Assembly OKs Campaign Contribution Limits

SACRAMENTO — The Assembly on Thursday approved a measure that would limit contributions to state and local political campaigns.

But to take effect, the Republican-backed bill faces many hurdles: It must pass the state Senate, where its prospects are uncertain. And if signed by Gov. Pete Wilson, the proposal would then go before voters in November, who will also be considering two similar ballot measures. If legal precedent is followed, it would have to receive more votes than the two other ballot propositions.

The bill, AB 3027 by Assemblyman James Rogan (R-Glendale), is in many respects more generous to candidates--such as those who voted on it Thursday--than the competing reform measures backed by public interest groups.

The Rogan proposal, which passed on a 47-13 Assembly vote with Democratic support, would limit donations to $1,000 from individual contributors, and up to $5,000 from large groups or political parties. The limits would apply to Assembly, state Senate and statewide races and, where no limits exist now, to local races.

The other two ballot propositions, both citizen initiatives that have qualified or are expected to qualify, would limit contributions per donor to $250 or less.

But Rogan said his bill has a better chance of surviving court challenges.

He called the bill “our best hope to curb the out-of-control financing of [legislative] campaigns” that reached $38.7 million in 1994.

For 10 years, Rogan said, citizens have demanded a scaling down of political contributions, “but all they have been given is talk and lawsuits.”

California voters imposed campaign finance limits with the passage of Proposition 73 in 1988--and saw campaign spending drop by half in 1989-90--but the measure was overturned by the courts and political spending resumed at previous levels, according to state records.

On Thursday, seven Democrats voted for the Rogan measure, but 13 Democrats were against it. They faulted the proposal for placing no limits on candidate spending and only addressing contributions.

Republicans pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled spending limits unconstitutional. They said that feature, along with other elements that were struck down in Proposition 73, were avoided to ensure that the bill could meet court tests.

Assemblyman Bruce McPherson (R-Santa Cruz), a co-sponsor with Rogan, said that with their measure on the ballot, people will have three choices for bringing about political finance reform. But the other two, he said, would be more vulnerable to court challenges, and “it could be another eight years” before there is progress in limiting the flow of political dollars.

In other action Thursday, Assembly Republicans moved to limit legal liability of local governments, railroads and government marine weather forecasters.

A bill by Keith Olberg (R-Victorville) that passed on a partisan 41-29 vote would shield local governments from lawsuits arising from children who are injured while using public playground equipment. As long as the equipment was properly maintained, the “misuse of hazardous recreation equipment” by a child could not be grounds for a lawsuit.

A measure by Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian (R-Carlsbad), which passed 41-29, again along partisan lines, would exempt a railroad from liability for injuries suffered by someone hit by a train, as long as signs warning of such a danger were posted in the vicinity.

A bill by Assemblyman Tom Bordonaro (R-Paso Robles), approved by a similar margin, would exempt from liability public agencies that furnish marine weather forecasts that are inaccurate. Boaters who are killed or injured as a result would have no case in court against the issuers of the forecast.

In opposition, Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg (D-Sacramento) told a reporter:

“Self-declared conservative Republicans are passing laws to free people from the consequences of their own actions. . . . They want to return to the era of sovereign immunity, when government can do no wrong and apply the old rule of caveat emptor, let the buyer beware--even for kids in parks.”