New Rules to Change Tenor of California’s Next Elections

It is hard to imagine now, with the barrage of television ads from the last election still rising nightmarishly from the subconscious, but the shape of California’s next elections may be distinctly different.

No morning-to-night commercials, for one thing, that allow a candidate to barge into your living room and drown you under slasher caricatures of his opponent. Though, to be honest, they will still nag you regularly.

Candidates for governor, other state offices and the Legislature might run for office by actually talking to voters--voters!--instead of what has passed for campaigning here: massive fund-raising drives broken up by the occasional drive-by news conference or school tour.

Some candidates might show up at your house, or where you work, and might even pay attention to what you say because, at least in theory, you are as valuable to them as the millionaire in the corner office.

In the last 10 months, the state’s voters have risen in anger and unleashed a barrage of blows to the state’s body politic. In March, they smacked the political parties by approving a free-for-all open primary instead of the usual partisan primaries. And two months ago, they sharply curbed the amount of money candidates could raise and spend to get elected.

Both changes went into effect on Jan. 1. And, depending on whom you talk to in the still-reeling political community, it is either the end of democracy as we know it or the way things were always meant to be.

Reformers insist that the revolutionary new rules could draw many disaffected Californians back to politics. And they say they give officeholders a better chance to focus on public policy instead of campaigning.

“This will cause a fundamental change in how we do business and how we run campaigns and, I hope, in the kind of people who run,” said Ruth Holton, executive director of Common Cause, the nonprofit group that sponsored the spending restrictions.

Yet others well-acquainted with the state’s mercenary political culture believe there is a huge risk that the reforms will backfire. They describe the changes as naive and rife with unintended consequences.

“Are we doing things with a very significant impact? Yes, we are, but no one knows what the impact will be,” said Democratic political consultant Darry Sragow, summing up the uncertainties.

As California enters a brand-new world of political reform, there is one point of agreement: The new reforms benefit those who already have a hand on the brass ring.

Perversely, perhaps, the open primary and financial reforms all but set the status quo in concrete. They dramatically increase the odds of success for well-known candidates and limit the chances of all but an exceptionally wealthy person willing to fund his own campaign. And the funding rules give bold new power to organized interest groups, such as labor unions and single-issue organizations.

“This is incumbent protection,” said Mike Schroeder, vice chairman of the state Republican Party.

The reforms were meant to salvage a system of politicking that, according to almost everyone, had spiraled out of control. Not surprisingly, they are being challenged in court.

Under the open primary system, voters in June 1998 will see a ballot markedly different from the one they previously received. Instead of listing a few candidates from one party, it will list all candidates from all parties. Independent voters, who previously could not cast ballots in the primary, will be able to take part.

The funding restrictions limit donations in statewide races to $500 per donor for the primary and $500 for the general election. Legislative candidates can receive only $250 per donor for each election. There is no limit to the amount a rich candidate can give himself. Fund-raising is banned until six months before legislative primaries and a year before statewide primaries.

The maximum donation doubles, however, if a candidate accepts voluntary spending limits. For the governor’s race, that spending limit is $14 million--$6 million in the primary and $8 million in the general election. Other statewide office seekers could spend only a total of $3.5 million. State Senate candidates could spend $700,000 and Assembly candidates $350,000.

*

Lesser-knowns therefore have a dual difficulty--to raise enough money to make a splash, and do it with enough pizazz that voters find their names amid the blur of the open ballot.

“The combination of the open primary and Proposition 208 really puts an enormous premium on the electoral assets you bring into the cycle,” said Garry South, who is running Lt. Gov. Gray Davis’ gubernatorial bid.

“By assets, I mean have run for statewide office before, have a statewide fund-raising operation, have high name ID, favorable name ID and real low negatives. . . . If you do not register strongly on the electorate, you’re dead.”

To South and others, that means that candidates other than the two party front-runners will have difficulty breaking into the race.

Both Davis and Republican Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren anticipated the reforms and amassed millions last year that they can carry to their 1998 campaigns, the last time such transfers will be allowed. Other candidates face the difficult task of separating themselves from the pack without being able to raise money until next June.

Among possible candidates on the Democratic side, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is in the best position since she is well-known and has an existing fund-raising base. She would, however, start from scratch. Outgoing White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, another potential candidate, would begin with far less statewide visibility than others, no money and the possibility that donors would hold off giving to him until Feinstein decides whether to run.

State Controller Kathleen Connell said recently that she has $1 million banked for a potential gubernatorial bid. But she is far less known than Feinstein or Davis and has yet to prove herself as a fund-raiser. About two-thirds of the money raised in her 1994 race came from Connell and her businessman husband, from whom she just separated.

*

Another possible entrant, Northwest Airlines Co-Chairman Alfred A. Checchi, theoretically does not need to worry about finance reform. Although he could decide to run under the same limitations as the others, he also could decide to spend as much as he wants of his personal fortune, conservatively estimated at $550 million.

Among Republicans, there is little talk of a challenge to Lungren. The reforms make one far more remote, except from a very rich Republican.

“No matter what the rules are, it’s tough raising money and this makes it tougher,” said Lungren’s brother Brian, who is running the gubernatorial campaign. “Obviously, we have the advantage, because for all intents and purposes we are the presumptive nominee.”

The new rules are more likely to immediately affect candidates for the Legislature. Reformers believe the rules will entice candidates from the ranks of community interest groups because the groups provide a ready roster of potential donors and volunteers.

But that raises the prospect of some candidates owing their election to interest groups, much as they previously have owed them to major donors. Also, challengers are barred from raising money until six months before the primary, putting them at a disadvantage to an incumbent who garners constant media attention.

“If you want to challenge an incumbent, it’s going to be pretty tough to get your name or positions out there,” Brian Lungren said.

No matter who runs, the spending limitations will dramatically alter the ratcheting cost of campaigns.

In the most recent race for governor, 1994’s lopsided contest between Republican incumbent Pete Wilson and Democrat Kathleen Brown, the nominees raised a record $50.2 million, according to a Common Cause compilation. In the five-month general election, state records show the two spent $31.8 million.

The new rules slice spending almost by half, allowing two candidates only $28 million overall and $16 million in the general election.

The impact on legislative races is less clear. Common Cause says that the median amount spent by a winning state Senate candidate in 1994 was $676,000, and the winning Assembly candidate cashed out at $299,000.

On the surface those are not terribly different from the new levels--$700,000 for the Senate and $350,000 for the Assembly. But the median figures mask variations by district. And many political analysts doubt the average legislative candidate will be able to raise the maximum allowed, meaning they will spend even less.

Although restrictions limit the amount of money politicians can spend on a race, they do nothing to limit their costs, and for that reason future campaigns could visibly change.

Television is the biggest weapon in California politics, but it is a costly one. In the final month of a gubernatorial campaign, television costs can eat up as much as $1.5 million a week--a huge dent when general election spending is limited to $8 million. Expect to see fewer ads from the candidates, and probably fewer mailers as well.

“If you are sitting in Los Angeles, you’re probably not going to see Gray Davis or Dan Lungren commercials 100 times within a week,” said Brian Lungren. “Probably 10 times less. Maybe that will be beneficial to the voters.”

Others suggest that cutbacks will be stiffer.

“They’re just going to have to be more judicious about where they buy TV time,” Holton said. “They can’t carpet-bomb. They have to be more surgical.”

Supporters of the spending restrictions say they will limit the amount of time candidates must spend dialing for dollars. But others disagree, pointing to the contribution limits.

“Campaigns still cost the same,” said Sragow, the Democratic consultant. “Now you have to spend more time raising it.”

And, he added, “to the extent that less money is spent, voters will be less informed. Which is the big problem with California politics anyway.”

The drop in the number of candidate commercials and mailers may be offset by a rise in communications by others, such as unions or single-issue groups.

So-called independent expenditure campaigns, which are not governed by the new rules, are expected to increase as a result of the new rules. Interest groups and wealthy individuals whose donations to a candidate are now limited can run ads or send out information under their own names, so long as they keep an arms’ length distance from the candidate.

Some changes are already afoot. Statewide candidates are trying to make a splash until June, when they can begin raising money. Democrat Davis, for example, is dribbling out a series of endorsements, a tactic that would have been unnecessary under the old system. The first endorsement went out in December over the name of U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-San Mateo).

“It’s not too early to begin thinking about this critically important race,” the endorsement letter said.

Republican Lungren is setting up what he hopes will be a volunteer force 100,000 strong--a tactic conceived before the funding restrictions but given added life because of them.

One goal of the reformers was to prod candidates to court rank-and-file voters instead of the moneyed few. On that point, they may succeed, either because the candidates need donations or because they’ve gathered all they can under the new rules.

“If you have made all the phone calls, your campaign manager, if not your own conscience, is going to say, ‘What we’re going to do is make visits to Modesto and Merced,’ ” said U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell (R-San Jose), the chief backer of the open primary.

Ultimately, the success of the reforms will be judged by voters. Those on both sides of the new rules are keenly aware that voter distaste prompted the changes. And there is concern that if the rules seem not to have an immediate impact, or if they are rejected by the courts, voters will grow even more disgusted.

“I think the voters will get to the point where they realize that all the reform didn’t do anything,” said state Sen. Cathie Wright, a Republican from Simi Valley who opposed the reforms. “All they did is give someone with a mischievous mind some way to go around it.”

But others remain optimistic.

“I am very hopeful that at least after a few election cycles, there will be a greater trust of the political process and politicians because they will not be dominated by big money,” said Tony Miller, the executive director of Californians for Political Reform, which pushed for the funding restrictions. “We think that will restore some of the confidence.”