It’s not often that state business and labor interests agree to oppose something, but both are against Proposition 25, the latest campaign finance reform initiative.

The proposition imposes contribution limits of no more than $5,000 to any candidate or initiative, and bans direct corporate giving altogether. It would also provide up to $1 million worth of free broadcast advertising to any candidate or initiative campaign that agreed to abide by certain spending limits.

The measure was put on the March 7 ballot by Ron Unz, the high-tech millionaire who championed the successful Proposition 227 campaign to end bilingual education after running unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for governor against Pete Wilson in 1994.

“California is one of only six states that has no limits on campaign contributions. It’s high time that we limit contributions and cut off the current practice of large corporations and unions writing huge checks of $100,000 or more,” said Prop. 25 co-author Tony Miller, former acting California Secretary of State and now a campaign and election law attorney.

‘Unlevel playing field’

The initiative is under attack from both business and labor, each saying it gives an unfair advantage to the other camp. And both believe the public financing of broadcast advertising would allow more people who are against their agendas to put measures on the ballot.

“This creates a very unlevel playing field,” said Fred Main, senior vice president of the California Chamber of Commerce. “Unions, which are already among the most significant contributors, can continue to contribute to the political process, while corporations are completely banned from contributing.”

Labor makes virtually the same argument.

“It takes an already unlevel playing field and makes it worse,” said Sharon Cornu, director of communications for the California Labor Federation. “You can have 15 executives from one corporation giving $5,000 each. There’s no way union members can match that individually.”

Miller and Unz believe Prop.25 will avoid the court traps encountered by earlier initiatives because its limits are high enough to pass legal muster. They point to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding contribution limits recently approved by voters in Missouri.

But if the most recent statewide Field Poll is any indication, winning passage of Proposition 25 will be tough. That poll, taken earlier this month, shows only 38 percent of voters supporting the initiative, 38 percent opposed and 24 percent undecided. The level of support has slipped from 41 percent in early January.

Using state funds

Among the chief concerns voiced by Field Poll respondents was the free broadcast media advertising provision, which Chief Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill estimated will cost state government about $17 million a year. (The total cost to the state is estimated at $55 million, with the other $38 million coming from frequent mailers sent to voters to detail campaign contributions.)

Under the initiative, if a candidate or initiative campaign agrees to abide by certain proscribed spending limits ($6 million for a statewide ballot initiative and gubernatorial campaign, $1.5 million for other statewide offices, etc.), that camp could receive up to $1 million in free broadcast media advertising. The exact dollar amount would be determined according to a complex matching formula.

“This would be the first time anywhere in the U.S. that taxpayers could end up paying for initiatives they don’t agree with,” said Al Lundeen, a spokesman for the No on 25 campaign. Opponents also contend this will allow virtually anyone to spend a minimal amount of money to qualify an initiative and then get $1 million in free advertising for it.

But proponents say public financing of broadcast media ads would not impose that much of a burden on taxpayers.

“It’s essentially about $1 a year for every taxpayer to buy back the government from the special interests,” Miller said.

Both sides agree that any attempt to regulate the amount candidates can spend runs counter to numerous U.S. Supreme Court rulings upholding an individual’s First Amendment right to spend as much of their own money as they please to get elected or win passage of an initiative.

That’s why proponents say the free advertising provisions were put into the measure.

But wealthy candidates don’t always get elected, as former gubernatorial candidate Al Checchi and former U.S. Senate candidate Michael Huffington can testify. Each spent millions of their own money in losing efforts.

Another aspect of Prop.25 is more insidious, opponents say. Limiting direct contributions to candidates and initiative campaigns will only shift funds into the “soft money” arena of political action committees. In fact, this is already one of the most frequent criticisms of federal campaign finance laws.