Simpler rules could solve campaign disclosure woes

Let’s begin with the bedrock principle that voters deserve full disclosure of who’s giving money to whom for what.

In fact, we’d be much better served to make full and immediate disclosure of campaign funds our sole regulation of political money, rather than the complex melange of federal and state laws, regulations and court decisions that now purport — but fail — to protect the political process.

From that standpoint, the California Fair Political Practices Commission is correct in demanding, as it has done for the past couple of weeks, more information about the source of $11 million in money that flowed into a committee against Proposition 30 and for Proposition 32.

The dust-up over the money reached a climax of sorts Monday when the Arizona organization that sent the money into California seemingly backed down and said the cash came from two other nonprofit organizations that may not have to reveal their contributors under any circumstances.

One day before Election Day, therefore, we learned what was already evident — that some conservatives who dislike Prop. 30, a tax increase supported by Gov. Jerry Brown, spent money to oppose it — and we may never know more than that because of the aforementioned tangle of laws, regulations and court decisions.

Some in the media may speculate that the Koch brothers, who support conservative causes, are behind the money, but they deny it and there’s no hard evidence to prove it.

<p>FPPC Chairwoman Ann Ravel may call it “money laundering,” but that’s a pejorative that may or may not be legally correct.

The folks behind the money, whomever they may be, played the legal game well — stringing out the FPPC to delay its nondisclosure disclosure until just before the election, thereby precluding any further disclosure until after the voting, if ever.

Brown portrayed Prop. 30 as a victim of “dirty money,” hoping the controversy would boost Prop. 30, which was below 50 percent in the final round of pre-election polls. And some pundits argued that it would have that effect.

But without a smoking-gun revelation about the real source of the money, and with a huge number of votes already cast by mail, the impact is very uncertain.

If Prop. 30 were to lose, especially if it were to lose narrowly, Brown and Co. would undoubtedly blame the late infusion of opposition money.

However, even with that money against them, Brown and his allies in public employees unions will have spent much more for the measure than opponents — and Prop. 30’s support was declining long before the mystery money showed up.

It would be nice to know who contributed the money. It would be even nicer if the controversy resulted in more rational political disclosure laws and less nitpicking regulation.

Dan Walters covers state politics for the Sacramento Bee.

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at www.sfexaminer.com/join/

Just Posted

Mohammed Nuru, head of SF Public Works, arrested by FBI

The head of San Francisco Public Works Mohammed Nuru has been arrested… Continue reading

Preston, advocates pressure major landlord to sell buildings to city or nonprofits

San Francisco’s largest owner of rent-controlled properties is unwilling to entertain demands… Continue reading

SF police union calls for federal prosecution of man shot by police

San Francisco’s police union urged federal authorities to intervene Monday after newly… Continue reading

NBA postpones Lakers-Clippers game that was set for Tuesday

The NBA has postponed the Lakers-Clippers game that was scheduled for Tuesday.… Continue reading

Most Read