新闻稿
新报告：常识性改革有助于抑制金钱对地方政治的影响
一项新研究表明，捐款限制在地方层面可以取得成功，而且不会产生人们经常猜测的副作用
萨克拉门托 – California Common Cause has 发布了新报告 that debunks an oft-repeated myth: that campaign contribution limits are ineffective at decreasing money in politics and instead lead to increases in independent expenditures.
The report uses original research on independent expenditures from a sample of medium to large California cities before and after the establishment of a state law that set default campaign contribution limits. Findings illustrate that cities that had implemented contribution limits saw no resulting increase in independent expenditures.
“We know contribution limits are an effective way to help curb money’s influence in our local elections,” said 加州共同事业组织透明度、道德和问责项目经理 Sean McMorris。“我们致力于推动加州竞选财务改革研究，因为我们知道更好的未来是可能的。这份报告让我们一窥这些解决方案可能是什么样子。”
Critics of campaign finance reform have often argued contribution limits have unintended consequences: rather than reducing the influence of large donors, they simply lead to more independent expenditures, which are less regulated and often less transparent than direct contributions to campaigns. The report published today, authored by graduate student fellow Zoe Klingmann for California Common Cause, shows that this is not necessarily the case.
The report looks at local independent expenditures before and after the passage of California State Assembly Bill 571 (2019), which set “default” contribution limits for city and county elections across the state. The law did not affect cities and counties that already had their own contribution limits and allows for cities and counties to set their own contribution limits other than the default. Due to AB 571, more than two-thirds of California cities entered the 2022 election cycle with brand-new contribution limits, where previously there had been no limits at all. California Common Cause tracked independent expenditures in cities that saw new contribution limits and in cities that already had contribution limits during both the 2018 and 2022 elections.
Findings showed no evidence that independent expenditures have increased among cities affected by AB 571. At the same time, a comparison group of cities that were unaffected by AB 571 actually saw an increase in independent spending. These findings suggest that the new contribution limits have not led to a change in independent expenditures, though the sample size is small.
Researchers suggest that more analysis would be required to understand how AB 571 affected individual donors and how lower limits may operate in other contexts, like in state or federal elections, but initial findings suggest that common sense money-in-politics reforms can be attempted without negative, unintended consequences.