With all the recent chaos in Washington D.C. surrounding the actions of the White House during the last presidential election, it has at times seemed like the concept of campaign finance reform might just be a contradiction in terms. In a recent poll, over 75 percent of the public support more stringent laws governing election spending and limiting contributions, particularly donations from foreign sources.
Californians jumped on the reform bandwagon last November when they voted a resounding "Yes" on Proposition 208, which would put a cap on campaign contributions to candidates. Due to its inherent unconstitutionality, the Proposition was immediately taken to Federal Court in Sacramento where it awaits a final decision. The Proposition's fate is anybody's guess, although the idea of mandatory campaign spending limits was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976 in the case of Buckley v. Valeo on the grounds that limits were an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.
I have always believed that the existing campaign finance laws would be sufficient if they were properly enforced. Limiting spending and creating more complex guidelines for contributions than those already on the books will result in a higher number of incumbents re-elected to office. Name recognition among voters is a major part of winning elections, and unknown challengers will face a distinct disadvantage if they are not able to get their names and their message to the public.
But one of California's latest initiatives deals with campaign finance reform in a targeted and effective manner. The Campaign Reform Initiative (CRI) would do three major things: ban foreign contributions in California campaigns, prohibit employers from making automatic payroll deductions for political campaigns, and require labor leaders to obtain the annual written consent of their members before using any portion of members' dues for political purposes.
Initiatives are required to get 433,269 signatures to qualify for a slot on the ballot. Last month, CRI turned in over 775,000 signatures to be verified by the Secretary of State. If the signatures are valid, Californians will have the chance to vote on CRI in June 1998.
The most controversial -- and effective -- portion of the initiative is that which allows union members to decide if they want their dues used for political purposes. The union leaders have vehemently opposed CRI because it would considerably dampen their political clout by giving members the option to decide how to best spend their own hard-earned money. The union leaders went so far as to file a lawsuit against CRI, but the case was thrown out by a Federal judge.
As with many other special interest groups, union leaders use money to try and influence votes and curry political favor with office holders. But the members whose dues fund this effort have no voice in the process. They have no choice over which causes they donate money to or whose campaign they support. CRI will give union members the freedom to direct their money and make their own decisions.
Union leaders argue that they use the dues to act in the best interest of the membership, but if this is the case, they should have no objection to CRI. It does not prohibit political action from unions, which would be unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. It simply gives the power back to the union membership. If union members truly feel that supporting political action is in their best interest, they are certainly capable of voting to spend their dues in such a manner.
Union leaders would still be able to recommend a course of action for the membership to take and they would be free to educate their members about the political process. The only difference would be that those providing the funding would be making the final decision about the way that funding was spent, which no one can argue is anything except appropriate.
Governor Pete Wilson is the Honorary Co-Chair of the CRI campaign, which is backed by both elected officials and the majority of voters. In spite of the unions' attempt to blackmail those supporting CRI by suggesting they would support a counter ballot initiative resulting in a $10 billion tax increase for business, the initiative is gaining momentum and has broad-based support throughout the state.
In 1992, a similar ballot measure was passed in Washington State and has resulted in successfully giving control back to the union membership. CRI is not just another movement attempting to capitalize on the bandwagon of reform. It is not about limiting contributions, but rather restoring some balance to the political process and giving the individual union members more power to participate.
People certainly have the right to decide how they want their money to be spent, particularly in the case of a dues payment. Workers are required to pay dues as a condition of membership, but CRI would afford them the opportunity to decide what direction they want to take, and put the union leadership back in the position of facilitating -- not dictating -- the interests of its membership.
|
