Spending limits record poor

Helena IR Editorial - 07/23/06

Helena attorney Jonathan Motl, no slouch when it comes to Montana’s voter initiative process, asked the state political practices commissioner last week to investigate alleged violations of campaign laws by backers of three initiatives, the most harmful of which, CI-97, would arbitrarily limit state government spending.

Motl said the violations, which he called “money laundering,” were “likely to be the most extensive, consistent and deliberate assault on Montana’s initiative process witnessed to date.”

His accusations boil down to the initiative backers’ failure keep records detailing where their money is coming from. The groups in question, including Montanans in Action which already has spent $650,000 so far, mostly on paid signature gatherers, contend they are not required to do so.

If Political Practices Commissioner Gordon Higgins decides Motl’s allegations are worth investigating, the matter eventually could end up before a judge.

But in a sense, we don’t need to know exactly who is pumping all that money into the effort, because we already know they are people who live in fear that the government might actually be able to do the kind of job its citizens expect.

The recent history of this sort of thing goes back to Proposition 13 in California, a state that saw its once proud education system and other state services crumble after passage of the measure.

A more recent example comes from Colorado, where voters passed a measure similar to CI-97 in 1992 — only to suspend it last year, fed up with state lawmakers’ inability to adequately fund schools, higher education, health care for the poor and a host of other services.

Supporters of CI-97 say the spending cap, mathematically based on inflation rates and population increases, would not stop government growth but only places reasonable limits on spending, leaving it up to legislators to set priorities for spending the taxpayers’ money.

In the end, this is all about clashing ideologies — that of those who believe government has a role in providing for the common good, and that of those to whom such a concept is beside the point. In any event, we would suggest that the track record of such measures as CI-97 speaks for itself.