CAMPAIGN LAWS ADD CONFUSION FOR CANDIDATES

After a recent meeting of the Missouri Ethics Commission, I remarked that I couldn't understand why anyone would want to run for public office under today's laws and regulations. I hope this comment will be understood in the context in which it was made -- that the rules on how to finance and run a campaign seem to change on a monthly basis. Under these conditions, a potential candidate can hardly be expected to step forward into the public arena. Nevertheless, it has probably never been more important for interested and capable citizens to involve themselves in the political process.

Let me try to explain the current status of the election laws mess and how the Missouri Ethics Commission is trying to help candidates stay out of trouble.

Proposition A was passed by the voters on Nov. 8, 1994, and became effective at that time. This initiative limited the amount of contributions that may be made to, or accepted by, a candidate or a candidate's committee. Included in the proposition are limits on the amount of cash that may be contributed; expanded reporting requirements, including reporting the employer or occupation of the contributor; a requirement that, after the election, the candidate must dispose of the campaign treasury to the limit of 10 times the allowable contribution limit (spend-down provision); and the establishment of a Commission on Fair Elections. This commission is required to file a report with the governor by the end of September 1995.

On May 7, 1994, the General Assembly passed Senate Bill 650. This legislation covered campaign finance reform and had an effective date of Jan. 1, 1995. The bill amended numerous areas of the campaign finance law contained in Chapter 130, RSMo. Among the provisions of this legislation is a requirement state that when a candidate files for office, he or she must sign an affidavit stating whether the candidate agrees to abide by certain campaign expenditure limits. This bill also included a provision that required certain political advertising to carry and "approved or authorized" section in the ad in addition to the "paid for by" disclaimer presently in the law. SB 650 contained numerous other changes. Although SB 650 became effective after Proposition A, Proposition A overruled SB 650 where the two measures were in conflict.

The contribution limits of Proposition A were challenged in federal district court for the western district of Missouri in Carter v. Nixon, et al. In his decision on this case, Judge Russell Clark stated that "the contribution limits imposed by Proposition A are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, and they do not unconstitutionally restrict plaintiff's First Amendment rights of free political speech and association."

The limits in Proposition A are $100 per election cycle for candidates in districts with a population of 100,000 or less; $200 per election cycle for candidates in a district with a population of more than 100,000; and $300 per election cycle for statewide races. An election cycle runs from the general election for an office until the next general election for that office.

On the other side of Missouri, another lawsuit, ShrinkMOPAC v. Maupin, el al, challenged some of the provisions of SB 650 and the spend-down provision of Proposition A. Judge Catherine Perry of the eastern district of Missouri stated that there can be no limits on the amount of personal money a candidate can use or contribute to his own campaign. Further, she stated that "the statutory scheme (of SB 650) is coercive because it withdraws an important source of private campaign funding otherwise available to candidates, but provides no method, such as public funding, of replacing that forfeited funding."

Therefore, these spending limits aren't considered constitutional. Further, Judge Perry stated, in answering the spend-down portion of Proposition A, that "the spend-down limits clearly limit political speech by telling a candidate when he or she must speak, that is, by stating that the money must be spent in the particular campaign in which it was raised."

Judge Perry also held that the "approval and authorized" section that was to be added to negative political advertisements wasn't constitutional.

So. Where does that leave us? The contribution limits of $100, $200 and $300 per election cycle are in force. The candidate spend-down provision is overturned. Spending limits by candidates aren't enforceable. And the candidate cannot be limited on how much he or she can contribute to his or her own campaign.

But this probably isn't the final word on the matter, because both decisions are being appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and it is unlikely that the parties to the lawsuit will be satisfied until the U.S. Supreme Court has a chance to review the situation.

A candidate or potential candidate would have seen the passage of major reform in SB 650 and then have seen some of those reforms changed dramatically by Proposition A. Then the court system was called into the fray, and large parts of Proposition A and SB 650 were declared unconstitutional, while the most controversial part of Proposition A (the contribution limits) was upheld. Everyone expects that this will change again in some respects before the judicial system is finished. Meanwhile, the Commission on Fair Elections is holding hearings and is expected to make recommendations.

In the meantime, the Ethics Commission will enforce the court-approved laws and work with candidates so they don't run afoul of the law. Our goal is to help candidates comply with the law. We don't want candidates to get into trouble because of the changing election laws, nor do we want to discourage citizens from joining the electoral process.

John Maupin is chairman of the Missouri Ethics Commission in Jefferson City.