5,903,907 / 60.0% Yes votes ...... 3,933,949 / 40.0% No votes

See Also: Index of all Propositions

• Limits individual campaign contributions per election: state legislature, $3,000; statewide elective office, $5,000 (small contributor committees may double these limits); governor, $20,000. Limits contributions to political parties/political committees for purpose of making contributions for support or defeat of candidates.
• Establishes voluntary spending limits, requires ballot pamphlet to list candidates who agree to limit campaign spending.
• Expands public disclosure requirements, increases penalties for violations.
• Prohibits lobbyists’ contributions to officials they lobby.
• Limits campaign fund transfers between candidates, regulates use of surplus campaign funds.
• Effective 1/1/01, except statewide elective office effective 11/6/02.

Meaning of Voting Yes/No

A YES vote of this measure means:

New contribution and voluntary spending limits will be established for state elective offices. Limits pre-viously adopted by the voters for state and local offices, which have not been im-plemented because of a pending lawsuit, would be repealed. The new limits are higher than those that would be repealed.

A NO vote of this measure means:

Existing contribution and voluntary spending limits for state and local elective offices enacted by a voter-approved initiative would not be repealed. Put on the Ballot by the Legislature.

• Official WWW Site
• Full Text
• Impartial Analysis from the Legislative Analyst

Summary of Arguments FOR Proposition 34:

Proposition 34 is real reform that puts voters-not special interests-back in charge of California’s political process. Proposition 34 sets enforceable, constitutional limits on campaign financing where none exist today. It limits contributions and spending, speeds up disclosure, increases fines and closes loopholes for wealthy candidates without public financing.

Full Text of Argument In Favor, Rebuttal

Summary of Arguments AGAINST Proposition 34:

Incumbent politicians will be begging for money when they should be tending to the public’s business. Challengers will be forced to seek campaign funds from any and all sources that want political favors from Sacramento. Proposition 34 is a recipe for a government more beholden to special interests. Vote No.

Full Text of Argument Against, Rebuttal

Contact FOR Proposition 34:

Tom Knox
Committee for Constitutional Campaign Reform
1215 K Street, Ste. 2100
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 443-3354
http://CAyeson34.org

Contact AGAINST Proposition 34:

Lonni Granlund
Western Group
P.O. Box 596
Yucaipa, CA 92399
(909) 795-9722
westerngrp@aol.com

Secretary of State

• Contributions to campaigns this measure
• Late Contribution & Independent Expenditure Report
• Live Election Returns - available after the polls close

California Society of Association Executives

• Toe to Toe III - a Debate on Propositions 34, 35, & 38 (RealAudio/Video) - via the California Channel

• Easy Reading Voter Guide - LWVC is a partner
• Pros & Cons (English)
• Pros & Cons (Spanish)
• In Depth - for those who want more
• RealAudio/Video on all Propositions - via the California Channel
• On Evaluating Ballot Measures - also in Spanish

• Top Ten Contributors - who gave the most to each side of this measure?

Los Angeles Times

• Cutting through the campaign fog obscuring Prop. 34 10/30/00

• Odd couple join forces against Prop. 34 10/27/00
• Fund-raising reform or a sham? 10/25/00

• Politicians pushing reform via Prop. 34 10/21/00

WWW sites

• Contact information for Supporters/Opponents