For Immediate Release: March 24, 2005

Lawyers for the State of California Make Convincing Arguments for FPPC Rule

Judge Shelleyanne Chang heard oral arguments today in the case brought by Citizens to Save California (CSC) against a rule passed by California’s campaign finance enforcement agency to prevent the evasion of candidate contribution limits with candidate-controlled ballot committees. On Wednesday, the judge issued a tentative ruling in favor of CSC based predominantly on First Amendment grounds, despite Supreme Court precedent upholding much further reaching regulation of money in politics. According to political watchdog TheRestofUs.org, the court’s tentative ruling doesn’t jibe with the facts or law.

“The lawyers for Citizens to Save California have the unfortunate and mistaken impression that the First Amendment guarantees powerful interests the right to spend without limit millions of dollars to influence elections,” said Derek Cressman, Director of TheRestofUs.org. “The Constitution guarantees free speech for everyone, not purchased speech for rich guys.”

The court’s stance at today’s hearing appeared to conflict with yesterday’s tentative ruling. In the tentative ruling, the judge said: “It is difficult to comprehend how such contributions could theoretically foster corruption, the appearance of corruption, or the circumvention of applicable campaign contribution limits. It is likewise difficult to appreciate how limiting such contributions could legitimately advance in any degree the important governmental purpose of preventing those three resilient demons of campaign finance and its regulation.”

In today’s hearing, the judge didn’t “quarrel” with the regulation’s application to prevent corruption.

“The state of California’s attorneys touched on some great points today,” said Ned Wigglesworth, analyst for TheRestofUs.org. “Only two years ago, the Supreme Court upheld a significantly broader rule designed to prevent the evasion of contribution limits. It’s strange that the court chose to largely ignore that case.”

Meanwhile, money continues to pour into Citizens to Save California in six-figure donations from developers, insurance companies, and CEOs. “The court’s tentative ruling guts the limits on contributions to candidates,” said Wigglesworth. “Under the ruling, California’s contribution limits have been turned into a Maginot Line of defense against the corruption of the California political process by big money from powerful interests. In the coming months, regular Californians can expect to be overrun by a glut of ads paid for by a handful of wealthy interests.”

#-#-#

TheRestofUs.org is a nonpartisan political watchdog dedicated to alerting citizens to the problems of big money in politics.