AMY GOODMAN: Tomorrow are the California, Washington and Nevada primaries. Today, we focus on California. And you know, if you’re a regular listener to Democracy Now!, if it’s Monday, it’s money. Today, campaign finance reform is the issue. We’re going to look at two ballot initiatives that aren’t being voted on tomorrow, but they will be, or might be, voted on in the fall.

I’m joined by my co-host, Larry Bensky, in California, in the Pacifica studios of KPFA in Berkeley.

Welcome, Larry.

LARRY BENSKY: Thank you very much, Amy. And today, because political reform is so popular here in California, we’re going to talk to people who have two different ballot measures that, as you say, may be voted on in November. They’re initiatives that have conflicting measures in them, and we expect a lively discussion this morning between, first of all, Ruth Holton, executive director of California Common Cause — their ballot measure, which has qualified for November, is called the California Political Reform Act — and we’re also talking with Doug Phelps. He is with the California Public Interest Research Group, and more particularly, Californians Against Political Corruption. They’re sponsoring an Anti-Corruption Act, which has not yet gathered enough signatures for November but may do so in time to be on the ballot.

Ruth Holton, why don’t we begin with you? Would you just describe the measure that has qualified for the ballot, the California Political Reform Act?

RUTH HOLTON: This measure, which is actually sponsored by the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, AARP and United We Stand America, would limit campaign contributions. It would limit campaign spending. It would ban fundraising in nonelection years. It would ban contributions from lobbyists. It would ban candidates from transferring their campaign contributions to other candidates. It would, in fact, reduce by 97% the amount of contributions that the top 10 PAC contributors gave in the 1994 election. It is the toughest campaign finance reform law that — in the nation, if passed, as we expect, by the voters in 1996. It was put on the ballot by a monumental grassroots effort. We had 4,000 volunteers who collected over half of the necessary signatures, and we were officially certified for the ballot by the secretary of state’s office several weeks ago.

LARRY BENSKY: Doug Phelps, the Californians Against Political Corruption are also circulating a ballot measure for 1996 called the Anti-Corruption Act. What is its status right now?

DOUGLAS PHELPS: We are on the streets gathering signatures, and we expect that we will be on the ballot in November.

LARRY BENSKY: Well, what does your measure do that the measure that we just heard about from the California Common Cause people, the California Political Reform Act — what does the Anti-Corruption Act do that the Reform Act doesn’t do?

DOUGLAS PHELPS: There are several ways in which the two proposals differ. The first is that our proposal sets a limit on the amount of money that someone running for office in California can raise from outside of the district that they represent. It limits that to no more than 25% of the total amount of money that they raise. Secondly, ours limits individual contributions to only $100 for people running for the Assembly or the Senate, and $200 for those running for statewide office, which are substantially lower than the limits in the other proposal. And the third thing is that in trying to deal with the problem of the self-funded candidate, the person who isn’t affected by our attempts to limit contributions because they just finance their own campaign, the Steve Forbes type of candidate, we set mandatory limits on spending and challenge the Supreme Court to relook at their ruling of 20 years ago in which they outlawed the idea of setting mandatory spending limits. Those are the major differences.

The other thing that we try to do is, in addition to bringing down — the overall goal here is to level the playing field, so that people who are running for office are equally influenced by their voters, regardless of how much money they have to give. And in addition to trying to kibosh the fat cat contributions, we also try to churn out more participation by smaller donors by setting up a provision that allows citizen contribution committees to be formed and to have more liberal spending limits than what exists for — or, contribution limits, I should say, than what exists for other PACs, if they limit their contributions that they can accept, to $25 or less.

AMY GOODMAN: Why don’t we take it step by step? I wanted to ask Ruth Holton of Common Cause: What do you think of CALPIRG and the Californians Against Political Corruption’s proposal to limit the amount of money that comes in from outside the district?

RUTH HOLTON: We know that certainly it is — the voters are very attracted to that idea. It has been already tossed out by the courts in Oregon. And we, frankly, would be very surprised if the courts would allow that to go into effect. We do not believe it would, because the courts have said, already ruled very clearly, that, you know, you can limit campaign contributions because of the corrupting effect on elected officials. And then, the question, obviously, that is raised is: How can a $25 contribution from outside a district be more corrupting than a $100 contribution from with inside the district? It’s obviously going to be challenged. It may or may not eventually go into effect. Our concern was we wanted a measure that would go into effect right away, so that voters would have reform in 1997.

AMY GOODMAN: Doug Phelps, your response to that?

DOUGLAS PHELPS: Well, I don’t know quite whether Ruth was saying she would support this proposal or not. Our proposal is to limit contributions from outside the district that a candidate represents to no more than 25% of the total money that they raise. First of all, this has not been ruled unconstitutional. It hasn’t been ruled on. The ruling in Oregon had to do with a law which set up, you know, an absolute limit, not no money coming from outside the district.

But the second point that we would make is, on all these issues, the constitutionality, from the point of view of building the progressive movement, almost everything worthwhile in terms of social change in American history has originally been ruled unconstitutional by the courts. I mean, if we had been afraid to keep organizing and keep pushing for these changes, we’d still have slavery. Women still wouldn’t have the right to vote. We wouldn’t have a 40-hour workweek. We’d still have child labor. You name it, it’s been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court originally, and they’ve only changed their rulings when faced with popular pressure and popular organizing. That’s why we have to keep coming back on these issues. If we feel that something is unconstitutional — that is, it is wrong, it is not a good idea, it denies people their rights — then we shouldn’t be doing it. But if it’s simply the court making a bad ruling, then we’ve got to challenge that.

LARRY BENSKY: The bad ruling you’re talking about here is Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, isn’t it?

DOUGLAS PHELPS: Well, actually, no. That relates to another provision that we have in ours, but the court has not ruled on this question of in-district limits. And in fact, we’re pushing it at every level, on the state level and the federal level. In fact, Common Cause and other organizations are actually supporting an in-district limitation in the law being proposed in Congress right now. So I think this is something that’s worthwhile to put forward. It’s very unclear that the court would even rule against this initially. I mean, we don’t know that. When we get to the mandatory spending limits is when we get to the Buckley problem.

LARRY BENSKY: I’m not sure that we don’t get to it right here, Ruth Holton. Isn’t that just a kind of a side attack on Buckley v. Valeo that we’re talking about here?

RUTH HOLTON: Well, exactly. I mean, it is —

LARRY BENSKY: And wouldn’t the Supreme Court have to reverse itself?

RUTH HOLTON: It is, in fact, Buckley v. Valeo that that says that the reason you’re allowed to limit campaign contributions is because of the corrupting effect that those contributions have on elected officials. As I said before, how can you possibly argue that a $25 contribution from outside a legislator’s district is more corrupting than a $100 contribution from inside the district? I think it is important to note that, you know, the Oregon, the Oregon court, did throw it out. They required a 90% in-district contribution requirement. There, really, frankly, is not much of a difference.

Doug mentioned that, you know, all the important things that have happened in our history have at one time been ruled unconstitutional. You know, what we are arguing is, if we’re going to pursue a court strategy, then let’s pursue a court strategy after real — if there are tough reforms already in place, so that Californians don’t have to wait for the court to, maybe at some indeterminate time, change their minds. Certainly, the court did not recently change its mind on term limits, as you might recall. There are somewhat over 21 states that have passed term limits for congressional offices, and the court said no, despite the clear public sentiment that term limits — that they wanted term limits. So, we want reform now. We think the voters of California deserve reform now. And then, once reform is in place, the best reform that we can get under the current parameters that the court allows, then that’s the time to look and say, “OK, can we go forward?”

The other concern that we have about going to the court right now is the composition of the court. I mean, clearly, it is, what we like to say, an ACLU court, that will be very firm when it comes to free speech. And the court may well look at Buckley, which said a $1,000 limit was OK for individuals, and then say, “Wait a minute. That was 1976. Surely, you know, with cost of living, we should maybe raise that limit.” So, Common Cause looked very closely at, you know, is a challenge even feasible, and decided we may end up with a worse solution.

DOUGLAS PHELPS: Here’s the current situation in California. And we shouldn’t be arguing over these legal interpretations. We’re not judges. That’s not what the voters have to decide. What the voters have to decide, what they think is right and fair, and pass it. Today in California, over 90% of the money being raised by people who hold office today in California is coming from outside of their districts. Now, why is it that someone would have to go and raise 90% of the money from people and interests and corporations that are not even in the district that they’re representing is because they’re not seeking to represent their districts? They’re seeking to represent special interest groups which are giving them that money. And what we say is, “Look, 90% of the money is coming from outside of the district. That’s not right.” We think the voters support us on that. We think that people, if anything, would rather see no money coming from outside the district. You run. You campaign by appealing to the people in your district for their votes, for their donations. Because of the constitutional concern, we say, “OK, we’ll allow up to 25% of the total money to come from outside of the district, but that’s it.” And corrupting whether — I don’t see how anybody can say that the idea that 90% of the donations going to political candidates in California is coming from outside of the districts that they represent is not an extremely corrupting influence on our whole process. It’s destroying our democratic process.

RUTH HOLTON: I think also, I mean, it’s important to remember, particularly for the progressive community, now, California is becoming — many more Republican candidates. We now have a Republican majority in the Assembly. With an in-district contribution limit, that means that people who want to support environmental candidates, people that want to support pro-choice candidates all over the state, because obviously these legislators are voting on issues that affect everybody in the state, not just the people in their district — people who want to support those kinds of candidates are going to be very limited in how they can do that.

LARRY BENSKY: But they’re already limited. They can’t vote for everyone. Why should I be able to give money to everyone if I can’t vote for everyone? If I can’t vote for someone in another district, why should I be able to give money?

DOUGLAS PHELPS: That’s right, Larry. That’s the principled position. And even if you want to be practical, take a practical, result-oriented point of view — that is, even if you’re sitting and thinking, “Well, let’s see, how can we try to get the most progressives elected?” which I would argue is not the proper question to ask when you’re in the position of deciding what the ground rules will be for elections — you should decide what’s fair and proper. And that’s the question that you’ve just asked: Since you can’t vote for people outside of your district, why should you be able to give them money?

RUTH HOLTON: Well, what we should really be — 

DOUGLAS PHELPS: It obviously favors the wealthy and the people who have the more money. But even if you’re taking a result-oriented point of view and asking, “Well, how can we help progressives?” I mean, the few dollars, the trickle of dollars, which is coming in from environmentalists outside of the district, or from women outside of a district to support a woman candidate, is just overwhelmed by the special interest money. When I say that 90% of the money is coming from outside of the district, surely Ruth does not contend that most of that money is coming from small progressive donors scattered around California. She knows it’s coming from big fat cat interests, and we would be shutting down that huge flow of money, and the relative trickle of money that we would shut down on the progressive side would be pale by comparison.

RUTH HOLTON: Well, I think that both initiatives, certainly, the point is not — not so much, OK, is the money coming from inside the district or outside? The point is, let’s get rid of the ability for well-heeled special interests to give huge campaign contributions. In California right now, there are no limits. It’s unlimited. If I have a million dollars, I can give a million dollars, and the only thing I’m required to do is disclose it. That is an obscene system, completely obscene. And what we need to do is radically change that. We do that. Candidates who agree to a spending limit are only allowed to receive $500. That’s it. So, certainly, it does allow for — and then, progressive groups and individuals can certainly make a difference under that system. Right now it’s very difficult to make a difference or even be heard, because of the unlimited campaign contributions.

Unfortunately, the other provision, and in our measure, no one group, no one entity would be allowed to give more than $25,000 in a two-year period, and that includes contributions to the party, as well. Unfortunately, in the CALPIRG measure, there is a provision which sounds good, and in theory is a nice idea, and that’s a citizens’ committee that allows people to give you $25 in a one-year period, and they can form citizens’ committees. Those citizens’ committees would be allowed to contribute $10,000. That is a hundred times the amount that individuals can give. And the problem with that is that every single special interest — Philip Morris right now has something like 50 front groups. Every single special interest is going to look at that and go, “Gee, I need to reconfigure myself so that we can give $10,000.” That disparity, unfortunately, provides for a huge loophole that a lot of groups are going to take advantage of. As I said, the idea is nice. The idea is sort of the right idea. And, you know, let’s try and get individuals together. But when you have a disparity like that, campaign consultants are very clever. Special interests aren’t going to sit down and go, “Oh dear, oh my. We’re not going to be able to participate in the process.” And so, therefore, they are going to reconfigure themselves. And that’s why some of the state’s largest PAC contributors support that, the PIRG measure.

LARRY BENSKY: You know, when I hear this kind of discussion going on about a ballot measure in the state of California, assuming they both qualify — one has, one hasn’t so far — I immediately start visualizing in my mind the anti campaign that is going to be run. And you are both going to be painted into the same corner. First of all, you’re going to be pictured as quarreling with each other and not able to agree on reform. And second of all, you’re going to be painted by your opposition as being anti-American, really, anti-freedom, anti-choice. Can you see that coming down the road, as I can?

DOUGLAS PHELPS: Well, I agree, Larry. And on the quarreling issue, let me just say that I think that’s why it’s so important that backers of both of these initiatives — and there are many people out there who will back both of them, and there are some who prefer one over the other but, I would argue, should still vote for both — should, I would argue, stop the quarreling and focus on the overall need to stop the political corruption in California, big money, to achieve political reform and to work as much as possible by pushing a positive message, because you’re absolutely right. There’s no question that there’s going to be an attack on both of these initiatives. Our only quarrel — and as Ruth knows, there are many features of the alternative initiative that I can support. There are some that I’m not enthused about. But that’s neither here nor there. The important thing is that we just feel it doesn’t go near far enough. I mean, the —

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Doug Phelps of Californians Against Political Corruption, Ruth Holton of California Common Cause. We’ll get a response from you in just a minute. We’re talking about two California initiatives on campaign finance reform, then the fight against toxic chemicals in California. You’re listening to Democracy Now! All that after this.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: You’re listening to Democracy Now!, Pacifica Radio’s daily grassroots election show. Today is Monday, and so we’re looking at money. I’m Amy Goodman. Joining me in the studios of KPFA, our Pacifica station in Berkeley, is Larry Bensky. And joining us on the telephone are two Californians who are involved in electoral politics in one way or other. We’re joined by Doug Phelps. He’s head of Californians Against Political Corruption, and they’re trying to get an initiative on the ballot for the fall that would drastically limit campaign contributions, limit them in all sorts of ways. We’re also joined by Ruth Holton, executive director of California Common Cause. They have an initiative on the ballot. Ruth Holton, Doug Phelps was just explaining some of the reasons he disagreed with you. Your response?

RUTH HOLTON: Well, our response, unfortunately, the situation started — you know, we wouldn’t have to have this confusing conflict before the voters with two measures on the ballot. We had already turned in our signatures, when they decided to go forward. And I think that that was really an unfortunate decision, because it does confuse the voters. There is a lot in theirs and in ours, which is very similar.

Second, I would like to make clear that those candidates who receive a contribution of $500 can only do so if they agree to a spending limit. The contribution limit that we provide is $100 at the local level, it’s $250 for legislative races. And the Supreme Court has said that you need to have a real incentive, provide a real incentive, if you’re going to have spending limits. And so, our incentive is that you’re allowed to receive double the contribution limit. This is a system that has been in place in the city of Oakland. It was worked very successfully. Every candidate agreed to the spending limits. And spending limits is truly what levels the playing field. And many people said they’d never seen so many public discussions and public debates by the candidates. I think going from an unlimited system, where you have no money, to contributions where you can receive $500, and you agree to a spending limit, is a phenomenal improvement in the system. It really will force candidates to go to the grassroots. It will allow grassroots to get together, to join with their resources and really have an impact on the system. And that’s what we need to do.

Also, we need to do it in a way that right now the courts would allow us to do, so that we have reform now. Californians, you know, can’t afford to wait. The system is desperately broken. It needs to be fixed now. And we just don’t want to gamble with the possibility that maybe sometime in the future that will happen.

LARRY BENSKY: This is going to be on the ballot in November, your measure anyway, perhaps the other one. We’re going to have a presidential election in November. How do you see this interplaying, both of you, with the presidential election? Do you expect either Bill Clinton or Bob Dole or Ross Perot or Ralph Nader or any of those people to make campaign finance reform of your kind an issue in November?

RUTH HOLTON: The reason that we want this issue to be on the November ballot is that the presidential candidates, no matter whom they are, are going to be able — are going to be forced to take on the issue of campaign finance reform, and they’re going to be asked to take a position on campaign finance reform. Certainly — 

LARRY BENSKY: Have you already asked them?

RUTH HOLTON: — Ralph Nader has already taken a position on the issue of campaign finance reform. He hasn’t come out for either one of the measures specifically. Ross Perot has already taken an issue, support on campaign finance reform. He personally hasn’t come out in support of ours, but United We Stand America, which was his former organization, is very much a part of our — is one of the sponsors of our initiative and very much a part of it. Dole has not come out. But the point is that there will be — campaign finance reform is an issue that will be on the November ballot, will force the — all candidates, not just the presidential candidates, but all candidates will be forced to discuss the issue.

LARRY BENSKY: Doug?

DOUGLAS PHELPS: To answer your question directly, I doubt that any of them will take a position on these in-state initiatives. They don’t, because we can’t, at the state level, affect federal campaign finance. You know, they don’t affect federal campaign finance. They don’t affect the presidential campaign finance situation. So, typically, they will avoid these state initiatives. Why take a position on something that you don’t have to? I agree with Ruth that I think we can use these as leverage to — just the fact that there is a debate going on about campaign finance is positive. And the more states we can make that happen, the better. And the more that voters are thinking about this, they may well ask people running for president, in California, what their position is on this, on this issue generally. And I think from — I am certainly certain from Nader, we can expect strong support for campaign finance reform. I’m less sanguine about the positions of Perot, Dole, Clinton, and possibly some of the others who may be running, because they’ve all gotten where they are because they either have personally or have been able to raise huge amounts of money. I mean, after all, in election after election at the presidential level for my political lifetime, the candidates in both parties who have been able to raise the most money are the ones who’ve gotten a nomination.

LARRY BENSKY: One final technical question, which I think listeners are probably raising in their own minds: What happens if both of these measures are on the ballot, and they both pass?

RUTH HOLTON: Well, if the PIRGs — and the PIRGs provide specifically that if both pass and theirs get the most votes, then all the other measures on the November ballot are null and void in its entirety. They also provide that if theirs passes but gets fewer votes, then theirs should be implemented to the fullest extent provided by law. We have no such provision in ours. In California, the law requires that it is, in fact, the court to decide, if there are conflicting provisions, what those conflicting provisions are. We’ve decided that it really is up to the court to decide, not up to proponents of initiatives to decide whether theirs should trump the other one.

DOUGLAS PHELPS: Whichever one gets the most votes will take effect and prevail. That’s kind of pretty, pretty clear. That works both directions.

AMY GOODMAN: Doug Phelps and Ruth Holton, my last two questions are: Why isn’t the Legislature doing this? And what about television campaign ads?

RUTH HOLTON: Well, there’s a good reason why the Legislature is not doing it. I think we would both agree it’s completely contrary to legislative interests. They’ve managed to get into office and stay in office because of the system that we have. As I said, right now in California it’s unlimited campaign contributions. And the Legislature is, in fact — some members of the Legislature are proposing a third measure, which is extraordinarily weak, in an effort to kill the measure that the voters pass. So, it’s going to be a very interesting fight. But members of the Legislature cannot, will not cut off their own campaign contribution sources.

AMY GOODMAN: Doug Phelps, the issue of TV campaign — of TV advertising?

DOUGLAS PHELPS: Well, I’m not sure what you’re saying the issue is there. I think we would all prefer that to whatever extent candidates are able to raise money, that they spend it on more informative and illuminating discussions than your 30-second negative TV ads. To the extent that they find those effective in tearing down their opponents, I’m afraid we can expect that they’re going to continue to use them. At the federal level, I believe certainly PIRG and Common Cause both share the view that one of the things that we could do would be to require, both in the area of Postal Service and in the electronic media, more free time to be made available to candidates as one of the — one of the solutions to providing information to voters without it being dependent on which candidate is the most sold out to wealthy interests.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you both for joining us. What about your phone numbers, for people who are interested in these initiatives around the country? Why don’t we begin with Ruth Holton of California Common Cause.

RUTH HOLTON: The Californians for Political Reform can be contacted at area code 916-443-1792, or in Los Angeles at area code 310-475-8285.

DOUGLAS PHELPS: And Californians Against Political Corruption can be contacted at in California, in Los Angeles, at 310-397-5270, and in Washington, D.C., at 202-546-9707

AMY GOODMAN: And that was Doug Phelps with Californians Against Political Corruption. Ruth Holton is head of California Common Cause. They are part of the group Californians for Political Reform. Californians for Political Reform have a ballot initiative in California that will be voted on in the fall on campaign finance reform. As to whether Doug Phelps’ group, Californians Against Political Corruption, get their initiative on the ballot remains to be seen.