Contributions to be decided

By Michael Watanabe
Daily Forty-Niner

California voters will try once again to limit contributions and loans to state candidates and political parties with Proposition 34.

State voters have endorsed a campaign finance law three times in the last 10 years, but each time the courts have thrown out voters' efforts, said Tom Knox, spokesman for the Committee for Constitutional Campaign Reform.

"Proposition 34 uses court-tested, known-to-be Constitutional methods to limit the amount of funds raised and spent," Knox said. Without Proposition 34, California "may be without campaign limits for two to four years."

Opponents of Proposition 34 argue otherwise. They say that Proposition 34 will open up campaign reform to special interests and would create "massive money laundering machines," according to the No on 34 Web site.

"There are all sorts of loopholes that keep big money in the system," said Tony Miller, campaign coordinator for No on 34. "The real intent of Proposition 34 is to kill Proposition 208."

Proposition 208 was suspended by a federal judge, but is likely to be reinstated because of the Supreme Court decision Nixon vs. Shrink Missouri Government PAC. Meanwhile, the Court has put off deciding on Proposition 208 until Proposition 34 is settled.

Proponents disagree. "Proposition 208 is unlikely to ever be reinstated in anything resembling what was originally passed," Knox said. "It is very likely to be thrown out in part or in whole."

Unlike Proposition 208, Proposition 34 was created by politicians, the very politicians that were against Proposition 208, according to the No on 34 Web site.

Voting yes on Proposition 34 would create new limits on campaign contributions and spending, would repeal Proposition 208 and would have higher limits, according to the Secretary of State's Web site.

Voting no would keep existing contribution and spending limits, and would allow a court trial on Proposition 208.