SACRAMENTO, CA — Voters tried to curb campaign contributions in
2000, but an extensive study by the state’s elections watchdog released
Thursday shows that in the years since special-interest donors have
skirted those restrictions by making indirect contributions that total
more than $88 million.
The report by the state Fair Political Practices Commission
specifically examined the use and impact of independent expenditure
campaigns, which are allowed to receive unlimited amounts of
contributions but are not coordinated with candidates. Labor unions and
Indian tribes have been especially active donors.
The idea is that the money is spent on behalf of a candidate,
but not under the candidate’s direction, though some have questioned
whether that’s really the case.
The report revealed the amount of money such campaigns spent on
legislative races surged from $376,000 in 2000 to $23.5 million in
2006. Over that same period, statewide candidates — such as those
running for governor — saw indirect donations soar from $526,000 in
2002 to $29.5 million in 2006.
"The astounding increase in independent expenditures benefiting
candidates for state office is clearly thwarting the will of the people
to limit campaign spending," said FPPC Commission Chairman Ross
Johnson.
Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College, said the report’s findings were to be expected.
"As long as interest groups want to influence the government,"
Pitney said, "curbing their spending is like holding back the Pacific
Ocean with a chain-link fence."
Johnson and other campaign finance watchdogs are especially
concerned because not only is the spending unlimited, but it’s
difficult to track — and only likely to increase with another round of
legislative primary elections set for June.
As part of its examination, the FPPC compiled a list of the
largest independent expenditure committees and the largest donors to
those efforts. Topping the list: Californians for a Better Government,
which spent most, if not all, of $9.8 million to support the
unsuccessful campaign of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil
Angelides.
Of that nearly $10 million, Angelides’ friend Angelo
Tsakopoulos, who is a Sacramento developer, and his daughter, Eleni
Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis, contributed more than $8.6 million — an amount
that immediately cast suspicion on independent expenditure campaigns.
Under voter-approved Proposition 34 in 2000, Tsakopoulos’ contribution
to Angelides’ official campaign could not exceed $3,600.
In addition to Tsakopoulos and his daughter, other contributors
who made the FPPC’s top 10 list include two Indian gaming tribes, the
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (the leader with $6.18 million) and
the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, and two of the state’s most
powerful unions, the California Teachers Association and the California
Correctional Peace Officers Association.
The FPPC also asserted that independent expenditure campaigns
have affected the outcome of Senate and Assembly races — and many
candidates have received substantially more money in these indirect
donations than raised by their campaign.
One example cited by the FPPC was the 2006 34th Senate district
Democratic primary in Orange County that pitted moderate Lou Correa
against liberal Tom Umberg. It was widely known that the Democratic
leadership favored a moderate to take on Republican Assemblywoman Lynn
Daucher.
In the primary, Correa raised $304,000, while Umberg pulled in
$476,592. However, Correa received an additional $1.1 million in
indirect independent expenditure contributions, while Umberg received
$68,926. Correa won — and then beat Daucher in a race so close the
result wasn’t final until weeks after election night.
Some candidates, however, have used their opponents’ indirect donations against them.
In the East Bay’s 10th Senate District Democratic primary in
2006, John Dutra was heavily backed by independent expenditures but
nonetheless lost to Ellen Corbett.
Corbett’s campaign manager, Parke Skelton, hammered Dutra, a moderate Democrat, as being in the pockets of special interest.
But Skelton has been on the other end, too, and said he finds
the wild-card factor of independent expenditure campaigns "really
troubling."
Tracking such independent campaign contributions as they occur,
however, is difficult, the FPPC contends, despite current reporting
requirements and online posting on the Secretary of State’s Web site.
Campaign finance reform advocates, who support the FPPC effort,
said the contributions provide powerful groups undue influence over
issues.
"It has a really frightening effect on politics," said Carmen Balber of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.
————–
Contact Steve Geissinger at [email protected] or (916) 447-9302.
