Little Effort To Reform Campaigns Only One Bill, Seen As First Step, Has Chance To Pass

Despite lots of talk about campaign finance reform and a slew of legislative proposals, only one reform plan seems likely to clear the Legislature this year.

It’s a blatantly partisan measure that already has drawn the threat of a lawsuit from the Idaho Education Association, a major funder of Democratic campaigns. The bill’s contribution limits are twice as high as those proposed by Gov. Phil Batt before the Legislature convened, and would affect only a fraction of the money now contributed in Idaho campaigns.

Republican legislative leaders call the bill a good first step.

“You can’t go out and raise all your money from one source,” said House Speaker Mike Simpson. “You’re going to have to have more broad-based support. That’s good.”

The escalating cost of Idaho campaigns last fall and the role of money in politics led to the threat of a citizens initiative, unless the Legislature passed reforms.

Idaho is now one of only a handful of states that have no limits on campaign contributions. It is also one of only eight states that allow direct campaign contributions by corporations - a distinction the bill would not change.

Here’s what the measure, SB 1228, would do:

Contributions to a candidate for the Legislature, judicial districts, city or county offices would be limited to $1,000 per primary or general election. A state party central committee would be able to give $5,000.

Contributions to a candidate for statewide office would be limited to $2,000 per primary or general election, with state parties able to give $10,000.

Any political committee that collects money for contributions by payroll deduction or other automatic payment method would have to get written consent from every member, every year. The IEA contends this clause is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to enter into contracts.

Independent expenditures over $100 would have to be reported, both before and after the election. Campaign funds couldn’t be converted to personal use.

“I think it’s a good bill,” Simpson said. The House will likely vote on it today, he said, “and it will pass, I suspect.”

Gov. Phil Batt said, “I believe my limits were better, but I would accept double the limits. That’s fine. I think it’s a very good start.”

Democrats differ.

The bill “is going to cost the taxpayers a whole lot of money,” said Rep. John Alexander, D-Pocatello, who led an unsuccessful move to amend the bill on Friday.

He said a simple amendment would allow the state to avoid a costly court fight.

Alexander’s amendment, drafted with help from the Secretary of State’s office and an attorney for the IEA, would allow groups like the teachers’ union to obtain consent from their members just once. The consent would remain in effect until the member revokes it.

The state Democratic Party put out a press release accusing Republicans of “pulling a bait and switch on Idaho voters.” They’ll vote for reform, secure in the knowledge that a court will toss it out, charged A.K. Lienhart, state party chairman.

Sen. Sheila Sorensen, R-Boise, the bill’s sponsor, defends the annual-consent clause.

“This has been touted as being something that’s against the IEA it is not,” she said. “It really does go across the board to the full spectrum of businesses.”

Other political committees the provision might apply to include business employee PACs, she said.

Sorensen said a similar law in Michigan has withstood court challenges.

Rep. Jeff Alltus, R-Hayden, told Sorensen during a committee hearing on the bill, “I like what you’ve done here. It seems like it protects the little guy who’s coerced into donating money.”

David Bobzien, director of the Money in Politics project for United Vision for Idaho, a non-profit Boise group that tracks campaign contributions, criticized the bill. He said it could put more of a crimp in Democratic fund-raising by limiting contributions from the IEA and unions.

“It doesn’t level the playing field. It tilts it to one side,” he said.

Larry Eastland, a Boise businessman and Republican party activist, also criticized the bill, but for different reasons.

“This legislation will weaken state political parties and local political parties,” he said, by limiting the contributions they can make to a candidate.

“If you want to decrease the cost of campaigns, have party registration,” Eastland urged. “That would decrease the cost of direct mail by 75 percent. The Republicans spend a quarter-million dollars an election cycle just to identify who is a Republican.”

Legislative leaders acknowledge that the bill may have some flaws. But, Simpson said, “If people perceive that there’s a problem, then we need to do something about it.”

He and Rep. Bruce Newcomb, R-Burley, co-sponsored a resolution calling for a committee to be formed to study all aspects of campaign finance reform, lobbying and ethics in Idaho.

Newcomb said the committee will include appointees of the governor, the state Supreme Court and legislative leaders from both parties, but none of them will be current political officeholders.

“It may be that we’re too close to it, that we can’t see the problem the public sees,” Simpson said. “Maybe we need to have a little more objective look at it.”

Alexander said the bill and the study committee aren’t enough. “I think the people are going to be very disappointed,” he said.

He predicted that talk of a citizen initiative forcing more stringent campaign finance reforms will resurface.

“The campaigns will continue to be as dirty and nasty and as vicious as they have been. The amount of money spent will be the same.”

“I think the people are going to want more, especially if the courts throw this thing out.”

, DataTimes MEMO: This sidebar appeared with the story: FAILED REFORM Here are some of the campaign finance bills that didn’t fly this year: SB 1071, proposed by Gov. Phil Batt. Limits campaign contributions to $1,000 per election cycle - including both the primary and general elections - for legislative, judicial, county or city candidates, and $5,000 for statewide candidates. State political party central committees could give twice that. HB 299, candidates couldn’t transfer funds to other campaigns, and couldn’t convert excess funds to personal use (excess funds would have to go to charity). HB 103, a personal bill proposed by Rep. Jim Stoicheff, D-Sandpoint. Would ban all campaign contributions except those from individual citizens. SB 1227, passed the Senate 23-9; could still see House action. Would subject single, countywide highway districts in counties of more than 150,000 population to campaign finance reporting laws. Applies only to Ada County. HB 166, proposed by Ada County Highway District and Rep. Paul Kjellander, R-Boise. Passed the House 68-0, stalled in Senate State Affairs Committee. Extends campaign finance reporting laws to any countywide highway district. SB 1068, proposed by Gov. Batt. Stalled in Senate State Affairs Committee. Bans out-of-state contributions. SB 1011, proposed by all five Senate Democrats. Stalled in Senate State Affairs Committee. Requires contributors of more than $50 to report their occupation and employer. SB 1069, proposed by Gov. Batt. Stalled in Senate State Affairs Committee. Requires reporting of independent expenditures of more than $100. This language was later incorporated into SB 1228.