Money in Politics
The role of money in politics remains a controversial subject. On the one hand, one fundamental value protected by the First Amendment is liberty. Voters, parties, and interest groups want to exercise their voices in the democratic process. But on the other hand, we also care about equality. If politics is flooded with money, won’t those with money come to dominate everyone else? So, our concern for equality leads us to want to impose rules on campaign spending, which may interfere with our love of liberty. Hence, we have a dilemma.
California has made multiple efforts to regulate campaign finance by limiting contributions and requiring disclosure. Proposition 9, the Political Reform Act of 1974, was the first significant law. First, the law limited lobbyists’ gifts to lawmakers to $10.00 monthly. Second, the law mandated the public disclosure of all campaign contributions of $100.00 or more. This data is now readily available on the Secretary of State’s website. Third, Proposition 9 also limited expenditures by candidates. However, the US Supreme Court, in the case of Buckley v. Valeo (1976), ruled (in part) that candidate spending is a type of free speech and, therefore, must not be limited. Although several propositions attempted to limit campaign contributions in the next few decades, they foundered in court. It was not until 2000 that Proposition 34 limited contributions, a regulation withstood US Supreme Court scrutiny. These limits are adjusted for inflation regularly.
Table \(\PageIndex{1}\): Campaign Contribution limits for 2023-24
|
Candidate or Officeholder
|
Source of contribution: Person (individual, business, political action committee)
|
Source of contribution: small contributor committee (donations less than $200)
|
Source of contribution: political party
|
|
State Assembly/
State Senate/
City and county candidates that have not enacted limits
|
$5500
|
$5500
|
No limit
|
|
Statewide Candidates
|
$9100
|
$18200
|
No limit
|
|
Governor
|
$36400
|
$36400
|
No limit
|
(CA Secretary of State, California Fair Practices Commission)
After Buckley v. Valeo, the next significant US Supreme Court case to impact California elections was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). The Court ruled that the First Amendment also protected independent expenditures. This means that the government must not limit spending not coordinated with candidates. Contributions may be limited, but not the advertisements or other expenditures of parties, groups, or individuals expressing their opinions about a candidate or issue. Groups that engage in independent expenditures are often called SuperPACs. In 2020, about 19% of over one billion dollars of statewide campaign spending fell under this independent spending category.
It is also important to note that campaign contributions and expenditures for ballot measures have no limits. For example, in 2020, about $775,000,000 was spent fighting for and against various propositions with Proposition 22, allowing Uber and Lyft drivers to remain as contracted drivers, exacting over 222,000,000 in costs for both sides. In contrast, all of the state legislative races combined cost $165,000,000. California’s direct democracy has become the Wild West regarding campaign spending (“At a Glance”).
Reviewing the history of campaign finance reform, California has been more successful in implementing regulations requiring disclosure rather than limiting money in politics. This is partly due to the US Supreme Court rulings to protect free speech rights. California voters have also rejected ballot measures to institute public financing of campaigns, probably because they don’t want their hard-earned tax money going to politicians. Campaign finance law remains unsettled. For example, California attempted to require nonprofits to disclose donations used for political purposes. The US Supreme Court ruled this law unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment (Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta, 2021).
