A state lawmaker wants to double the reporting threshold for political campaigns in California — allowing major donors to contribute more money and campaigns to spend more money before filing a disclosure report.

Under the Political Reform Act of 1974, as modified by later laws, candidate and independent expenditure committees must file disclosure reports after accepting $1,000 or more in a calendar year. Similarly, the state requires major donors to file campaign reports after contributing $10,000 or more in a calendar year.

Assemblyman Richard Gordon, D-Menlo Park, believes it’s time to increase those disclosure limits. Assembly Bill 594 would require candidate and independent expenditure committees to file a disclosure report after spending $2,000 or more in a calendar year. The reporting threshold for major donors would increase from $10,000 to $20,000 or more.

Political amateurs punished by campaign finance laws

Since his election to the state Assembly in 2010, Gordon has carved out a special niche in campaign finance legislation with bills to increase regulation and disclosure requirements. In 2012, Gordon authored Assembly Bill 481, which added new reporting requirements for independent expenditure and major donor committees. Last year, Gov. Jerry Brown signed Gordon’s bill, Assembly Bill 800, to give the Fair Political Practices Commission “the authority to conduct immediate audits when political campaigns are suspected of illegal activity and requires subcontractors and sub-vendors to disclose their donations.”

State-level political campaigns continue to be big budget blockbusters. According to the Sacramento Bee’s analysis of campaign finance reports, “candidates and independent groups collectively spent at least $150 million on Assembly and Senate contests statewide over the two-year election cycle.”

Why would a Democratic politician with a record of authoring campaign finance laws seemingly aid money in politics? Like his previous campaign finance proposals, Gordon’s current legislation has support from the state’s campaign watchdog, which argued that low campaign spending limits reduce political participation.

In a memo obtained by the Los Angeles Times, Erin Peth, executive director of the FPPC, said that the current campaign finance rules “can be a barrier for those individuals who wish to participate, but who will not be raising or spending large amounts of money in connection with an election.” Peth also argued, “Committee qualification thresholds have not been updated since at least 1987 and the proposed increases in the bill are intended to adjust the thresholds with the rate of inflation.”

According to the Inflation Calculator of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, when adjusted for the rising in the cost of living, $1,000 in 1987 is the equivalent of $2,066 today.

The rationale for higher limits is supported by pro-freedom campaign finance experts, who strongly defend political contributions as a protected form of political speech. Complex campaign finance laws force average citizens to seek legal counsel before engaging in political organizing.

“While serving on the FEC from 2000 to 2005, I kept a file of letters from political amateurs caught in the maw of campaign-finance laws,” Bradley Smith, a law professor and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, wrote in 2007. “Many of these people had no lawyers; none had the least intent to corrupt any officeholder; and all thought that they were fulfilling their civic duty by their involvement in campaigns.”

Top Two Primary could lead to more low-budget upsets

A higher campaign reporting threshold also increases the chances that those amateurs turn pro. Aided by California’s Top Two primary, which was passed by state voters in 2010, unknown candidates have been able to exceed political expectations, even achieve remarkable upsets, with low-budget campaigns. With higher reporting levels, these candidates will be able to operate in the dark for longer without tipping off incumbents.

Last November, unknown community activist Patty Lopez failed to report any expenditures in the primary campaign, despite spending a few thousands dollars. That failure to report resulted in a $400 fine by the FPPC. In the general election, she went on to upset fellow Democrat, Asm. Raul Bocanegra.

“I made a few mistakes, and I paid the price for that,” Lopez said after the election. “Most of the people on my team, we’re not in the political arena.”

Lopez’s campaign finances weren’t managed by a campaign professional, just a family friend who was willing to serve as treasurer. That’s exactly the type of grassroots campaign political watchdogs hope to encourage with relaxed campaign finance regulations.

Her victory is proof that low-budget long-shots have the potential to win. Although it’s unlikely that Bocanegra would have been intimidated by a few thousands dollars of campaign spending, some political observers believe the lack of campaign finance disclosure contributed to the perception that she wasn’t a serious threat.

Opportunity for political professionals to exploit

By aiding political amateurs with higher reporting levels, state regulators also could empower creative political professionals to exploit the outcome of primary races. In multi-candidate primary elections, political professionals could spend just under $2,000 in online ads or automated calls backing a decoy candidate.

Such a scenario has already played out in this year’s special election for the 7th State Senate District. A Democrat-led political action committee, the Asian American Small Business PAC, spent $46,380 on behalf of Michaela Hertle, a Republican candidate who had dropped out of the race.

By backing the lone Republican candidate, the political action committee hoped to thwart moderate Democrat Steve Glazer, who had built his campaign strategy on appealing to Republicans and independent voters. Glazer ultimately advanced to the May run-off against fellow Democrat, Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla. But Hertle had an impact, garnering 15 percent of the vote.

By John Seiler

More than two years ago on CalWatchDog.com, I was the first to report that the Top Two voting system would destroy third parties. My article was entitled, “Will Prop. 14 kill third parties?”

It did.

Prop. 14 passed that year. It set up the system we have now, by which anyone, of any party, can run in the June primary. But then only the “top two” winners advance to the November general election.

I reported:

I talked to three of the four top “other parties” or “minor parties,” as they sometimes call themselves. Currently, they’re the only four parties that meet state law to be automatically listed on state primary and general-election ballots. The Peace and Freedom Party didn’t get back to me.

Prop. 14 would be disastrous for minor parties, Libertarian Party spokesman Richard Winger told me.

The other parties I talked to were the Green Party and the American Independent Party.

Critics pointed out that, in other states that had adopted the Top Two system, Washington and Louisiana, no third-party candidate ever had advanced to the finals.

Well that’s just what happened here in our June 5 election. Reported Capitol Weekly:

“no minor-party candidate was among the top voter getters in any of the Assembly, state Senate or congressional races across California. In addition, the law that created the top-two primary eliminated write-in candidates.”

So we’re stuck with the usual Democrats and Republicans who have messed with us for more than a century. Top Two was supposed to bring more “moderate” candidates.

What it really did was reduce choice and shut down dissent.

If a small, Third World country had done this, right now the U.S. president would be sending in the drones.

By John Seiler

We’ll have to see how the evening goes. But so far, the Top Two has not proved the revolutionary move to moderation that its backers hoped.

In a key race in Orange County, early returns show that incumbent Assemblyman Allan Mansoor, R-Costa Mesa, is finishing first in the new 74th Assembly District. Republican challenger Leslie Daigle, whose candidacy was supported by Top Two sponsor Charles Munger, among others, is finishing third, meaning she’s out. In second place is Robert Rush, a Democrat. So the November runoff will be as in the past: the Republican easily trouncing the Democrat.

The 74th was supposed to be more “moderate” than Mansoor’s previous district, the 68th, which includes more conservative inland area. The 74th includes more of Orange County’s coastal area. Many onlookers believe, Daigle, had she won in November, would have been more apt to join Democrats in backing tax increases.

But it turns out there are more anti-tax realists, like yours truly, than were expected.

We’ll see how Top Two fares the rest of the evening…

By DAVE ROBERTS

The November elections were disastrous for California Republicans. They lost all nine statewide races, lost ground in the state Assembly and failed to gain a seat in Congress, despite California having 12 percent of the House seats and a nationwide tide that saw the GOP gain a net 63 seats. But it may have been slightly less disastrous had the electoral rules now in effect been in place last year, according to David Harmer, who narrowly lost to Democratic Congressman Jerry McNerney in the 11th Congressional District.

“Had Proposition 14 been in effect last year, [American Independent Party candidate David] Christensen could not have appeared on the general-election ballot, and I likely would have won,” Harmer told supporters via e-mail last week. “Unfortunately, Prop. 14 didn’t take effect until this year. But for future elections, the Prop. 14 system, operating in districts drawn by the new independent commission instead of incumbent officeholders, will give voters a clean, up-or-down choice between status-quo incumbents and challengers like me.”

Two-term incumbent McNerney beat Harmer by 48-to-47 percent — a mere 2,638 votes out of more than 240,000 votes cast. Christensen took the other 5 percent. Had Christensen been eliminated from the general election, it’s likely that most of his 12,439 votes would have gone to Harmer. The American Independent Party platform of God, Constitutional fundamentalism, anti-liberalism, pro-family, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-Second Amendment and securing the borders is pretty much in lockstep with Harmer’s views.

Amazingly, Christensen was able to capture so many votes despite not running a campaign.

“Christensen was never a serious candidate,” Harmer told his supporters. “He raised no money, assembled no organization, gave no interviews, and showed up for no forums or debates, save one in his hometown — where he responded to predictable questions by confessing his perplexity. He hadn’t the remotest prospect of winning, or even influencing public opinion. The only effect of his candidacy was to facilitate the re-election of an incumbent whose views were diametrically opposed to his own.

“California voters approved Proposition 14 last June precisely to prevent candidates like Christensen from muddying the general-election waters. Under Prop. 14, all candidates from all parties appear on the same primary ballot, and only the top two vote-getters (regardless of party) proceed to the runoff. It’s an eminently sensible system. Naturally, all the state’s political parties opposed it.”

The maxim of politics making strange bedfellows was indeed in effect with Prop. 14’s opponents. When is the last time the Democratic Party, Republican Party, Green Party, Peace & Freedom Party, American Independent Party and the Libertarian Party agreed on anything? Ralph Nader joined Jon Fleischman (of the Flash Report) and Meg Whitman in opposing it. Republican Congressman Jeff Denham locked arms with public employee unions to fund the anti-Prop. 14 campaign. Supporting Prop. 14 were then-Gov. Schwarzenegger, the California Chamber of Commerce and most of the state’s newspaper editorials.

In two special elections held in February, the winner gained a majority of votes, avoiding a need for a general election runoff. Republican Sharon Runner won 65 percent of the vote in a two-person race against a Democrat to gain the 17th Senate District seat vacated by her husband George when he won election to the State Board of Equalization in November. In the 28th Senate District, Democrat Ted Lieu won 56 percent of the vote, beating out a Democrat, four Republicans and two candidates who declined to state a party affiliation.

Tuesday’s 4th Assembly Race

The next test of the new electoral system took place Tuesday when one Democrat vied against seven Republicans to represent the 4th Assembly District. In the new post-Prop. 14 world there was the possibility that two Republicans would face off in the May 3 general election in a district with 45 percent Republican registration, 31 percent Democrat and 19 percent declining to state. But the top two Republicans split most of the GOP votes, and the Democrat, retired fire chief Dennis Campanale, finished first with 32 percent. He will face Beth Gaines, wife of Ted Gaines, who vacated the seat when he won a special election to represent the 1st Senatorial District.

One of the main arguments both for and against Prop. 14 is that it will lead to a watering down of ideological differences between the parties. Fleischman argued in an anti-Prop. 14 video posted on YouTube last year that we’re likely to get a lot more Abel Maldonados in the state legislature. I asked Fleischman to comment on Harmer’s contention that Prop. 14 would have sent him to Congress last November.

“Obviously, he lost a close election, and that’s frustrating,” said Fleischman. “Prop. 14 is a bad idea. There’s an American tradition that if you run for office and are the nominee for a political party you should be on the ballot. Most importantly, the people wrote Prop. 14 to reduce the role of political parties and elect more people to office who are in the mushy middle. If a political party has a majority, they should be able to set the agenda. David Harmer, as a conservative Republican, would have been extremely disadvantaged in the first election under an open primary system. Prop. 14 is intended to keep people like David Harmer out of office.”

Ironically, Markham Robinson, the California American Independent Party executive committee chairman, agrees with Harmer and welcomes the new electoral rules.

“Number one, numerically he’s indeed correct,” Robinson told me. “He probably wouldn’t have been facing Mr. Christensen because of the greater barriers that Prop. 14 would have imposed. It’s placed a greater barrier in the way of small-scale candidates. Which isn’t much loss given that none of these small candidates are serious. You have to be able to be persuasive enough or popular enough to have a realistic chance of being elected. Some people lament the lack of access of the really small fry. What this will do for the AIP is greatly decrease the number of its candidates, but also make the candidates that do emerge much more realistic ones. The electoral system is vastly changed.”

Robinson’s other takeaway from the 11th Congressional District race is the remarkable showing by Christensen, indicating a dissatisfaction with the major party choices.

“Five percent is a very high percentage for somebody with no name recognition,” he said. “It’s because people didn’t like the Republicans and Democrats. With the Democrats it’s a quick death and the Republicans it’s a slow death. Voters said, ‘I don’t choose death and would rather take a long shot — neither of the two is minimally acceptable.’ This is a very radical and extreme conclusion. Now at least in the primary, even though the barrier is high, we have a chance if we have quality candidates. The two parties will face greater competition if third parties can field people with modest resources and get name recognition – instead of Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber.”

California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring and Vice Chairman Tom Del Becarro did not respond to requests to comment for this article.