Our View: Campaign finance laws miss issue

In some quarters, there's handwringing about the Fair Political Practices Commission complaint that $1.1 billion flowed into state political campaigns since a law passed nine years ago to limit money in politics.

Much of the money, columnist Dan Walters reported, came "indirectly through the loopholes in Proposition 34," which sought to stem the cash flow. But one person's loophole is another's legal right to support — and, yes, to influence — elected representatives.

Such loopholes merely are freedoms government has yet to deny us. It may be true that moneyed interests wield disproportionate influence in Sacramento, where no one takes office without spending a lot of money to get elected.

But that's not the problem. The problem is that so many people find it worthwhile and even necessary to spend so many dollars to influence elections.

For example, gambling vendor GTECH has contributed $1 million to the campaign for Proposition 1C, a ballot measure to expand marketing and payouts for California's multibillion-dollar lottery. Maybe GTECH merely wants Californians to gamble away more of their money on the hope of hitting bigger jackpots. Or maybe GTECH might gain from expansion of state-sanctioned gambling.

Some contributors give money to candidates to protect themselves from intrusive government, such as businesses seeking to fend off regulation. Others donate expecting lawmakers to vote them increased benefits, such as public school teacher unions.

As shown by Prop. 34's feckless restrictions, money inevitably finds its way to candidates and causes. Frankly, it should.

The idea that some people should be restricted in their support and influence by denying them the right to make campaign contributions ignores the obvious consequence. Other people who muster support and wield influence in different ways will gain an advantage in the halls of government. "The concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voices of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment," economist Thomas Sowell explained.

As Walters concluded, "One cannot effectively limit campaign contributions without repealing the Bill of Rights."

The harm is not that varied interests seek to benefit or to protect themselves by helping elect friendly legislators or by supporting or opposing ballot measures affecting them. The harm is a government so pervasive that people find it worthwhile or even necessary to spend so much money to influence it.

Rather than fruitless attempts to restrict what former Assembly Speaker Jesse Unruh dubbed "the mother's milk of politics," it's wiser to shrink the beast, thereby reducing the desire and necessity to feed it. Smaller government would mean politicians with fewer favors to bestow, and constituents with much less reason to finance them.

As to specific campaign finance rules: Full and timely disclosure of who is giving and how much would be the best, most transparent guide for voters.