California Proposition 73, Funds for Election Campaigns Initiative (June 1988)

California Proposition 73
Election date June 7, 1988
Topic Campaign finance
Status Approved
Type Initiated state statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 73 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on June 7, 1988. It was approved.

A “yes” vote supported placing limits on campaign contributions, prohibiting the use of public funds for election campaigns, and prohibiting elected officials from using public funds to send mass mailings.

A “no” vote opposed placing limits on campaign contributions, prohibiting the use of public funds for election campaigns, and prohibiting elected officials from using public funds to send mass mailings.

Election results

California Proposition 73
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		3,144,944	58.06%
No		2,271,941	41.94%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Aftermath

In 1990, U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton ruled the campaign contribution limits were unconstitutional because they violated the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. The prohibition on public funding of campaigns remained in effect.

Measure design

See also: Text of measure

The initiative amended the state's Political Reform Act of 1974, which was also adopted by initiative ,to set limits on campaign contributions for all candidates for state and local office and prohibit the use of public funds on campaign expenditures for candidates and elected officials, including campaign newlsetters and mass mailings.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 73 was as follows:

“

Campaign Funding. Contribution Limits. Prohibition Of Public Funding.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

CAMPAIGN FUNDING, CONTRIBUTION LIMITS. PROHIBITION OF PUBLIC FUNDING. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Limits annual political contributions to a candidate for public office to $1,000 from each person, $2,500 from each political committee, and $5,000 from a political party and each "broad based political committee," as defined. Permits stricter local limits. Limits gifts and honoraria to elected officials to $1,000 from each single source per year. Prohibits transfer of funds between candidates or their controlled committees. Prohibits sending newsletters or other mass mailings, as defined, at public expense. Prohibits public officials using and candidates accepting public funds for purpose of seeking elective office. Summary of Legislative Analyst's estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact. Measure would result in net savings to state and local governments. State administrative costs would be about $1.1 million a year when measure is fully operational. These costs would be more than completely offset by savings of about $1.8 million annually resulting from ban on publicly funded newsletters and mass mailings. Local governments would have unknown annual savings primarily from the ban on publicly funded newsletters and mass mailings.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Support

Official arguments

• Joel Fox, president of the California Tax Reduction Movement, and Dan Stanford, former chairman of the Fair Political Practices Commission: "Proposition 73 will reform the way political campaigns are financed in California WITHOUT GIVING YOUR TAX MONEY TO POLITICIANS! Proposition 73 is the ONLY CAMPAIGN FINANCE PROPOSAL THAT APPLIES TO ALL CALIFORNIA ELECTED OFFICES including State Senate, State Assembly, statewide constitutional offices and local offices. Clearly, too much money is being spent on political campaigns today. Candidates and officeholders can be unduly influenced by special interest groups that donate large amounts of money. Currently in California there is NO LIMIT on the amount that any one DONOR can CONTRIBUTE to a CANDIDATE for office. Too much money is spent on political campaigns today! IT CERTAINLY MAKES NO SENSE TO OPEN THE BIGGEST MONEY SOURCE OF ALL, THE TAXPAYERS’ PURSES AND WALLETS. Keeping government spending under control is hard enough. Imagine how much harder it will be to keep politicians from spending more tax money on the most important thing in their lives—getting elected and reelected. TAXPAYER FINANCING OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS MAKES NO SENSE! STATE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY RACES ALONE COULD COST TAXPAYERS $50 MILLION EVERY TWO YEARS. THIS IS MONEY THAT COULD OTHERWISE PAY FOR POLICE PROTECTION, FIRE PROTECTION OR SCHOOLS. Your tax money would be given to candidates you disagree with. In fact, it would allow EXTREMIST CANDIDATES SUCH AS COMMUNISTS OR MEMBERS OF THE KU KLUX KLAN TO HAVE THEIR CAMPAIGNS PAID FOR WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS. Fortunately, you have an alternative to taxpayer financing of political campaigns. PROPOSITION 73 IS THAT ALTERNATIVE. Every effort to reform the way political campaigns are financed without taxpayer money has been defeated in the State Legislature. In fact, a bill identical to Proposition 73 was defeated by the Legislature at its first committee hearing! YOU KNOW THE POLITICIANS WON’T CHANGE A SYSTEM WHICH IS RUN FOR THEIR BENEFIT BY ENACTING THESE VITALLY NEEDED REFORMS. YOU MUST DO THE JOB OR IT WON’T GET DONE AT ALL! We must control the overwhelming power that special interests have over our legislative process. It’s time for campaign contribution reform. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 73!

Opposition

Official arguments

• Carol Federighi, president of the League of Women Voters of California; Lucy Blake, executive director of California League of Conservation Voters; and John Van de Kamp, California Attorney General: "DON’T BE FOOLED. PROPOSITION 73 WAS WRITTEN BY THREE INCUMBENT POLITICIANS. ITS MAIN SUPPORTERS ARE SOME OF THE LARGEST SPECIAL INTEREST LOBBYISTS IN CALIFORNIA. The proponents of Proposition 73 admit that too much money is being spent on political campaigns. But Proposition 73 does nothing to limit campaign spending! In fact, Proposition 73 would actually prohibit the citizens of California from imposing limits on campaign spending. The proponents of Proposition 73 admit that candidates and officeholders are unduly influenced by large contributions from special interest lobbyists. But Proposition 73 does nothing to reduce the influence of the special interests! Under Proposition 73’s so-called “limits,” a single special interest group could give incumbent legislators as much as $600,000 per year, or $1.2 million per election cycle. That’s even more than the state’s largest lobbying groups contribute now. JUST IMAGINE HOW MUCH INFLUENCE $1.2 MILLION CAN BUY! The proponents of Proposition 73 say that they want to limit campaign spending without any public financing. That sounds nice. What they don't tell you is that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that we can't limit campaign spending without providing some form of public funding. And we can't have effective campaign reform without limiting spending. PROPOSITION 68 LIMITS CAMPAIGN SPENDING. PROPOSITION 73 DOES NOT. PROPOSITION 68 ACHIEVES REAL CAMPAIGN RE FORM. PROPOSITION 73 DOES NOT. PROPOSITION 68 IS THE CITIZENS' IDEA FOR REFORM. PROPOSITION 73 IS THE POLITICIANS' AND SPECIAL INTEREST LOBBYISTS' IDEA OF "REFORM." DON'T BE FOOLED! VOTE "NO" ON PROPOSITION 73!

Path to the ballot

See also: Signature requirements for ballot measures in California

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent. For initiated statutes filed in 1988, at least 372,178 valid signatures were required.

See also

1988 Measures

• 1988 Measures
• Campaign finance on the ballot
• 1988 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

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

External links

• California Voter Guide (June 1988)