job we sent them to do! Prop 15 gets participating politicians out of the fund raising game and back to solving California’s problems."

Official arguments

The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ Special interest campaign contributors have too much influence over our state government and must be stopped. California government is broken. The state budget crisis is crippling our economy. Education funding is at a historic low. Vital services for seniors and people with disabilities are being decimated. Businesses are closing their doors while middle class families struggle to make ends meet. But rather than solving California’s problems, politicians are busy raising money for their campaigns. We need to get politicians out of the fundraising game so that they will focus on our priorities. THE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN POLITICS IS OUTRAGEOUS AND CORRUPTING THE SYSTEM According to the Fair Political Practices Commission, over $1 billion has been raised by California politicians since 2000. All this fundraising buys access for the special interests, shutting out the rest of us. We need to change the way we finance election campaigns so politicians stay focused on the job we sent them to accomplish. Prop 15 creates a voluntary pilot program to provide limited public financing for Secretary of State candidates in the 2014 and 2018 elections. UNDER PROP 15: Candidates who agree to use public funds MUST PROVE THEY HAVE SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT by getting signatures and $5 contributions from 7,500 registered voters. PARTICIPATING CANDIDATES ARE BANNED FROM RAISING OR SPENDING MONEY BEYOND THE LIMITED FUNDS. SPENDING LIMITS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ARE STRICTLY ENFORCED. Candidates can only spend on legitimate expenses. Violators would face fines, possible jail time, and prohibitions from running for office in the future. TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC FUNDS ARE PROTECTED. It will not increase taxes or take away from other important programs. POLITICIANS SPEND TOO MUCH TIME RAISING MONEY We have many serious problems to fix in California, from our schools to the state budget to the economy, but our elected officials spend too much time in fundraisers and not enough time doing what they are elected to do. The League of Women Voters of California says: “We need to eliminate Big Money’s unfair influence on elected officials who ultimately decide the public policies that affect us most. Passing Prop 15 will allow elected officials to start focusing on the public’s interests, instead of returning political favors to their campaign donors.” The California Nurses Association says: “Insurance and pharmaceutical companies undermine healthcare reform through massive spending to influence candidates. Prop 15 helps to get big money out of important public policy.” There are plenty of qualified Californians with good ideas who can’t compete in today’s money-driven elections. PROP 15WILL OPEN UP THE PROCESS SO OUR SECRETARY OF STATE IS THE PERSON WITH THE BEST IDEAS AND EXPERIENCE, NOT JUST THE BEST FUNDRAISER. Join the bipartisan coalition of nurses, teachers, small business owners, good government experts, public safety officials, consumer groups, seniors, investors, environmentalists, faith communities, Democrats, Republicans and Independents in voting Yes on Prop 15. VOTE YES ON PROP 15, BECAUSE CAMPAIGNS SHOULD BE WON, NOT BOUGHT BY THE SPECIAL INTERESTS. For more information, please visit www.YesonProp15.org ”

Opposition

Opponents

"Stop Prop 15" website logo

Proposition 15 was opposed by:

• The Institute of Governmental Advocates
• The California Chamber of Commerce
• The California Fair Political Practices Commission
• The California Department of Finance.
• Deborah Howard, Executive Director of the California Senior Advocates League
• Jack Stewart, President of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association
• Paul Weber, President of the Los Angeles Police Protective League

Official arguments

The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ California has many serious needs, but giving taxpayer money to politicians to fund their campaigns isn’t one of them. Here are five good reasons to vote NO ON PROPOSITION 15: PROPOSITION 15 IS A TRICK Over 20 years ago, voters PROHIBITED taxpayer funds from being given to politicians for their political campaigns. Proposition 15 is a sneaky attempt by those same politicians to undo that prohibition. The text of Proposition 15 says “Section 85300 of the Government Code is repealed” but the politicians who wrote Proposition 15 don’t want you to know what that means. Here’s what Proposition 15 repeals: “ . . . no candidate shall accept any public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.” This tricky maneuver gives the LEGISLATURE power to EXPAND taxpayer financing for their own campaigns WITHOUT GETTING VOTER APPROVAL! PROPOSITION 15 DOES NOT STOP THE INFLUENCE OF SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY Proposition 15 doesn’t do what it promises. It claims to curb the influence of special interests and lobbyists. Lobbyists are already PROHIBITED from contributing to candidates. Cynically, Prop. 15 actually forces lobbyists to fund the campaigns of candidates for Secretary of State, the same official who regulates lobbyists! “It would have been wrong for my campaign to have been funded by the very special interests I regulated as Secretary of State.” Bill Jones, Former Secretary of State PROPOSITION 15 IS FULL OF HIDDEN LOOPHOLES Proposition 15 has a giant loophole that lets these same candidates raise money from special interests for their own legal defense (including criminal defense) AND even the candidate’s own Inaugural party! “You just can’t trust politicians to write the campaign laws.” Gabriella Holt, President, Citizens for California Reform TAXPAYER FINANCING OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS IS A BAD IDEA Proposition 15 gives millions of taxpayer dollars to any eligible candidate no matter who the candidate is or what the candidate stands for. In fact, there’s almost no restriction on how candidates spend the money. Do you really want your taxpayer dollars being used to pay for negative ads and junk mail? “We need less negative campaigning, and we certainly don’t need taxpayers to pay for it.” Colleen McAndrews, Former Commissioner, Fair Political Practices Commission PROPOSITION 15 RAISES TAXES Just last year, the Legislature raised taxes by $12 billion and they still couldn’t balance the state budget. Now, they want you to approve even more NEW TAXES—Over $6 million in new taxes on small businesses, non-profits, and even charities. But that’s not all—a hidden provision in Proposition 15 says that if the new taxes aren’t enough to fund every eligible candidate’s political campaign, then the Legislature can use “any other sources of revenue from the General Fund or from other sources as determined by the Legislature.” You know what that means—MORE TAXES! “The last thing California needs is more taxes to fund unnecessary programs.” Jon Coupal, President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association No more tricks. No more loopholes. No more taxes. NO ON PROPOSITION 15 ”

Media editorials

Support

• Los Angeles Times: "We're by no means sure that public financing is the solution to the troubling — and growing — problem of money in politics. It will certainly be hard for publicly financed candidates to compete against deep-pocketed candidates who opt out of the system. But it's worth a try."

• San Jose Mercury News: "Proposition 15 authors spent years studying how the strengths and flaws of other states' systems would relate to a big state like California. What they've proposed will make government more accountable to people, not special interests."

• San Francisco Chronicle: "Funding for the pilot project for the secretary of state campaigns would be drawn from an increase on the fee of Capitol lobbyists to $700 every two years. Opponents warn that the fee could be unconstitutional - and, if it is invalidated, would require a tapping of the general fund, thus putting a strain on dollars otherwise spent on law enforcement, social services and other government priorities. However, even in that worst-case scenario, the several million dollars spent on a secretary of state campaign would be a tiny fraction of the California budget."

• Fresno Bee: "At every election, we hear a chorus of complaints about the high cost of campaigns. It's not just the influence that big contributors have on public policy, it's also the impact that money has on the candidates' activities. They spend too much of their time seeking money. That means most voters -- few of them actually contribute to campaigns -- get shut out of the process as the candidates cater to the donors. The system won't be easy to change, but there's a measure on the June 8 ballot in California that offers the possibility of a better way of funding campaigns."

• Marin Independent-Journal: "Proposition 15 helps assure that candidates for the office are accountable to voters, not their big donors."

• Bakersfield Californian: "Proposition 15 frees up state and local governments to explore public funding of campaigns, and it authorizes a test case so we can see how it works."

• Lompoc Record: "We are 100-percent in favor of this measure, as one way of breaking the stranglehold deep-pocket businesses and organizations have on the electoral process."

• La Opinión: "The current campaign finance system favors those candidates with the most money. This forces candidates to continuously raise funds and accept donations from special-interest organizations. Proposition 15 is the first step toward putting an end to this dynamic that is detrimental to democracy."

Opposition

• San Gabriel Valley Tribune: "Yes, campaign cash results in candidates trolling for dollars and gives big donors a seat at the legislative table. But that is an issue the Legislature and the U.S. Congress must tackle, with the give and take of the American people. It can't be solved in the fine print of a state ballot measure that's sure to cause more problems than it purports to solve."

• The Orange County Register: "Proposition 15 is a bad idea that takes the power out of the hands of concerned citizens and voters and instead puts more power in the hands of bureaucrats and public employee unions. Vote "no" on Proposition 15. The last thing the state needs is government-controlled political campaigns."

• The Santa Cruz Sentinel: "But the ballot summary still does not mention that if, as has happened in three other states, the special fee targeting lobbyists is overturned as unconstitutional, the public financing program would continue -- probably paid for by taxpayers out of our leaking state budget. And if voters find out they're being misled, they'll vote, as they should, no on Proposition 15."

• The Redding Record-Searchlight: "...this money, sooner or later, will come from the taxpayers. Proposition 15’s introduction states that the current system 'burdens candidates with the incessant rigors of fundraising.' Poor dears, after all those chicken dinners, their suffering is no doubt profound, but burdening their constituents instead hardly seems like the right solution."

• The Visalia Times-Delta: "Frankly, we have our suspicions about whether politicians would be able to keep their hands out of the cookie jar of public campaign funds. This proposition promises that taxpayer money would not end up in the fun. And where have we heard that before? California keeps trying to reform campaign finance law, and it just gets more complicated and corrupt. This proposition doesn't get the job done. Even if it worked, it only would be temporary. That doesn't demonstrate any sort of true conviction for reform."

• Napa Valley Register: "As for Proposition 15, at a time when the state can’t pay for even core services or reduce its crushing debt, Proposition 15 seeks to raise registration fees on lobbyists — not in itself a bad idea — but then spend the money on taxpayer funding of campaigns, which decidedly is not a core service."

• Chico Enterprise Record: "We can think of many reasons to tax lobbyists, but to help fund political candidates is not one of them."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2010 ballot measures

Lake Research Partners conducted a telephone survey of 800 likely voters in October 2009. Poll results are detailed below

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided
Oct 19-23, 2009	Lake Research Partners	63%	22%	16%

Path to the ballot

This measure was passed as Assembly Bill 583 by a vote of 21-18 in the California State Senate and 42-32 in the California General Assembly.

Lawsuits

See also: 2010 ballot measure litigation

First Amendment lawsuit

On Juen 15, 2009, federal judge Frank Damrell dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Institute of Governmental Advocates, Jericho: A Voice for Justice, Timothy Yaryan, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, and the California Professional Firefighters. Plaintiffs sought to have the proposition removed from the June 2010 ballot and alleged that it would impose a tax on their First Amendment rights.

Damrell dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that it was premature because the proposition hadn't yet been approved by voters. He wrote, "In this case, the threat of application or enforcement of the allegedly unconstitutional provisions in AB583 — though theoretically possible — is not reasonable or imminent. Indeed, these provisions may never be enacted."

Free speech lawsuit

On November 20, 2009, Michael P. Kenny of the Superior Court of Sacramento County dismissed lawsuit filed against the measure in August by the Institute of Governmental Advocates (IGA), an association of professional lobbyists and lobbying firms, and several independent registered lobbyist employers and lobbying firms. Jackson Gualco, president of the IGA, said that his group believes the proposed measure would unfairly restrict their free speech rights.

Judge Kenny ruled that the plaintiffs could not pursue their lawsuit until and unless voters approved the measure. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to California's 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Ballot language lawsuit

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court arguing that Proposition 15's ballot title and summary were misleading and inaccurate. Among other things, they wanted the court to change the ballot title to say "Public Financing of Campaigns" rather than "California Fair Elections Act." On March 12, Sacramento Superior Court judge Patrick Marlette ruled that the ballot summary needed to state that the measure would repeal California's existing ban on public funding of campaigns.

Official opposition arguments lawsuit

Supporters of Proposition 15 filed a lawsuit challenging language submitted for the official voter guide by Proposition 15 opponents, which said Proposition 15 "will raise your taxes." On Monday, March 15, 2010, Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley ruled in favor of plaintiffs and ordered the phrase removed from the ballot pamphlet.

See also

2010 Measures

• 2010 Measures
• Fees on the ballot
• licenses on the ballot
• and charges on the ballot
• Campaign finance on the ballot
• 2010 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• June 8, 2010, Primary Election Voter Guide