GOP: PUBLICLY FUNDED ELECTIONS LAW SERIOUSLY FLAWED

The State House Republican Caucus has released the following statement:

The majority's so-called "campaign reform bill" actually moves toward a more corrupt campaign system. In its "reform bill", the majority tacked on a provision that would allow the candidate to contribute from its campaign fund, without limit, to any non-profit community organization. Such unlimited contributions are strongly opposed by the Campaign Spending Commission, which after carefully reviewing such spending by Council Member Rene Mansho, viewed her contributions as just another way to buy votes. As Rep. Cynthia Thielen pointed out on the House floor, "You go to an organization and promise them a big contribution as long as they help keep you in office. In effect, you buy their support. This move toward buying votes is the opposite of campaign reform."

The legislative proposal to publicly fund City Council elections in 2002 is also seriously flawed. That section limits certification for public funding to only the first three applicants in each district (see court opinions in footnote). That provision is patently unconstitutional. Additionally, the legality of amending a bill concerning gender equity by adding a bill on an entirely different subject--public financing of elections--is questionable.

Republicans strongly favor true political campaign reform. This bill, SB932, is not the answer. Real reform means putting faith back into our electoral process. We have submitted legislation that would break the nexus between political contributions by those who receive contracts from the state and the people who award the contracts. We would instead make it illegal to contribute to the campaign of someone who awards a public contract. The majority is pushing a different reform.

Another Republican measure requires the posting of results at the precinct immediately after closing, and eliminates the requirement that the precinct chair has to be of the same party as the governor.

We believe that true reform should also include publicly funded forums, televised debates, and the public dissemination of information concerning the candidates and their platform. This is a much more efficient use of public moneys than giving a check to a candidate's campaign and have it spent in a manner inconsistent with the goal of informing the voter.

* As for the constitutionality of the proposal to limit public funds to the first three in each district to apply, it appears to violate the equal protection section of the U.S. Constitution (Amendment XIV - Section 1). The Supreme Court has consistently distinguished between the equality of treatment and treatment as an equal. The right to equal treatment holds with respect to the rights to political participation. This right demands that every person have the same access to these interests as every other person; i.e., can candidates for the same public office be classified as "first three" and "others" with ability to receive public funding?

This is a case of de jure discrimination as a result of deprivations of equality by governmental classification and different treatment under the law. The Court demands "reasonableness" in legislative and administrative classifications. The Court, in Rinaldi v. Yeager, determined that one test for equal protection in such classifications requires that there must be "some rationality in the nature of the class singled out. In McLaughlin v. Florida, the Court opined on the subject of legislative or administrative classifications that courts must determine "the question whether the classifications drawn in a statute are reasonable in light of its purpose." Since the means chosen to determine who receives public funding and who doesn't, two classes of potential candidates ("first three" and "others") it burdens one group and benefits another, therefore the proposal fails to be either reasonable or rational.

-30-