BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Senator Lou Correa, Chair BILL NO: SB 334 HEARING DATE: 4/5/11 AUTHOR: DeSAULNIER ANALYSIS BY: Darren Chesin AMENDED: AS INTRODUCED FISCAL: YES SUBJECT Statewide ballot pamphlet: measures: contributor disclosure DESCRIPTION Existing law specifies what information must be included in the statewide ballot pamphlet, including, but not limited to: A complete copy of each measure. A copy of the arguments and rebuttals for and against each state measure. A copy of the analysis of each state measure by the Legislative Analyst. Tables of contents, indexes, art work, graphics, and other materials that the Secretary of State (SOS) determines will make the ballot pamphlet easier to understand or more useful for the average voter. This bill additionally requires the state ballot pamphlet to contain information about the largest contributors in support of each ballot measure that will appear on the ballot. Specifically, this bill: Requires the state ballot pamphlet to include, immediately below the analysis of a state ballot measure prepared by the Legislative Analyst, a list of the five highest contributors of $50,000 or more to each primarily formed committee supporting the measure and the total amount of each of their contributions. Requires the list to be followed by a statement that the list reflects only the highest contributors of $50,000 or more as of 110 days before Election Day. Provides that if a contributor is a committee controlled by a candidate, the name of the candidate shall be listed. Provides that if a contributor is a sponsored committee, the name of the sponsor shall be listed. Contains technical and conforming changes. BACKGROUND All Measures? All Contributions ? This bill would require disclosure in the statewide ballot pamphlet of the top five contributors to each primarily formed committee supporting each state ballot measure. These measures include both initiative measures placed on the ballot through voter petitions as well as measures placed on the ballot by the Legislature. The 110 day cut-off period accommodates the schedule by which the statewide ballot pamphlet must be finalized prior to printing. Since the expenses associated with qualifying a statewide initiative usually exceed $1 million, the ballot pamphlet would disclose, among others, those entities responsible for funding the qualification effort. What is a Primarily Formed Committee ? A primarily formed committee means a committee which is formed or exists primarily to support or oppose any of the following: A single candidate. A single measure. A group of specific candidates being voted upon in the same city, county, or multicounty election. Two or more measures being voted upon in the same city, county, multicounty, or state election. What are Controlled and Sponsored Committees ? A candidate or state measure proponent controls a committee if he or she, his or her agent, or any other committee he or she controls has a significant influence on the actions or decisions of the committee. Any entity, except a candidate or other individual, may be the sponsor of a committee. An entity sponsors a committee if any of the following apply: SB 334 (DeSAULNIER) Page 2 The committee receives 80 percent or more of its contributions from the entity or its members, officers, employees, or shareholders. The entity collects contributions for the committee by use of payroll deductions of dues from its members, officers, or employees. The entity, alone or in combination with other organizations, provides all or nearly all of the administrative services for the committee. The entity, alone or in combination with other organizations, sets the policies for soliciting contributions or making expenditures of committee funds. COMMENTS 1. According to the author , SB 334 requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to add a list of the five highest contributors (as of 110 days prior to Election Day) supporting each ballot measure in the ballot pamphlet. In recent years, observers noted that interests have increasingly turned to California's initiative system to amend the California Constitution or state statutes to benefit themselves. Because SB 334 requires information to be gathered and disclosed as of 110 days before Election Day, the bill will help voters determine the interests behind the qualification efforts of ballot measures. 2. Prior Legislation . This bill is identical to SB 1202 (DeSaulnier) of 2010 which was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. In his veto message the Governor stated, in part: "I have consistently advocated for transparency in campaign contributions and signed legislation that furthers that goal. This bill would instead create confusion for voters and encourage late contributions. Large donors could avoid being included on the list by limiting contributions until the deadline had passed. This would undermine the intent of this bill and could instead mislead voters as to the identity of the major contributors." This bill is also similar in the intent to AB 680 (Mazzoni) of 1995, which was eventually gutted and used SB 334 (DeSAULNIER) Page 3 for a different purpose and SB 734 (Roberti) of 1991 which failed passage in the Assembly Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments Committee. 3. Will Information Be Timely and Accurate ? Because the SOS can begin sending the state ballot pamphlet out to voters on the 40th day before an election, and due to the large amount of lead-time necessary to produce the state ballot pamphlet and to have that pamphlet on public display prior to final production, this bill would include information about contributors to primarily formed committees supporting state ballot measures only as of 110 days prior to the election. While the 110-day cutoff period accommodates the schedule by which the state ballot pamphlet must be finalized prior to printing, it also means that most, if not all spending intended to influence voters after a measure has qualified for the ballot will not be disclosed in the state ballot pamphlet. As a result, the information contained in the ballot pamphlet could be outdated, or could give voters a misleading picture of the true supporters of a state ballot measure. On the other hand, because the expenses associated with qualifying a statewide initiative for the ballot usually exceed $1 million, this bill could result in voters being given greater information in the state ballot pamphlet about those entities responsible for funding the effort to qualify a measure for the ballot. 4. Proponents, Not Opponents : This bill requires that the state ballot pamphlet contain information about contributors to primarily formed committees that are supporting state ballot measures, but does not similarly require that the state ballot pamphlet contain information about contributors to committees that are opposing state ballot measures. Is it appropriate to have the state ballot pamphlet list contributors on one side of a ballot measure, but not list contributors on the other side of the ballot measure? On the other hand, as noted above, because the state ballot pamphlet is sent to print well before Election Day, and before mail ballots are sent to SB 334 (DeSAULNIER) Page 4 voters, it is possible that relatively little money will be raised or spent on a campaign opposing a state ballot measure by the 110th day prior to the election. While proponents of a measure may have spent substantial amounts to gather signatures to qualify an initiative for the ballot, it is relatively uncommon for initiative opponents to spend large amounts of money to attempt to prevent something from qualifying for the ballot. As a result, it seems unlikely that requiring the state ballot pamphlet to contain information about contributors to committees opposing a state ballot measure as of the 110th day before an election would result in much information being provided to the voters. POSITIONS Sponsor: Author Support: None received Oppose: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association SB 334 (DeSAULNIER) Page 5