Voter Guide: State Senate race: Campaign spending -- Candidates argue over best way to limit it Voter Guide: State Senate race: Campaign spending -- Candidates argue over best way to limit it (February 18, 2004)

By Renee Batti
Almanac News Editor

While state Senate candidate and current Assemblyman Joe Simitian says he would support sensible campaign finance reform, his opponent, Ted Lempert, has made the issue a cornerstone of his political career.

He also has made it a key issue in the current race for the state Senate District 11 seat both men are running hard to win.

Mr. Lempert accepted the voluntary spending limit set by Proposition 34 -- $637,000 -- and has continually criticized Mr. Simitian for not doing so as well.

A former assemblyman representing District 21, now represented by his opponent, Mr. Lempert while in Sacramento fought to pass a number of measures that would rein in campaign spending and contributions. But the fact that those and other battles for reform have resulted only in a watered-down set of campaign finance rules is a big reason Mr. Simitian has resisted the voluntary spending limit, he said.

"Proposition 34 doesn't prohibit independent spending" by special interests, he said -- and such spending is a tactic that makes the Palo Alto-based legislator see red.

Independent expenditures are spent on behalf of a candidate, but to be legal, must be raised and spent without any involvement of the candidate. Mr. Simitian said he has been burned by last-minute hit pieces in the past put out by special interest groups with independent expenditures, and he was determined to be prepared to spend more at the last minute to defend himself.

The possibility has cast a deeper shadow in the last several weeks. Independent expenditures in support of Mr. Lempert's campaign reported to the Secretary of State's office total $205,631 as of February 11. That figure includes $157,379 from the Northern Californians for a Strong Economy for television ads and a slate mailer; $28,252 from the California Medical Association for outdoor advertising; $10,000 from the Peace Officers Research Association of California for a slate mailer; and $10,000 from the California Dental Association for "campaign paraphernalia/misc."

There have been no reported independent expenditures for Mr. Simitian. As of January 17, Mr. Simitian had a campaign fund "cash on hand" fund of about $730,255. Since then he took in $65,600 in contributions over $1,000 as of February 13. As of the same date, Mr. Lempert had a camp "cash on hand" fund of about $553,400. He took in $13,400 in contributions over $1,000 between January 18 and February 13.

Mr. Simitian said until independent expenditures are banned, voluntary spending limits are meaningless. "Proposition 34 gives candidates a choice -- I made one choice and Ted made another," he said.

Mr. Lempert noted that he is as vulnerable to last-minute attacks as his opponent, so "I don't get the argument. I'm putting myself at a disadvantage." But, he said, he believes "there is just too much money in this process," and agreed to the limit on principle.

One advantage he has by accepting the limit is that he was able to put a candidate's statement in the county elections office's sample ballot and voter information pamphlet sent to every registered voter, whereas Mr. Simitian could not. That could help Mr. Lempert in more remote areas of the district, such as in Santa Cruz County, where voters are less familiar with the Midpeninsula-based candidates.

While in the Assembly, Mr. Lempert three times introduced a constitutional amendment to limit campaign spending, and said he would continue his efforts in the Senate.

He wants mandatory spending limits and a ban on last-minute attacks, but defends the voluntary limits in place now. "Proposition 34 is not the perfect bill but ... is there too much money in campaigns or not? That's the issue," he said.

Mr. Simitian said he favors publicly financed elections, such as a system advocated by the California Clean Money Campaign, but said he's not sure there's enough public support yet.

"I believe public financing would be a lot less expensive than the real costs of giveaways and special breaks given to special interests that result from campaign donations now," he said.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.