I'd planned to speak at today's Board of Supervisors meeting in opposition to the proposed TIN CUP 2 and OC Fair Campaign Practices Commission, but I'm still sick as a dog and my voice is gone. But I'd like to represent a few last thoughts before the Board votes.

Contributions Limits Put Limits On Voter Choices
I've long argued that contribution limits are de facto incumbent protection devices that limit candidate competition, voter choices and our freedom of political speech.

Here in Orange County, the $1,600 per person limit also unequally impacts candidates depending on whether the candidate is running for the Board of Supervisors or a county-wide office. Running for office means communicating with voters. Communication with voters costs money. The more voters to communicate with, the more money a campaign needs to raise.

A supervisor candidate has to communicate with a universe of between 212,529 and 366,836 voters (depending on which supervisor district they are running in).

On the other hand, a candidate for county-wide office -- District Attorney, Sheriff-Coroner, Treasurer-Tax Collector, Assessor, Clerk-Recorder, Auditor-Controller -- has to communicate with a far larger voter universe: 1,539.521.

Yet, a county-wide candidate labors under the same contribution limit as a supervisor candidate, despite having to reach a vastly bigger population of voters.

That makes even less sense when you consider that most of the county-wide offices are low-profile positions with little opportunity for candidates to gain attention through press coverage. Paid voter contact is their only realistic means of convincing voters to support them.

However, unless one is already the incumbent, a self-funder or a sitting legislator looking for a post-term limits perch, good luck trying to raise even a barely adequate voter communication warchest at $1,600 a pop. It can be a challenge for even high-profile county-wides like the D.A. and Sheriff to amass an adequate. The only real hope a non-incumbent has to raise enough to communicate with voters is via large individual donations.

Even state campaign laws recognize this reality, and allow higher limits for state-wide offices than for legislative.

TIN CUP 2 does nothing to address this reality. Rather, it continues the archaic approach of contribution limits without regard for the impact on political competition or free speech.

TIN CUP needs replacing. But TIN CUP 2 keeps the bad and adds worse. The Board of Supes would do well to vote down both TIN CUP 2 and the OC Fair Campaign Practices Commission, and then work on a replacement ordinance that pursues a an approach more consistent with America's tradition of liberty and free political speech, namely no contribution limits, rapid disclosure and a searchable online database of contributions.