Vote 2000 Home | Ballot Pamphlet Home | Campaign Finance | Secretary of State Home
32  | 33  | 34  | 35  | 36  | 37  | 38  | 39
PROPOSITION 2000 General
34 CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND SPENDING. LIMITS. DISCLOSURE.
Rebuttal to Argument Against
Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 34

Opponents of Proposition 34 argue that we don’t need reform of our campaign system. They would have us believe that unlimited campaign contributions by special interests do not influence politicians. Are they serious?

Former Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush accepted five and six figure campaign contributions from insurance companies which led to one of the biggest corruption scandals in California history. These huge contributions would not have been allowed under Proposition 34.

PROPOSITION 34 WILL PUT THE BRAKES ON SPECIAL INTEREST DOLLARS.

• Special interests will be limited in what they can contribute to candidates.

• Lobbyists will be forbidden from making contributions.

• Campaign spending will be limited.

• Faster public disclosure of contributions will be required.

PROPOSITION 34 IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

On three recent occasions, voters have approved ballot measures imposing strict contribution limits. Each time, the courts have struck them down.

Unlike other reform measures, Proposition 34 was drafted by experts to fully comply with all court rulings. It will allow candidates to spend enough to campaign effectively without allowing special interests to buy elections.

With no current contribution or spending limits in place, politicians routinely spend $1 million for a seat in the State Legislature. Where do they get this money? The vast majority of their campaign dollars come from powerful special interests seeking favors in Sacramento.

Officials should work for the people who elect them, not for special interests.

REFORM CALIFORNIA CAMPAIGNS. FIGHT CORRUPTION. VOTE YES ON 34.

LEE BACA, Sheriff
Los Angeles County
DAN STANFORD, Former Chair
California Fair Political Practices Commission
GEORGE ZENOVICH, Associate Justice
Court of Appeal, Fifth District (ret.)
 


  Analysis by the Legislative Analyst
  Argument in Favor of Proposition 34
  Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 34
  Argument Against Proposition 34
  Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 34
 

Vote 2000 Home | Ballot Pamphlet Home | Campaign Finance | Secretary of State Home