With all the economic doom and gloom in the headlines, maybe Californians should be pleased that they host an industry that’s pulling in money hand over fist. Too bad that the industry in question is political campaigning and electioneering. There seems to be no financial slowdown for candidates for state office, who as a group have collected an average of $344,503 daily since a supposed campaign finance reform measure adopted by voters in 2000 took effect, according to the Fair Political Practices Commission’s “Billion Dollar Money Train” report.

That’s quite a feat, given that Proposition 34 imposed limits on the contributions that each candidate can take from each donor. But it’s not so surprising after all, when you consider how generous those limits are. Just four years earlier, voters passed Proposition 208, which called for a $100 contribution limit to legislative candidates. Lawmakers and their big labor and big business patrons wouldn’t have it, and rushed their follow-up “reform” onto the ballot to up the limit to $3,000. And $20,000 for governor. Plus generous increases each year to account for inflation and the rising cost of living, uh, large.

Those not-very-limited limits are geared toward maximum participation by big-moneyed interests with particular legislation to press in Sacramento, and not by the typical voter who wants to help back a candidate. But even those caps are too much for the big donors, who bypass them by giving to ballot measure committees or legal defense funds controlled by the candidate. No limits on those. Nor are there limits on “charitable” contributions that big donors make at the request of politicians.

Perhaps the large numbers are an encouraging sign that political debate is thriving and that candidates place a premium on informing the public about the issues, their positions and their qualifications? That should be the lesson of the commission’s report, according to a political lawyer quoted in The Times on Tuesday.


Very witty, but not very convincing. There is little political discourse or enlightening discussion in a TV ad filled with platitudes or a slick brochure showing a candidate in a classroom filled with smiling children (all raising their hands, of course).

The commission’s chairman, Ross Johnson, says the huge volumes of money gushing into campaigns raise “serious questions” about the potential for undue influence. If only Johnson had been in such a questioning mood nine years ago, when he undermined California’s campaign finance laws by authoring Proposition 34. He has started to make amends, but the report shows he has a lot of catching up to do.