SACRAMENTO - The state Fair Political Practices Commission postponed a decision Thursday that would make it more difficult for politicians to use generic ballot measure committees as less-regulated slush funds for political fundraising.

Bowing to concerns from both concerned election law attorneys and some commissioners, the FPPC voted unanimously to delay adoption of the regulation until its details could be clarified, which would happen before the commission's next meeting in early January.

Before the vote, commission members - most notably, commission chair Ross Johnson - said that current law governing non-specific ballot measure committees invited the suspicion of corruption.

Johnson pointed out that in the last few years, politicians who control general purpose ballot measure committees have raised thousands of dollars for those committees, but not spent it on any ballot measure battle.

Donations to such committees are unlimited, unlike those made directly to a candidate's campaign committee.

Under the proposed regulation, politicians forming ballot measure committees would have to do so in the name of a specific purpose, such as a measure on gay marriage or a state bond, for example.

The regulation would also make more transparent which politician was controlling the committee, and stipulate that funds raised in the committee be used in a corresponding ballot measure.

FPPC senior counsel Larry Woodlock said that of 23 ballot committees listed currently at the California Secretary of State's office, 15 were labeled as general purpose committees , reducing their transparency.

Johnson also said he took note of news that termed-out state Senate President pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) has transferred $1.5 million last month from his general-purpose ballot measure committee to his legal defense fund.

The regulation was under consideration before Perata made the move, according to FPPC staff. Such transfers would be prohibited under the proposed regulation.

But opposition to the regulation came from groups not normally aligned, with the FPPC receiving letters of concern from attorneys representing state Democrats, Republicans and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's ballot-measure committee before the meeting.

Attorney Charles Bell, representing the California Republican Party, told commissioners at the meeting that the proposed regulation, if adopted, would likely draw a successful lawsuit overturning it.

"It's not clear that you can just by fiat make every candidate-controlled committee a specific-purpose committee," Bell said. "Can you ensure now that money raised for a ballot measure be spent on a ballot measure? I think you can."

An attorney with Schwarzenegger's "California Dream Team" committee, which Schwarzenegger has used to fund several different ballot measures during his gubernatorial tenure, said he wasn't sure there was a problem.

James Lowell, the committee's attorney, said he rejected the notion that any and all donations to a ballot measure committee controlled by a politician constituted an attempt to exert influence over that politician.

Johnson responded that logically, if donations to a candidate's direct campaign account could be seen as an attempt to exert influence, so could those to an account such as California Dream Team.

Commissioners who raised questions about the regulation had two concerns: How the regulation would be applied to committees formed preemptively against a possible ballot measure, and whether the regulation would stand up in court if adopted as-is.

In its vote, the FPPC asked staff to rewrite the measure to address those concerns.

EARLIER on PolitickerCA.com:

• Perata transfers whopping $1.5 million from Leadership California PAC to personal legal defense fund