BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 400
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 9, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 400 (Fong) - As Introduced: February 15, 2013
SUBJECT : Petitions: initiative, referendum, or recall.
SUMMARY : Requires an initiative, referendum, or recall
petition that is circulated by a paid circulator to include a
statement identifying the five largest contributors in support
of the measure. Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines "paid circulator," for the purposes of this bill, as a
person who is compensated in any manner for collecting
petition signatures to qualify a state or local initiative,
referendum, or recall measure.
2)Requires a state or local initiative, referendum, or recall
petition that is circulated by a paid circulator who is paid
by a committee to include, in 12-point type at the top of the
petition, a disclosure statement identifying the names of the
persons from whom the committee received the five largest
cumulative contributions.
3)Provides that if more than five donors meet the disclosure
threshold at identical contribution levels, the five highest
donations shall be disclosed according to chronological
sequence.
4)Requires the disclosure statement to be updated within seven
days of any change in the five largest cumulative
contributors.
5)Requires a committee that employs one or more paid circulators
to circulate an initiative, referendum, or recall petition to
submit the disclosure statement required by this bill, and any
updates, to the Secretary of State (SOS), and requires the SOS
to post those statements on his or her Internet Web site.
6)Requires the petition to include the name of the committee
immediately following the disclosure statement. Requires the
committee to identify itself using a name or phrase that
clearly identifies the economic or other special interest of
its major donors of $50,000 or more. Provides that if the
AB 400
Page 2
major donors to the committee share a common employer, the
identity of that employer shall be disclosed.
7)Defines "cumulative contributions," for the purposes of this
bill, as the cumulative amount of contributions received by a
committee beginning 12 months prior to the date the committee
made its first expenditure to qualify or support the
initiative, referendum, or recall.
8)Provides that local elections officials shall not be required
to verify the accuracy of the disclosures required by this
bill, or to reapprove the petition when the petition is
updated to reflect a change in the five largest cumulative
contributors.
9)Provides that signatures collected on a petition shall not be
invalid solely because the information required by this bill
was absent or inaccurate.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires committees, as defined, to periodically report
contributions received and expenditures made to support or
oppose the qualification or passage of an initiative,
referendum, or recall measure.
2)Requires that any state or local initiative petition contain a
statement notifying voters of their right to inquire whether
the petition is being circulated by a paid signature gatherer
or a volunteer.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. State-mandated local program; contains
reimbursement direction.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
While committees supporting or opposing ballot
measures are required to file periodic campaign
finance reports, potential signers of the petitions do
not have easy access to this information when
approached by a petition circulator. Petitions
contain official titles, summaries, and (in some
cases) the text of the proposed measures, but there is
AB 400
Page 3
no readily available information regarding the source
or sponsors of the measures at the time a voter is
asked to sign a petition. While the voter can ask the
circulator for this information, the circulator is not
required to know or disclose this information.
Circulators often only know who is paying them and
little else about the petitions they are helping to
qualify.
Surveys consistently have shown that voters want
improved public disclosure of the sources that are
funding signature gathering for proposed ballot
measures. In fact, the Public Policy Institute of
California (PPIC) has found greater than 70 percent
support for increasing public disclosure of funding
sources for initiative campaigns each of the eight
times that they asked that question. In their most
recent survey in March of this year, the PPIC found
that 81 percent of Democrats, 80 percent of
Republicans, and 85 percent of Independents supported
increased disclosure of the funding sources for
initiative campaigns.
AB 400 will improve transparency about the financial
backers of proposed ballot measures by requiring
initiative, referendum, and recall petitions to
include a listing of the five top donors to the
committee that is funding the petition drive.
2)Existing Disclosure Requirements : As noted above, existing
law requires campaign committees to file periodic reports
disclosing contributions received and expenditures made to
support or oppose the qualification or passage of an
initiative, referendum, or recall measure. In most cases,
those campaign disclosure reports will be available online if
the measure is a state measure. To the extent that having
more information about the financial supporters of a measure
is an important consideration for a voter when deciding
whether to sign a petition to place that measure on the
ballot, the voter typically will be able to get that
information from campaign reports.
On the other hand, existing law also recognizes an interest in
providing voters with information about the contributors to a
measure at the time voters are asked to support or oppose that
AB 400
Page 4
measure. Specifically, existing law requires advertisements
for or against ballot measures to include a disclosure
statement identifying the two largest donors of $50,000 or
more to the committee paying for the advertisement.
Additionally, existing law requires a committee that is
supporting or opposing one or more ballot measures to name and
identify itself using a name that identifies the economic or
other special interest of its major donors of $50,000 or more.
3)Speaker's Commission on the California Initiative Process : In
2000, then-Assembly Speaker Robert M. Hertzberg created a
commission on the California initiative process. The goal of
the Commission was to examine the initiative process and
recommend changes to make the process more responsive to voter
concerns. The Commission issued its final report in January
2002. Among the recommendations proposed by the Commission
was a requirement that all petitions to qualify a statewide
initiative for the ballot be accompanied by a written campaign
financial disclosure, which may be printed on, attached, or
bound to the petition.
4)Arguments in Support : In support of this bill, the California
Teamsters Public Affairs Council writes:
[AB 400] is a basic transparency measure that will
allow voters to have a clearer idea who is sponsoring
an initiative campaign before they agree to sign a
petition to place the measure on the ballot. Paid
signature gatherers often deliberately obscure the
real motive behind the measure. These sort of
deceptive practices are very corrosive of our
democratic system of government. The electorate
deserves more honesty and transparency.
5)Previous Legislation : SB 469 (Bowen) of 2005, would have
required an initiative, referendum, or recall petition to
include a statement identifying the five largest contributors
in support of the measure, among other provisions. SB 469 was
vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
AB 1500 (Hertzberg) of 2002, would have required any person who
circulates an initiative petition for signatures to make
available to potential signers the names of the top 5
contributors to the committee and the cumulative amount
contributed by each as disclosed on the committee's most
AB 400
Page 5
recent campaign report, among other provisions. AB 1500 died
on the Senate inactive file.
AB 400
Page 6
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Association of University Women
Engineers and Scientists of California, IFPTE Local 20, AFL-CIO
California Common Cause
California Conference Board of Amalgamated Transit Union
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
International Longshore and Warehouse Union
Professional and Technical Engineers, IFPTE Local 21, AFL-CIO
United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council
UNITE-HERE, AFL-CIO
Utility Workers Union of America, Local 132, AFL-CIO
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094