Moneyed interests have gained too much influence in the ballot process in California. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, spending on initiatives has increased as wealthy interest groups pay for signature gatherers, manage their campaigns with professionals, and use their campaign funds to dominate the political advertising (Baldassare). Historical analyses of the trends in ballot campaigns show increased costs to get the proposition on the ballot, educate voters about the initiative, or to educate voters about opposing initiatives (Van Vechten). Ballot campaigns have become more expensive, and so they are more likely to reflect the interests of the wealthy rather than the poor. These conditions make it less likely that ballot initiatives will address the problem of poverty and inequality in California as moneyed interests can use their wealth to gain advantages in passing initiatives they support and defeating opposing initiatives. The primary goal of this intervention is to achieve more parity in the representation of groups seeking to reduce poverty and inequality in California in the ballot campaigns. This primary goal can be achieved by changing the status quo with a policy alternative that reduces the influence of money in the ballot campaigns.
Description of Status Quo and Alternatives
The status quo is one in which moneyed interests can use their wealth to gain advantage in the campaigns over ballot initiatives. Currently, there are no limitations on how much a ballot campaign committee can receive to support or oppose an initiative (“Campaign Finance Requirements”). This means that a single contributor, such as a corporation, can make massive contributions to finance an entire campaign. In contrast, there are limitations on contributions that can be made to candidates for political office in California as the legislature recognized the corrupting influence of a situation in which one or just a few donors could entirely finance a candidate and gain influence over the candidate (“Campaign Finance Requirements”). Two policy alternatives are analyzed. The first alternative would place limits on contributions to ballot initiatives equal to current statewide candidate limits. This policy alternative seeks to limit the influence of wealthy donors. The second alternative would abolish the system entirely, leaving all policies and laws to the legislature.
Criteria
Three criteria are used to analyze the status quo and the two alternatives: Will the policy result in more policies and laws that reduce inequality and poverty in California? Will the policy provide less influence to moneyed interests? Will the policy provide more influence to groups concerned about inequality and poverty reduction?
Analysis
The status quo has actually increased the influence of moneyed interests in the ballot campaigns. The data shows that more money is necessary for ballot supporters to gain access to the ballot through signature drives, with professional signature gathering groups being funded by moneyed interests (Baldassare). The same study by the Public Policy Institute of California discovered increased costs of paying for political advertising and managing campaigns with professional staff. The status quo allows unlimited contributions from just a few donors who can entirely finance a ballot campaign (Ballotpedia). Since moneyed interests are more likely to influence ballot campaigns (negating the second criteria), the first and third criteria are also negated by the status quo policy. The status quo fails to meet any of the criteria because money advantages are supported by the status quo.
The first alternative would place limits on contributions to ballot initiatives equal to current statewide candidate limits. Currently, statewide officeholders can receive $7,000. Given the costs of signature gathering, advertising, and professional management, this policy would limit the money advantage of moneyed interests and provide more parity with groups concerned about inequality and poverty in California. There would still be some advantage to the moneyed interests as they would be more likely to have multiple donors that could meet the $7,000 limit, while the groups concerned about poverty and inequality would have fewer of these types of donors. Yet compared to the status quo, this policy is an improvement by at least placing some limits on contributions. A ballot campaign with just a few big donors would be unable to finance paid signature gatherers, professional management, and advertising.
The contribution limits would also give more advantage to those groups with many supporters. This outcome would favor those groups concerned about inequality and poverty. There are likely more people in California concerned about inequality and poverty than people aligned with moneyed interests that have contributed to inequality and poverty by gaining so much influence over the ballot and legislative processes. These people can have more value to their contributions as the ability of moneyed interest campaigns to rely on just a few donors is diminished. Campaigns with many donors will have an advantage in a system with contribution limits on individual contributions. Of course, even better would be if this policy could reduce the contribution limit even more. A correlation between moneyed interest influence on campaigns and contribution limits exists. When contribution limits are higher, allowing a smaller number of wealthy donors to fund a campaign, the influence of moneyed interests is higher. When contributions limits are lower, requiring campaigns to rely on many smaller contributions, the influence of moneyed interests is lower.
The second alternative would abolish the system entirely, leaving all policies and laws to the legislature. This alternative would only result in more policies addressing poverty reduction and inequality if the legislature was comprised of representatives (assembly people and senators) with those concerns. The current limitation on contributions to candidates for senate and assembly is $4,200, which reduces the influence of wealthy donors on electing their candidates but still gives an advantage to those candidates with a smaller number of wealthy donors (“Campaign Finance Requirements”). Ideally, a system in which contribution limits were very low, such as $100 maximum per contributor, would be instituted to reduce the advantage of moneyed interests in the campaign finance system. On the other hand, this $4,200 limitation on senate and assembly candidates is less than the limitation on statewide office, which is $7,000. The first policy alternative would set the limitation at the statewide office limit. So an argument could be made that the senate and assembly campaigns are more equitable than even the first alternative would create for ballot campaigns, but this argument is nullified by the ability of voters themselves to approve ballot propositions.
Recommendation
The first alternative of placing limitations on contributions is recommended. A ballot campaign system that allows voters rather than moneyed interests alone to have influence is desirable. This alternative lessens the influence of moneyed interests, increases the influence of interests concerned about inequality and poverty, and therefore will lead to more ballot initiatives that address these problems.