California Insider

A Weblog by
Sacramento Bee Columnist Daniel Weintraub

Back to California Insider home page

« New poll shows Cruz with 8-point lead | | Arnold hits the radio airwaves »

August 25, 2003

Cruz's $300K from tribe, explained

As many of you know, California voters in 2000 adopted new limits on contributions to political candidates. Candidates in the recall election are limited to $21,200 per donation. But the limits don’t apply to campaigns for and against ballot measures. The result is that candidates running in the recall can take unlimited donations as long as they spend the money on the recall question and not directly promoting their own campaigns.

Cruz Bustamante today reported a $300,000 contribution from the Sycuan Indian tribe. Campaign manager Lynn Montgomery says that $300,000 – and other large contributions -- will be used to help fund ads that carry the “No on Recall” message. But here’s the thing. The Bustamante campaign intends to combine its unlimited and limited contributions, then pro-rate them to pay for ads that contain the combined no/yes message that has become the Bustamante campaign slogan. In other words, they might run a 30-second ad that says no on recall, yes on Bustamante, and deem half of it focused on the recall and half of it focused on the candidate. The half focused on the recall will be paid for with money from the committee accepting unlimited contributions. The half focused on electing Cruz will be paid for by the committee accepting donations limited to $21,200.

The Fair Political Practices Commission, which is the state’s arbiter of campaign finance laws, says this is legal. If you want to see the opinion, download this pdf file. Download file
The issue is discussed in the answer to question 14.

My take: this is just another example of how campaign finance limits never work as intended. They not only limit free speech and protect incumbents, they also make following the flow of the money more difficult because the rules become so complicated that only lawyers can understand them. I still say: let anyone contribute to anyone, report everything immediately on the Internet, and let the voters decide who they want to support, based in part, if they wish, on who is giving to whom. If I were king, Cruz would be able to take millions from the tribes, spend it however he likes, and reap the political consequences, good or ill, without having to jump through these silly hoops.