Fair Political Practices Act and the Internet

Dan Witter
The State Hornet
Published November 12, 1999

Reflecting on the past and looking toward the future, a group of political and newspaper persons gathered in downtown Sacramento Nov. 5 to discuss the ramifications of the Fair Political Practices Act and the Internet's effect on campaign financing.

The forum, sponsored by the Fair Political Practices Commission, marked the 25^th anniversary of the 1974 Political Reform Act.

The act was implemented after Proposition 9, the Political Reform Initiative, was passed by voters in 1974. The act also created the Fair Political Practices Commission, to enforce the act.

The act requires disclosure of campaign contributions and spending in state and local elections as to how much money lobbyists are contributing. It also bars state and local public officials from influencing decisions in government in which they have a financial interest. Finally, it puts restrictions on gifts and honoraria that state and local officials and employees can receive.

Two keynote speakers, John Jacobs of McClatchy Newspapers, and Dan Schnur, remarked on the success of the act during the first part of the forum.

"The laws have been effective in terms of disclosure," said Jacobs. He said the act has made candidates more honest in campaigning because of fears of getting caught violating the law. He said that more is known now about how political money is spent.

But Jacobs said that the act has not taken the money out of politics. In fact, he said, there is more money in the political system today because more is at stake these days with elections.

Schnur also thinks the act has been effective in curbing wrongdoing in elections.

"I come here, as some suspect, as a convert," said Schnur who was initially against the act. While the act has been successful, Schnur said the government and public need to decide what happens next with reform.

Both Jacobs and Schnur agreed that public participation in reform has not been what it should be.

Jacobs said that the public is not as informed as it should be, while Schnur said voters do not feel as threatened by scandal as they used to.

"Disclosure doesn't mean anything without public outrage," said Schnur. "All the disclosure in the world doesn't matter if people don't care."

He said that it leaves politicians more free to violate the rules, thinking they can get away with it.

"Politicians need to be caught before the elections happen," Schnur said, "because afterwards enforcement and public attention tend to fall off."

The public and the government need to keep reexamining the act, he said, because politicians will keep trying to find a way around the rules.

Compounding the problem, said Jacobs, is that state agencies get starved by the lack of funding. Enforcement falls off, due to the lack of funding, allowing more corruption to take place. Those that do get caught usually just wind up getting a slap on the wrists, according to Jacobs.

Jacobs said there is no silver bullet to cure problems in the system, but said free airtime for campaigns in the media would help.

Corruption, he said, would be lessened because there would be less need to raise large funds. It would also allow third parties the opportunity to have their message be heard.

The discussion of politics continued with the second panel moderated by A. G. Block, Executive Director of the California Journal.

The panel focused on the effects of the Internet in political campaigns. The five panelists agreed that the advent of the Internet has changed the political scene.

"The Internet is a wonderful free for all – a food fight," said panelist Jeff Raimundo, a political consultant and columnist.

"The Internet allows campaigns to provide a lot of information unfiltered by the media," he said. "It will change the way campaigns are run." The strength of the Internet, Riamundo said, is its anarchy. He said it allows two-way access where voters can get more direct, immediate response from campaigns.

According to Riamundo, the Internet also levels the political playing field and is something that should be left unregulated.

Gale Kaufman, a senior advisor for the Bradley presidential campaign, said that while she has some reservations about the Internet, it is a valuable tool. She also said that the benefits of the Web are its low cost, and ease of setting up professional looking sites without spending much money, though Internet access is out of reach for many.

"It is also a great way to organize people politically," said Kaufman, "Politicians need to try to find ways to get in touch with those people, she said.

Panelist Mark Paul, deputy editorial page editor at the Sacramento Bee, said the Internet perfects the 1974 Political Reform Act. Now they can now go online and check out a campaign and its financial supporters on their own.

"Government shouldn't be in the role of regulating the Internet," said Paul.

Paul warned that problems have arisen with the use of the Internet, and suspects that they may become even more prevalent. For example, there have been campaign look-alike Web sites set up to take donations from unsuspecting donors, according to Paul.

Panelist Kim Alexander of California Voter Foundation, like the other panelists, said she likes the Internet. "We are democratizing information, making it available to everyone," she said. Like Paul, she said that voters can check out campaigns on their own over the net and added it allows people to become part of the mix without having a lot of money.

Both panels expressed concern that younger voters are opting out of the political process because of apathy. With the Internet, they expressed hope that the 18- to 24-year-old voter can be reached.

None of the panelists predicted what the future holds for Internet regulation, but the panelists agreed that the Internet should stay wild and free.