Del Papa joins fight urging campaign spending limits

Thursday, Jan. 30, 1997 | 11:59 a.m.

Labeling as "obscene" the amount of money spent on political races, Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa wants the U.S. Supreme Court to legalize campaign spending limits.

Del Papa is one of 24 state attorneys general urging the high court to reverse the 1976 case of Buckley vs. Valeo. In that case, the justices held that campaign spending restrictions violated a candidate's First Amendment speech protections.

With more than $2 billion spent on presidential and congressional races during the last election cycle, however, there is growing pressure to reform a campaign financing system critics charge has run amok.

"It's obscene the amount of money being spent, and it's incredible the amount of time it takes to raise that kind of money," Del Papa said Wednesday. "My philosophy is that we're spending too much time campaigning instead of governing."

President Clinton conceded Tuesday that "mistakes were made" in the raising of millions of dollars for his re-election effort. He said it was wrong for the nation's top banking regulator to meet with bankers at a White House meeting arranged by Democratic fund-raisers last year.

Secretary of State Dean Heller, meanwhile, said he supports Del Papa's efforts and wants to meet with her to discuss potential legislative strategies for Nevada. He noted that when Gov. Bob Miller and Sens. Harry Reid and Richard Bryan, both D-Nev., ran their last campaigns, each spent at least $3 million.

"Are these races becoming auctions or are they elections?" Heller said. "I think they are becoming auctions that go to the highest bidders."

Getting the Supreme Court to reverse itself will be no easy task. Last June, the court gave political parties more room to spend freely to promote congressional candidates.

Writing the court's majority opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said, "We do not see how a Constitution that grants to individuals, candidates and ordinary political committees the right to make unlimited independent expenditures could deny the same right to political parties."

But Del Papa said a position shared by 24 state attorneys general should carry considerable weight with the high court. She said she believes the First Amendment ruling can be overturned because the current system unfairly rewards wealthy candidates who may spend unlimited amounts of their own money.

"It ought to cut both ways," Del Papa said. "If you can restrict what an individual can give to another individual, why not restrict what an individual can give to themselves?"

A potential test case for the court involves an attempt by the city of Cincinnati to defend its 1995 ordinance that established spending limits in City Council races. There also have been efforts led by former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey to push Congress for a constitutional amendment to achieve mandatory spending limits in federal elections.

An estimated 30 bills already introduced in the 1997 Legislature deal with campaign finance reform. Included is a proposal by Heller and Miller to lower from $500 to $100 the amount of individual contributions that must be disclosed in state and local races.

Del Papa and Heller said they're receptive to legislation that would limit spending in Nevada races. But Heller said such a proposal would have trouble passing as long as the high court continues to deem spending limits unconstitutional.

"What I think we can do is look at these 30 bills before the Legislature and see if during the debates we at least take a look at putting limits on campaign finance spending," Del Papa said. "We want to get this on the radar screen."