THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE

Sacramento, CA — More than $500 million has been spent so far in the 2006 state election, a figure that shatters previous records and bewilders voters and advocates for changes in campaign finance law.

According to campaign reports filed Thursday, about half of that amount has gone to promote or oppose 13 ballot measures, $100 million has been spent on the governor’s race and tens of millions more has been spent by down-ballot candidates and independent committees weighing in on a variety of races.

“It’s an orgy,” said Matthew Krohn, 49, an independent voter from Oakland, who said he is tired of the election spending.

“We’re being bombarded by all sides with information that is not usually very accurate. It’s not just the state elections — it starts in Washington,” he said. “So much more could be done with that money.”

Ironically, all statewide campaigns are required for the first time to comply with contributions limits set by Proposition 34, passed by voters in 2000.

Prop. 34 limits how much candidates can accept from donors. For example, donors can contribute no more than $44,600 to candidates for governor. But the measure does not regulate spending on ballot measures or by committees set up independent of a candidate.

Thus, much of the spending this year has been on the ballot propositions — about $260 million so far.

The single biggest target of spending this year is Prop. 87, the Clean Alternative Energy Act, which would place a tax on oil extracted from California wells. The money collected would fund research into alternative fuels.

Overall, the measure has cost both sides $120 million. One key supporter, real estate heir and Hollywood producer Steven Bing, has put almost $44 million of his own money into the campaign.

Opponents of the measure are led by big oil companies like Chevron Corp., Aera Energy — a joint venture of Exxon Mobile Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell — and Occidental Oil. They have contributed almost $80 million so far.

Prop. 86, which would impose a big increase in taxes on cigarettes, has attracted about $74 million in fundraising. Most of it, about $60 million, has been brought in by tobacco companies led by Phillip Morris USA. Hospital groups and health care advocates have raised about $14 million in support.

Spending in the Prop. 87 race has already broken one record: most spent on a ballot measure, eclipsing the $93 million spent on a 1998 measure to legalize tribal gambling.

The record for expenditure on ballot measures in a single election was set last year when $260 million was spent in the state’s special election. Most experts believe this year’s spending — already close to the record — will far exceed the mark.

The governor’s race also is approaching a landmark $130 million. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democrat Phil Angelides have spent more than $30 million each so far this year. An additional $40 million was spent by Democrat Steve Westly, who lost to Angelides in the June primary.

The $130 million record was set in 2002 when former Gov. Gray Davis defeated Republicans Bill Simon and Richard Riordan.

Under Prop. 34, political parties are allowed to accept donations of any size and spend the money in support of candidates at least part of the time.

Reports filed with the state Thursday by the state Democratic Party showed it had spent $24 million so far this year — about $14 million of that to support Angelides. The GOP report was not available as of Thursday afternoon.

The Democrats received much of their support from labor groups, both in California and out of state. Republican support came largely from corporate interests and wealthy individuals.

“The amount of money being spent in 2006 blows away every other record,” said Carmen Balber, spokeswoman with the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, based in Santa Monica. “We have the most prolific fundraising governor in state history and ballot measures that are attracting record amounts of spending.

“It’s a half billion dollars, and most of it is being spent to protect the status quo,” she said.

A group led by Silicon Valley software company Intuit on Thursday reported it spent $934,000 worth of television advertisement to support Tony Strickland, GOP candidate for state controller. Intuit, which makes tax preparation software, has been at odds with Democratic candidate John Chiang, who serves on the Board of Equalization, because he supported a government program to complete tax returns for low-income families.

Chiang also has been a beneficiary of independent campaign expenditures. Committees largely led by labor unions have spent $559,512 in the past week in support of his campaign.

Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, pointed out that voter apathy drives campaign spending.

“Voters are not paying attention, and that’s why the campaigns need to run so many ads,” he said. “Campaigns are also buying the ads when voters are watching nonpolitical programming, which is the most expensive times.”

Stern also noted that broadcasters are charging higher rates than ever, which also is pushing up the cost of elections. He said he has heard that in some instances, TV stations have raised their rates by 50 percent.

Ned Wigglesworth, policy advocate for Common Cause in Sacramento, pointed out that Prop. 34 was not put on the ballot with the support of reformers — but rather of lawmakers. “Prop. 34 was not intended to get money out of the system,” he said. “It was a placebo.”

Also on the ballot in November is Prop. 89, aimed at reining-in campaign spending.

The measure would create a voluntary system of public financing of statewide elections, paid for by an increase in the corporate income tax by $200 million a year. The proposition also would limit corporate contributions to ballot measures to $10,000.

Chuck Idelson, spokesman for the California Nurses Association, which sponsored spending record-setting Prop. 87, said most of the money today going into the election comes from corporations.

“Year in and year out, the largest amount of money spent in these elections is spent by these multi-billion corporations,” he said. “It’s a spending arms race.”

Vince Sollitto, spokesman for the California Chamber of Commerce, noted that there is a broad coalition of groups opposing Prop. 89, including corporations and labor groups. “It’s patently unfair,” he said. “Because it targets one specific segment of our society from participating in the political process. It would virtually eliminate the ability of corporations and some labor groups from participating in elections.”