Think of the California politician you dislike the most. You soon could be forced to give your tax dollars to his or her campaign.
Proposition 4 on the Nov. 3 ballot is called the Allow Public Financing of Election Campaigns Measure. Proposition 73, which voters passed in 1988, currently bans public financing of campaigns in counties and general-law cities and for state offices, but court rulings exempted charter cities. Only five have such programs: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley and Long Beach.
The City of Angels has the oldest public-financing program, dating to 1990. The city’s decay since then argues against spreading the practice elsewhere.
Prop. 4’s main proponent, the California Clean Money Action Fund, argues it’s needed because, “This massive fundraising buys access for special interests, but shuts out the rest of us. We need to change the way we finance election campaigns so politicians can focus on the job we sent them to accomplish.”
But the Fair Political Practices Commission already administers campaign limits. Among the limits: contributions are capped at $5,900 for Senate and Assembly candidates, and for those running in cities and counties that don’t have limits. The limits are $39,200 for gubernatorial candidates and $9,800 for other statewide offices.
Prop. 4 also is supported by the status quo unions that run the state, including AFSCME, the California Nurses Association and the California Labor Federation. If Prop. 4 passes, any chance of reform will go from slim to none.
“Public financing just opens government to one more area of corruption,” Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association President Jon Coupal told me. “There’s no way you can get money out of politics. It always finds a way. We have defeated it in the past. Voters just don’t want it.”
The roster of failure is long: Proposition 40 in 1984, Proposition 68 in 1988, Proposition 131 in 1990, Proposition 25 in 2000, Proposition 89 in 2006 and Proposition 15 in 2010.
Prop. 68 appeared on the ballot a year after I came to California to write editorials for the Orange County Register. It actually scored a majority, with 53%. However, the Prop. 73 ban, mentioned above, received 58%. Under the California Constitution, when two conflicting measures both pass, the one with more yes votes prevails.
I don’t think I wrote our opposition editorial. A name isn’t indicated in the Orange County Public Library database. It sounds like then-Commentary Director Ken Grubbs. But our arguments hold up today: “It is repugnant to spend tax money on political candidates…. Why anyone would want to give a nickel to a politician except under duress is a mystery.” Money in politics occurs because “government has its fingers in so many pies, disposing of vast wealth through the political means of legislation and regulation.”
Back in 1988, Prop. 68 was put on the ballot through citizens collecting signatures. By contrast, Prop. 4 insults us because it was put on the ballot by the Legislature itself with Senate Bill 42, whose lead author was state Sen. Tom Umberg, D-Santa Ana. He is running for District 4 of the Board of Equalization against Republican Denis Bilodeau.
That is, the potential beneficiaries of the grab of the taxpayers’ money advanced the proposition. No wonder the bill was opposed by the Republican superminority (less than one-third of seats) in both houses. Most of the tax money obviously would go to the incumbent Democrats.
The current makeup of the Assembly is 60 Democrats, 19 Republicans and one vacancy in a Republican seat. In the Senate, it’s 30 Democrats to 10 Republicans. That’s just a quarter of seats for Republicans. Yet in 2024 President Donald Trump won 38% of the vote in California. Public financing wouldn’t change that imbalance.
Unless AI turns me into a robot, I won’t be around in another 38 years to write against this rip-off when it comes up again. But bringing back public financing of campaigns shows that, in California, no bad idea stays long in hibernation.
John Seiler is on the SCNG Editorial Page