WILL CHILES REVIVE MOVEMENT FOR $100 CAMPAIGN LIMITS?; [FINAL Edition]
Derek Cressman, Special to the Sentinel. Orlando Sentinel. Orlando, Fla.: Jan 27, 2005. pg. A.15


(Copyright 2005 by The Orlando Sentinel)
Derek Cressman directs TheRestofUs.org, a non-partisan watchdog that promotes campaign finance reform. He was involved in passing the 2002 Colorado low-limits law and is now working with activists in Oregon.

Lawton "Bud" Chiles III recently announced his intention to run for governor of Florida. He sounds like an echo of his father, former Gov. Lawton Chiles, decrying that the "people's access to government is limited by money, power and politics." The latest Chiles campaign comes at a time when it could re-ignite the reform movement that his father inspired.

In 1990, Chiles campaigned for governor by voluntarily rejecting contributions higher than $100. Against the odds, he won. His success sparked a movement across the country to set low limits on campaign contributions.

In 1992, former California Gov. Jerry Brown ran for president by similarly accepting contributions of no more than $100. He got further than anyone expected, being the last Democrat left standing in the primary contest against the well-financed Bill Clinton. Also that year, voters in Washington, D.C., overwhelmingly approved a ballot question that limited contributions to mayoral campaigns to $100.

Oregon, Missouri and Montana all joined the movement in 1994 by passing similar $100 limit initiatives by margins of two or three to one. Chiles was re-elected in Florida, again taking no more than $100.

But just as campaign-finance reform was about to catch fire, powerful interests struck back. A federal district court voided Washington, D.C.'s contribution limit. The Eighth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals struck down the Missouri law, raising those limits up to $275 in a law passed by the legislature. Later, the same court rejected even that higher limit. Oregon's law was also repealed in court. The Supreme Court had previously ruled that contribution limits were acceptable under the First Amendment, but suddenly lower courts were ruling that limits were OK only so long as they were high enough to let rich folks keep dominating elections.

Reformers pushed on in 1996, believing that if citizens kept passing laws, eventually the courts would yield to public opinion. Voters passed new $100-limit measures in Arkansas, Colorado and a watered-down version in California. But courts suspended these laws too. Things looked grim.

Reformers finally got a big boost from the most unexpected of places -- the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2000, the nation's highest court reinstated the Missouri $275 legislative limit. More important, the court's opinion made crystal clear that states were free to set contribution limits that were quite low. This ruling was stronger than anyone had hoped for and it vindicated reformers' belief that courts would eventually respect the overwhelming and repeated will of the people.

Subsequently, courts have upheld Montana's $100 limit and a similar limit in Vermont. Colorado voters reinstated a low limit law on the ballot in 2002. That law worked well in the 2004 elections, leading to greater competition and a change in party control in both houses of the legislature.

Last year, Howard Dean revived Jerry Brown's idea of running a presidential campaign on the backs of small donors. John McCain's campaign in 2000 had shown that the Internet had made populist campaigning much more financially feasible. Tom Potter was recently elected mayor of Portland after accepting no more than $25 during his primary race and $100 during the general election campaign. Oregon citizens are now preparing to go back to the ballot in 2006 to re-enact their $100 limit law.

So the stage is set for Bud Chiles' campaign for governor to come full circle and re-establish the small-donor democracy that his father pioneered. Chiles has not yet announced whether he will impose low contribution limits on his own campaign. In some ways he would be foolish to, given that he will face big-money opponents in both the primary and the general elections.

Alternatively, Chiles could take a play from Republican reformer Arnold Schwarzenegger and use his campaign as a platform to promote citizen-ballot initiatives. By appealing directly to voters, he could pass rules that would level the playing field by lowering contribution limits to $100 for all candidates. In any case, it is refreshing to see that reform can withstand attacks if the idea is simple and powerful enough and if citizens don't give up.