The latest example is Proposition 208, the campaign-reform initiative backed by Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, that the electorate narrowly approved in November 1996. The intent of the voters was clear: limit the role of money in political campaigns and you limit the influence of well-heeled special interests on public policy. This has been a recurrent theme in California politics for the past decade, but the will of the voters has -- again -- been thwarted by the federal judiciary.

Proposition 208 was a complex, carefully drafted law that prohibited candidates for statewide office from receiving more than $500 in any single contribution from most sources; candidates for the Assembly and Senate were limited to $250, while local candidates, such as those for city councils or boards of supervisors, were limited to $100 to $250 per contribution, depending upon the size of the target constituency.

Those limits were doubled for candidates who voluntarily accepted spending limits, and the initiative also limited the amount of money candidates could accept from Political Action Committees.

During 1997, the only year that Proposition 208 was in effect, candidates were forced to conduct their fund-raising accordingly. For good or ill, the initiative did pretty much what voters hoped it would do: It limited the amounted of money candidates could raise, although it allowed a glaring loophole in that it enabled wealthy candidates to use their own money in an unlimited fashion to bankroll their own campaigns.

But in an unusual display of solidarity, both major parties opposed Proposition 208 and mounted a fierce legal battle to overturn the initiative. Last week, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton did exactly that.

In effect, Karlton ruled that the limits were too low and unconstitutionally interfered with a candidate's ability to communicate with voters. He gutted the initiative and ordered the Fair Political Practices Commission to stop enforcing it.

While higher courts may eventually rule on the initiative, the immediate impact is obvious. Candidates who were limited in their fund-raising now are not, and as the critical 1998 election cycle gets under way, the race for money is going ahead full bore.

Financially, California elections have long been considered a national scandal. To run a credible gubernatorial campaign, for example, candidates must raise $12 million to $15 million, or more, to stay in contention. During the past decade, candidates for governor have typically raised $15 million to $20 million, or more, almost all of it going for negative television advertising that does little to educate voters. Even campaigns for the down-ticket offices, such as attorney general or insurance commissioner, require millions of dollars.

Political reporters covering campaigns have long been accustomed to those blank spaces in a candidate's schedule in which the contender, absent from public events, is closeted with a telephone working contributors for cash. Candidates almost universally say they hate fund-raising, but they quickly point out that they are left little choice: Without money, how can they compete?

Surely, an obvious answer is public financing of campaigns, similar to the way presidential contests get money. Once a presidential hopeful reaches a certain benchmark, his campaign can qualify for public money earmarked through a checkoff on a citizen's income tax return.

Campaign reform groups have long advocated public financing, but the proposal repeatedly has gone nowhere in California. The closest was a decade ago, when voters approved public financing but a rival initiative got more votes and the public financing component was blocked.

This year, as candidates scramble for contributions, the call for public financing is likely to gain new urgency. But voters, cynical of politicians, are unlikely to offer a concerted demand to clean up the political landscape. As Republicans who oppose public financing are quick to point out, who wants to give money directly to a politician?

Who indeed?

All '98 publications are available online. Place your SECURE online order today!
http://www.capenq.com/order

*** New Products ***

We've added to our collection of publications three new products for '98: the California District Zip Code Directory, the California District Wall Map, and Mailing Labels & Disks for all your mailing needs. Find these new products and more through our Web site.
http://www.capenq.com/brochure

*** 1997 Directory Prices Reduced ***

While our '98 directories are ready for order, the costs of three of our '97 directories, the Pocket Directory of the California Legislature, the U.S. Congress Directory, and the State Agency Directory, have been significantly reduced. Find more information through our Web site.
http://www.capenq.com/order