 |
|
“People who have more money should be free to buy more cars, more homes, more vacations, and more gizmos than the rest of us. They should not be able to buy more democracy." -Bill Moyers |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||
|
For Immediate Release: April 7, 2005 FPPC Supports Bill Limiting Contributions to Candidate-Controlled Ballot Committees On Tuesday, the California Fair Political Practices Commission voted 4-2 to support AB 709 (Wolk), which institutes an across-the-board cap on contributions to ballot committees controlled by candidates for state office. While AB 709 goes even farther than the FPPC regulation recently struck down by a Sacramento County Superior Court, it also addresses some of the court’s concerns. According to nonpartisan watchdog TheRestofUs.org, the FPPC still needs to appeal that court’s decision in order to clear the way for AB 709. “The best way for the FPPC to show its support for AB 709 is to appeal the recent ruling by the Superior Court,” said Ned Wigglesworth, analyst for TheRestofUs.org. “Without an appeal, the FPPC’s efforts and those of the Legislature to slam shut this loophole won’t mean much if AB 709 ends up before another activist judge.” The FPPC is the only party that can appeal the court’s decision striking down its regulation. Earlier, a judge has ruled against the California Public Interest Research Group’s request to intervene on behalf of the FPPC and its regulation. “I think the FPPC recognizes that the ball is in their court right now,” said Derek Cressman, Director of TheRestofUs.org. “Especially with their recent vote in support of AB 709, we’re confident that the Commission will do right by their mandate and the people of California and appeal the court’s ruling.” A successful appeal by the FPPC would clear the way for AB 709 to further rein in the influence of huge donations on the political process in California. #-#-# Background: TheRestofUs.org is a nonpartisan,
nonprofit organization working to make democracy work for
ordinary citizens. TheRestofUs.org is involved in campaign
finance ballot measures in Oregon and Ohio and independent
redistricting policy in California, Florida, and Ohio. We
will soon file an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court
to review and uphold Vermont’s mandatory spending limits.
We also support federal efforts to eliminate the 527 loophole
for soft money electioneering.
|
||||