Have a question or issue in campaign law? Contact us and we'll try to answer you. Enter your e-mail below:
Learn more about...
Interested in a specific subject? Click here to browse our blog by subject area.
Blog Roll
AFJ Nonprofit Advocacy Blog
Beltway Blogroll
Campaign Legal Center blog
Cato Unbound
Common Cause Blog
Division of Labour
First Amendment Center
Going to the Mat
Instapundit.com
The Lonely Centrist
Michael Barone
More Soft Money Hard Law (Bob Bauer)
Political Activity Law
Public Citizen WatchdogBlog
RedState
Rick Hasen's Election Law Blog
Sabato's Crystal Ball
The Volokh Conspiracy
Votelaw
|
|
Contribution Limits Shortcomings
Published on February 19, 2008
by Michael Schrimpf
File Under: Contributions & Limits, Faulty Assumptions
In 2000 California voters passed Proposition 34 which set contribution limits for candidates running for state office. Not surprisingly, with limits placed on contributions to candidates, citizens and advocacy groups quickly turned to other avenues through which to support preferred candidates.
A report by the state's "Fair Political Practices Commission" issued last week reveals that independent groups have spent $88 million on efforts to reach California's voters since the contribution limits were first put in place. The Commission's "disinterested" Chairman, Russ Johnson, said that the independent spending is "thwarting the will of the people."
But no one should be surprised that citizens and citizens groups want to make their voices heard in an election. Instead of "thwarting the will of the people," independent spending helps the people excercise and express their will.
California's experience since enacting contribution limits closely mirrors that of Philadelphia which last year concluded its first ever election with strict contribution limits. CCP has published a case study of Philadelphia's experience which should provide some lessons for other jurisdictions considering strict contribution limits.
Click HERE to read the study.
