California Proposition 25, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (March 2000)

California Proposition 25
Election date March 7, 2000
Topic Campaign finance
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 25 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on March 7, 2000. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported revising the state's campaign finance laws to limit contributions, create limited fundraising periods, provide public financing of certain candidate and ballot measure committee advertisements for committees agreeing to voluntary spending limits, and requiring top donors to ballot measure committees to be listed on ballot pamphlets.

A "no" vote opposed revising the state's campaign finance laws to limit contributions and impose restrictions on fundraising.

Election results

California Proposition 25
Result		Votes	Prozentualer Anteil
Yes		2,444,984	34.76%
No		4,589,870	65.24%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Measure design

Proposition 25 would have revised state laws on political campaigns for candidates and ballot measures beginning in 2001. Several provisions of Proposition 25 were similar to provisions of Proposition 208 from 1996. Proposition 208 was approved by California's voters but were not in effect because of a lawsuit.

Proposition 25 would have:

• limited financial contributions to support candidates for state or local elective office and prescribe when fund-raising for state candidates can occur;
• established voluntary campaign spending limits for state candidates and ballot initiative campaigns;
• provided public funding for broadcast advertising and voter information packets mailed to voters for certain state candidates and ballot initiative campaigns that have accepted voluntary campaign spending limits;
• required the establishment of websites to display information on state political campaigns and some local political campaigns, finances, and advertising authorized by campaigns;
• established new advertising and financial disclosure requirements for state and local campaigns;
• required state verification of contributions from major donors; and
• made it illegal under any circumstances to provide or offer compensation to someone to vote.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 25 was as follows:

"

Election Campaigns. Contributions and Spending Limits. Public Financing. Disclosures. Initiative Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

"

• Expands campaign contribution disclosure requirements, establishes contribution limits from single sources of $5,000 for statewide candidates, $3,000 for other candidates, $25,000 for political parties, and $50,000 total per election. Bans corporate contributions. Limits fund-raising to period 12 months before primary election and ninety days after election. • Provides public financing of campaign media advertisements and voter information packets for qualifying candidates and ballot measure committees adopting spending limits ranging from $300,000 for Assembly primary race to $10,000,000 for Governor’s race. • Requires ballot pamphlet to list top contributors on ballot measures.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 25. That estimate was:

• State costs of more than $55 million annually, potentially offset to an unknown extent.
• Local government costs of potentially several million dollars annually.

Support

Supporters

• Larry McCarthy, president of the California Taxpayers' Association
• Wayne Johnson, president of the California Teachers Association
• Allen Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce

Arguments

Official arguments

The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide for Proposition 25:

"

WHY DO WE NEED PROPOSITION 25? California is one of only six states with ABSOLUTELY NO LIMITS on the source or size of political contributions. Candidates can receive checks for $1 MILLION or even more! Our government has been corrupted by BIG MONEY. Last election, California gambling casinos and Nevada gambling casinos spent over ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS ($100,000,000.00) fighting for control of organized gambling in California—casinos gave millions to Democrats and millions to Republicans. Government should be of the people, by the people, and for the people, NOT OF THE GAMBLING CASINOS, BY THE GAMBLING CASINOS, and FOR THE GAMBLING CASINOS. Public figures get huge cash payments to endorse or oppose campaigns. Last election, a consumer advocate opposed the utility rate-cut initiative and got over $160,000 from utility companies; a former state schools official opposed the tobacco tax initiative and got $90,000 from tobacco companies. We often don’t find out about such payments until after the election. WHAT WILL PROPOSITION 25 DO? Prohibits paying people to vote or not vote. Requires immediate Internet disclosure of political contributions of $1,000 or more. Requires immediate Internet disclosure of television, radio, print, or mail advertisements. Provides strict contribution limits of $5000 or less, limits which will survive any legal challenge. Bans corporate contributions to candidates, just like federal law has for almost 100 years. Provides free television and radio time to statewide campaigns which agree to limit spending. Requires individuals in advertisements to disclose whether they are being paid by a campaign or its major donors. Requires statewide campaigns which exceed voluntary spending limits to disclose their spending total in all advertisements. Prevents endless fundraising by elected officials while they’re voting on important bills—statewide candidates can’t begin fundraising until one year before their primary, legislative candidates six months before their primary. Restricts ‘‘soft money,’’ stopping its unlimited use for electronic media or candidate advertisements. WHAT WILL PROPOSITION 25 COST? The initiative limits public funding to just ONE DOLLAR EACH YEAR PER CALIFORNIA TAXPAYER. It’s worth spending a dollar a year to BUY BACK OUR GOVERNMENT from special interests which control it! • Our politicians should answer to taxpayers not gambling casinos and tobacco companies. Political reform will SAVE taxpayers and consumers BILLIONS OF DOLLARS by limiting tax breaks and sweetheart deals for big campaign contributors. HOW WILL PROPOSITION 25 CLOSE LOOPHOLES AND LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD? Under Section 85309, ALL subsidiaries of a business and ALL locals of a union are treated as one donor for contribution limit purposes; this prevents different subsidiaries and locals from EACH giving maximum contributions. Section 89519 forces candidates to liquidate their campaign war chests after every election, meaning all candidates start even after every vote. WHO SUPPORTS PROPOSITION 25? A coalition of Democrats, Republicans, third party members, and independents who want to stop corruption, including Republican Senator John McCain and California Common Cause. WHO OPPOSES PROPOSITION 25? Special interests who want to keep control of OUR government. VOTE YES ON 25

”

Opposition

Opponents

• Daniel Lowenstein, former chair of the California Fair Political Practices Commission
• Peter J. Kanelos, president of the Responsible Voters for Lower Taxes
• Lois Wellington, president of Congress of California Seniors

Arguments

Official arguments

The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide for Proposition 25:

"

We need to clean up California’s political system, not add more problems to the mix. Proposition 25 is a classic example of a CURE THAT’S WORSE THAN THE DISEASE. It includes some positive changes, but unfortunately, this 24-PAGE INITIATIVE contains TOO MANY LOOPHOLES and provisions that will ADD TO THE ABUSES and LEAVE TAXPAYERS FOOTING THE BILL. California taxpayer organizations, government accountability groups and campaign finance experts have taken a close look at Prop. 25. Here’s what they’ve found: A $55 MILLION ANNUAL TAX INCREASE TO FUND POLITICAL ADS If you like those political ads you get bombarded with every election, you’ll love Prop. 25 because if it passes, you’ll get to PAY for those ads—even ads with which you disagree. Prop. 25 includes a MANDATORY TAXPAYER SUBSIDY TO FINANCE POLITICAL ADVERTISING. If approved, it would become the first state law in the country to force taxpayers to subsidize political advertising for initiative campaigns. Read the fiscal impact summary by the state’s independent Legislative Analyst. FIFTY-FIVE MILLION TAX DOLLARS WITH AUTOMATIC INCREASES EVERY YEAR. This is not a voluntary check-off on your tax form. The only say you have in the matter is a vote on Prop. 25. If it passes, your tax dollars will be used to finance political ads. That means a TAX INCREASE or CUTS TO EDUCATION and other services to pay for it. PROP. 25 IS THE MILLIONAIRE CANDIDATE’S BEST FRIEND Just ask the millionaire candidate who wrote it. It limits the money all but one type of candidate can raise from individuals. MILLIONAIRE CANDIDATES LIKE PROP. 25’s SPONSOR ARE EXEMPTED from the initiative’s contribution limit so they can spend unlimited amounts of their own money to get elected. Prop. 25 will make politics even more of a rich man’s game and give wealthy people and incumbents a huge advantage against new challengers. PROP. 25 LOCKS SPECIAL INTEREST LOOPHOLES DIRECTLY INTO STATE LAW Prop. 25 will legally protect the ability of special interests to dominate our political system. It was drafted to allow special interests to give an unlimited amount of money—known as ‘‘soft money’’—to political parties. If Prop. 25 passes, special interests will not only be able to avoid campaign contribution limits, they’ll be able to do so under the protection of state law. That’s why traditional supporters of campaign finance reform initiatives are opposing this one. PROP. 25 IS ANOTHER FULL EMPLOYMENT ACT FOR LAWYERS This 24-page initiative contains provisions that have already been found unconstitutional elsewhere and will undoubtedly lead to more costly lawsuits. Just what we need, another initiative headed straight for the courts. Prop. 25 has some good things in it, but we don’t get to pick and choose which ones we want. Overall, Prop. 25’s BAD PROVISIONS and LOOPHOLES make it a cure worse than the disease. Prop. 25 will not clean up politics. It will ADD TO THE ABUSES and LEAVE TAXPAYERS FOOTING A $55 MILLION ANNUAL BILL. VOTE NO on 25.

”

Path to the ballot

See also: Signature requirements for ballot measures in California

To qualify for the ballot, proponents needed to submit 419,260 valid signatures.

See also

2000 Measures

• 2000 Measures
• Campaign finance on the ballot
• 2000 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

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

External links

• Official 2000 Primary Voter Guide