Westly's Low Ball Bid to Buy the Governorship

Steve Westly recently poured ten million bucks into his own campaign to become California's next governor. If he thinks he can buy his way into the statehouse by throwing around that kind of money, he's dead wrong - the going rate is a lot higher than that.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, a world-famous celebrity, put $10 million of his own money into his successful bid for office during the 2003 recall campaign. Westly, the current California Controller, has nowhere near the name recognition and celebrity status that Arnold had. Plus, even with his recent dip in the polls, Schwarzenegger is still a much tougher opponent than Gray Davis was.

Perhaps Westley, one of the founders of EBAY, knows that the $10 million is just an opening bid and that if he really wants to win the auction he'll have to be prepared to spend a lot more.

Of course, there is no constitutional requirement that someone has to be a millionaire to become our governor. Gray Davis showed that a regular guy could indeed compete against millionaire opponents by cravenly selling his soul to other millionaires and special interests. Davis raised $47 million to defeat Bill Simon in the 2002 general election, after Simon spent $46 million on his candidacy, more than a third of which was his own money. In 1998, Davis defeated Jane Harmon, who spent $17 million of her own money, and Al Cecchi, who spent $35 million of his own money, to win the Democratic primary. But this money grubbing approach has its downsides, just ask Mr. Davis.

If you are offended that California elections seem to be up for sale, you're not alone. If we want to take our elections off the auction block, we have a couple of choices, neither of them easy.

First, California could enact mandatory limits on what candidates can spend on their campaigns, or at least limit the amount of personal funds they can contribute to their own candidacies. Back in the 1970s, when Jerry Brown was our governor, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down mandatory spending limits for federal races. California's mandatory spending limits, passed by voters in the 1974 Political Reform Act, were summarily repealed.

But, other states have challenged the federal courts, presenting them with new reasons why they should uphold mandatory spending limits for political campaigns. Vermont passed mandatory limits in 1997, and earlier this year the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that some spending limits can be constitutional. This case has been appealed to the Supreme Court, which may rule on it next year.

But even if the Vermont case is overturned, Oregon voters may consider another approach. Citizens there recently began circulating a campaign finance ballot measure that calls for mandatory limits on how much a wealthy candidate can contribute to their own campaign.

An alternate idea would be to provide regular candidates with public funds to match any amounts that millionaire candidates like Westly spend above a voluntary spending limit. Nebraska has had a law like this since 1992 and it has worked relatively well. Other states, like Maine and Arizona, provide candidates who can prove a deep level of public support with public financing for their entire campaigns. This allows them to run on a level playing field without having to stoop to Gray Davis style fundraising to keep up with the millionaires.

It's not fair to fault Steve Westly for competing as hard as he can under our current rules. No one expects him to walk into a gunfight holding only a knife. But, every California voter has a right to ask Steve Westly if he would support a different set of rules that guaranteed a level playing field for all candidates - asking everyone to lay down their weapons before the rumble. If he doesn't think he could win a fair fight without the advantage of his personal fortune, it makes you wonder why the rest of us should have any confidence in his ability as a candidate.