3 Lawsuits Filed Against Prop. 208 Limits

Acting on behalf of both political parties, politicians and major donors, lawyers for Democrats and Republicans filed three lawsuits Thursday attacking the strict new campaign fund-raising and spending limits imposed by Proposition 208.

Attorneys against the initiative contend that almost every facet of the sweeping campaign finance reform measure approved in November violates the U.S. Constitution.

“In numerous respects, 208 tramples on citizens’ 1st Amendment rights,” said John E. Mueller, representing the California Republican Party. The initiative, in essence, is saying, “you can have freedom of speech, but we won’t let you raise or spend the money it takes to run your television ad or send your mailer.”

But supporters say the restrictions are legal and long overdue. “These lawsuits are a slap in the face of the voters of California,” said former acting Secretary of State Tony Miller, who helped write the initiative, along with California Common Cause and the League of Women Voters.

More than 5.1 million Californians voted for Proposition 208, approving it by a 61%-39% margin.

The battery of lawsuits filed in federal court in Sacramento marks the start of a major new struggle between the power of voters to rein in what was a system of limitless campaign spending, and the 1st Amendment right to exercise free speech through political donations.

The lawsuits are seeking an injunction barring the California Fair Political Practices Commission from enforcing Proposition 208.

Under the ballot measure, donors can give no more than $500 to legislative candidates and $1,000 to candidates in statewide races.

The measure also caps the amount lawmakers can spend on campaigns. Assembly candidates, for example, can spend a maximum $150,000 in the primary and $200,000 in the general election--less than half of what has been spent on hotly contested races in the recent past.

The initiative also limits candidates for governor to spending $6 million in the primaries and $8 million in general election campaigns. That too is less than half of what was spent in 1994 by the two main candidates for governor.

“[California] will be the battleground,” Ruth Holton of Common Cause said Thursday. “This is by far the most comprehensive campaign finance law in the country. Everyone will be watching very carefully. What happens here will have an impact on campaign finance laws around the country.”

In the opening of his challenge, San Francisco attorney Joseph Remcho wrote that Proposition 208 “depresses political speech, it oppresses political association, and it discriminates in favor of incumbents, the wealthy and the well-known.”

“It is, in the name of reform, antithetical to everything that the architects of our Constitution believed essential to a free and fair political system,” he contended.

Remcho filed his suit on behalf of major donors to Democrats--the California Teachers Assn., the Service Employees International Union and the Consumer Attorneys of California--as well as state Sen. Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles) and Assemblyman Roderick Wright (D-Los Angeles).

Remcho said in an interview that the initiative has a “very heavy anti-union bias,” adding that the measure limits the amount an individual union can donate to a candidate to no more than $500, and precludes union locals from giving if the state or national organization donated first.

The Sacramento law firm of Olson, Hagel, filed a second suit on behalf of the California Democratic Party.

The third suit is the one filed by Mueller’s firm--Nielsen, Merksamer of Sacramento--on behalf of the state GOP and Assemblyman Bill Leonard (R-San Bernardino), as well as a lobbyist and donors to GOP causes.

The two lawsuits filed on behalf of the state parties center on restrictions placed on party contributions to candidates. In addition, a single donor can give no more than $25,000 to a party.

“We have never had a system in the country where the will of the majority can override rights of the individual,” said state GOP Chairman John Herrington. “It is fundamental. You can’t step on 1st Amendment rights. The Constitution does not sanction 208.”

The initiative will be defended by attorneys for the Fair Political Practices Commission. Common Cause and other Proposition 208 proponents plan to intervene in support of the measure. They will be represented by attorneys from the Brennan Center of New York, established to defend campaign finance laws.

While party leaders and many elected officials in Sacramento opposed Proposition 208, some elected officials have called on the parties to drop the challenges.

Assemblyman Jan Goldsmith (R-Poway) vowed to intervene in the litigation, advocating that the initiative’s restrictions on political parties be left intact.

“If parties are exempt and everyone else has limits, they can raise as much as they want, and we run the risk of parties being built into machines,” Goldsmith said. “The party is going to be where the power is, and candidates will feel muzzled.”